Discussion:
Blood and Crhome may be dmeoted to web series
(too old to reply)
RT
2011-08-29 20:29:21 UTC
Permalink
http://io9.com/5834264/battlestar-galactica-blood-and-chrome-may-get-demoted-back-to-being-a-webseries

No new Battlestar Galactica on your television screens? That's a
possibility, according to AOL TV's Maureen Ryan. Syfy is considering
turning its latest Battlestar Galactica prequel, Blood and Chrome,
back into a webseries.
...
Now Syfy has seen an early cut of the TV movie, without most of the
visual effects completed — and they're thinking of turning it back
into a webseries, the network's EVP Mark Stern told Ryan. Stern said
that a decision on Blood and Chrome's release date was not imminent,
and it was still a possibility that they would air it as a TV
movie/backdoor pilot. But they're seriously considering transforming
it back into a series of webisodes.
...


See also

http://io9.com/5740148/weve-read-some-script-pages-from-battlestar-galactica-blood-and-chrome
QN
2011-08-30 17:59:26 UTC
Permalink
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
jack
2011-09-01 01:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
are now. In SGU the shipmates landed on the planet with nothing and
took no where near 150,000 years to get back to a modern state. I
always thought the ending left open the possibility of further
interaction with cylons or some other group of humans floating around
out there.
RT
2011-09-04 16:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?

They *deliberately* did without (higher) technology:

http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29

The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth. As the native humans are pre-verbal, the
Colonials intend to teach them language and other beneficial aspects of
their civilization, while taking up farming and hunting lifestyles.
Post by jack
are now. In SGU the shipmates landed on the planet with nothing and
took no where near 150,000 years to get back to a modern state. I
always thought the ending left open the possibility of further
interaction with cylons or some other group of humans floating around
out there.
Tim McGaughy
2011-09-06 04:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
RT
2011-09-12 02:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
They would not have much choice. Space travel requires people with advanced skill
sets and without them you're stuck. But, agreement was probably easily had
considering the time on the run plus what they saw on the other Earth.
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
catpandaddy
2011-09-12 13:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
I think the phrase "crude machines" is confusing you. You don't make a
steam engine out of "stone knives and bearskins", to borrow an old Spock
expression.
RT
2011-09-18 23:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
I think the phrase "crude machines" is confusing you. You don't make a
steam engine out of "stone knives and bearskins", to borrow an old Spock
expression.
The early steam engines were crude. Stone knives would not be worrisome as
a trace to be found later.
catpandaddy
2011-09-19 00:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
I think the phrase "crude machines" is confusing you. You don't make a
steam engine out of "stone knives and bearskins", to borrow an old Spock
expression.
The early steam engines were crude.
The scope of the word "crude" does not necessarily mean low-tech. It is
possible to make a "crude" electronic instrument, but that does not make the
instrument stone-aged. It is generally accepted that the term "crude
weapons" does not refer to a crude implmentation of a piece of high-tech
artillery. But you realized that.
RT
2011-10-03 19:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
I think the phrase "crude machines" is confusing you. You don't make a
steam engine out of "stone knives and bearskins", to borrow an old Spock
expression.
The early steam engines were crude.
The scope of the word "crude" does not necessarily mean low-tech. It is
possible to make a "crude" electronic instrument, but that does not make the
instrument stone-aged. It is generally accepted that the term "crude
weapons" does not refer to a crude implmentation of a piece of high-tech
artillery. But you realized that.
Remember: "abandon advanced technology in an attempt to avoid repeating the
cycle of destruction and rebirth"

There is a lot of wiggle room there and it does not exclude something
like making a tent or bow and arrow.
catpandaddy
2011-10-04 01:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness
with
a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
I think the phrase "crude machines" is confusing you. You don't make a
steam engine out of "stone knives and bearskins", to borrow an old Spock
expression.
The early steam engines were crude.
The scope of the word "crude" does not necessarily mean low-tech. It is
possible to make a "crude" electronic instrument, but that does not make the
instrument stone-aged. It is generally accepted that the term "crude
weapons" does not refer to a crude implmentation of a piece of high-tech
artillery. But you realized that.
Remember: "abandon advanced technology in an attempt to avoid repeating the
cycle of destruction and rebirth"
There is a lot of wiggle room there and it does not exclude something
like making a tent or bow and arrow.
Well, I'm not excluding a bow and arrow either. But that's not a steam
engine.
Tim McGaughy
2011-10-08 15:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
I think the phrase "crude machines" is confusing you. You don't make a
steam engine out of "stone knives and bearskins", to borrow an old Spock
expression.
The early steam engines were crude.
The scope of the word "crude" does not necessarily mean low-tech. It is
possible to make a "crude" electronic instrument, but that does not make the
instrument stone-aged. It is generally accepted that the term "crude
weapons" does not refer to a crude implmentation of a piece of high-tech
artillery. But you realized that.
Remember: "abandon advanced technology in an attempt to avoid repeating the
cycle of destruction and rebirth"
There is a lot of wiggle room there and it does not exclude something
like making a tent or bow and arrow.
It also doesn't necessarily exclude steam engines, or PCs, or houses.
One could argue that for a society used to interstellar travel, none of
what we have now would be 'advanced'.
RT
2011-11-04 05:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
I think the phrase "crude machines" is confusing you. You don't make a
steam engine out of "stone knives and bearskins", to borrow an old Spock
expression.
The early steam engines were crude.
The scope of the word "crude" does not necessarily mean low-tech. It is
possible to make a "crude" electronic instrument, but that does not make the
instrument stone-aged. It is generally accepted that the term "crude
weapons" does not refer to a crude implmentation of a piece of high-tech
artillery. But you realized that.
Remember: "abandon advanced technology in an attempt to avoid repeating the
cycle of destruction and rebirth"
There is a lot of wiggle room there and it does not exclude something
like making a tent or bow and arrow.
It also doesn't necessarily exclude steam engines, or PCs, or houses.
Which would leave traces
Post by Tim McGaughy
One could argue that for a society used to interstellar travel, none of
what we have now would be 'advanced'.
Tim McGaughy
2011-11-24 02:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
I think the phrase "crude machines" is confusing you. You don't make a
steam engine out of "stone knives and bearskins", to borrow an old Spock
expression.
The early steam engines were crude.
The scope of the word "crude" does not necessarily mean low-tech. It is
possible to make a "crude" electronic instrument, but that does not make the
instrument stone-aged. It is generally accepted that the term "crude
weapons" does not refer to a crude implmentation of a piece of high-tech
artillery. But you realized that.
Remember: "abandon advanced technology in an attempt to avoid repeating the
cycle of destruction and rebirth"
There is a lot of wiggle room there and it does not exclude something
like making a tent or bow and arrow.
It also doesn't necessarily exclude steam engines, or PCs, or houses.
Which would leave traces
Your point is?

My little group of like-minded people would not care whether we left
traces or not. We'd be more interested in developing medicines, ways to
efficiently harvest food, and ways to defend ourselves from outside
threats. You know, SURVIVING. If a few coke bottles get left in
inconvenient places, oh, well.
RT
2011-12-18 20:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
I think the phrase "crude machines" is confusing you. You don't make a
steam engine out of "stone knives and bearskins", to borrow an old Spock
expression.
The early steam engines were crude.
The scope of the word "crude" does not necessarily mean low-tech. It is
possible to make a "crude" electronic instrument, but that does not make the
instrument stone-aged. It is generally accepted that the term "crude
weapons" does not refer to a crude implmentation of a piece of high-tech
artillery. But you realized that.
Remember: "abandon advanced technology in an attempt to avoid repeating the
cycle of destruction and rebirth"
There is a lot of wiggle room there and it does not exclude something
like making a tent or bow and arrow.
It also doesn't necessarily exclude steam engines, or PCs, or houses.
Which would leave traces
Your point is?
They didn't want to leave traces.
Post by Tim McGaughy
My little group of like-minded people would not care whether we left
traces or not. We'd be more interested in developing medicines, ways to
efficiently harvest food, and ways to defend ourselves from outside
threats. You know, SURVIVING. If a few coke bottles get left in
inconvenient places, oh, well.
Ok, medicines... beyond herbs and roots, what would it take to make
antibiotics?
Tim McGaughy
2012-01-13 04:48:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
I think the phrase "crude machines" is confusing you. You don't make a
steam engine out of "stone knives and bearskins", to borrow an old Spock
expression.
The early steam engines were crude.
The scope of the word "crude" does not necessarily mean low-tech. It is
possible to make a "crude" electronic instrument, but that does not make the
instrument stone-aged. It is generally accepted that the term "crude
weapons" does not refer to a crude implmentation of a piece of high-tech
artillery. But you realized that.
Remember: "abandon advanced technology in an attempt to avoid repeating the
cycle of destruction and rebirth"
There is a lot of wiggle room there and it does not exclude something
like making a tent or bow and arrow.
It also doesn't necessarily exclude steam engines, or PCs, or houses.
Which would leave traces
Your point is?
They didn't want to leave traces.
Yet again, my argument isn't about what happened in the series, but
about how realistic it was.
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
My little group of like-minded people would not care whether we left
traces or not. We'd be more interested in developing medicines, ways to
efficiently harvest food, and ways to defend ourselves from outside
threats. You know, SURVIVING. If a few coke bottles get left in
inconvenient places, oh, well.
Ok, medicines... beyond herbs and roots, what would it take to make
antibiotics?
Moldy bread.
RT
2012-02-03 16:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with
a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
I think the phrase "crude machines" is confusing you. You don't make a
steam engine out of "stone knives and bearskins", to borrow an old Spock
expression.
The early steam engines were crude.
The scope of the word "crude" does not necessarily mean low-tech. It is
possible to make a "crude" electronic instrument, but that does not make the
instrument stone-aged. It is generally accepted that the term "crude
weapons" does not refer to a crude implmentation of a piece of high-tech
artillery. But you realized that.
Remember: "abandon advanced technology in an attempt to avoid repeating the
cycle of destruction and rebirth"
There is a lot of wiggle room there and it does not exclude something
like making a tent or bow and arrow.
It also doesn't necessarily exclude steam engines, or PCs, or houses.
Which would leave traces
Your point is?
They didn't want to leave traces.
Yet again, my argument isn't about what happened in the series, but
about how realistic it was.
Like I said, near genocide is a strong motivator.
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
My little group of like-minded people would not care whether we left
traces or not. We'd be more interested in developing medicines, ways to
efficiently harvest food, and ways to defend ourselves from outside
threats. You know, SURVIVING. If a few coke bottles get left in
inconvenient places, oh, well.
Ok, medicines... beyond herbs and roots, what would it take to make
antibiotics?
Moldy bread.
Bread implies agriculture and cultivation. How long would it take to develop
crops? (ignoring for the moment the genetic traces domestication leaves...)
Tim McGaughy
2011-09-26 04:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
I think the phrase "crude machines" is confusing you. You don't make a
steam engine out of "stone knives and bearskins", to borrow an old Spock
expression.
The early steam engines were crude. Stone knives would not be worrisome as
a trace to be found later.
A windmill (or watermill) is a crude machine, and is within reach of
even a stone-age society.
RT
2011-10-03 19:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by catpandaddy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
I think the phrase "crude machines" is confusing you. You don't make a
steam engine out of "stone knives and bearskins", to borrow an old Spock
expression.
The early steam engines were crude. Stone knives would not be worrisome as
a trace to be found later.
A windmill (or watermill) is a crude machine, and is within reach of
even a stone-age society.
which probably wouldn't violate their agreement
Tim McGaughy
2011-09-13 02:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
They would not have much choice.
Yes, they would. If you are using metal tools, you are by definition not
a stone age culture.
Post by RT
Space travel requires people with advanced skill
sets and without them you're stuck.
I said nothing about hopping away to another planet. You are only stuck
in a stone age if stones are your most advanced tools.
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
Not within a week. Within a week we'd have bows, snares, and traps, and
we'd be working on windmills and watermills. We'd also be looking for
metal deposits and making glass and brick.
RT
2011-09-18 23:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
They would not have much choice.
Yes, they would. If you are using metal tools, you are by definition not
a stone age culture.
Metal tools would leave traces.
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Space travel requires people with advanced skill
sets and without them you're stuck.
I said nothing about hopping away to another planet. You are only stuck
in a stone age if stones are your most advanced tools.
But the implicatino is there, they had no choice but to reamin behind.
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
Not within a week. Within a week we'd have bows, snares, and traps, and
we'd be working on windmills and watermills. We'd also be looking for
metal deposits and making glass and brick.
And leaving traces... provided those people had the skills for mining etc
Tim McGaughy
2011-09-20 14:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
They would not have much choice.
Yes, they would. If you are using metal tools, you are by definition not
a stone age culture.
Metal tools would leave traces.
So?

I'm not arguing about what happened in the show, I'm arguing that it was
unrealistic.
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Space travel requires people with advanced skill
sets and without them you're stuck.
I said nothing about hopping away to another planet. You are only stuck
in a stone age if stones are your most advanced tools.
But the implicatino is there, they had no choice but to reamin behind.
Again, I never said otherwise. I also never tried to imply otherwise, so
I have no idea where you're getting that from.
RT
2011-10-03 19:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
They would not have much choice.
Yes, they would. If you are using metal tools, you are by definition not
a stone age culture.
Metal tools would leave traces.
So?
I'm not arguing about what happened in the show, I'm arguing that it was
unrealistic.
Traces of metal tools at a time when the indigenous hominids were using
osteo-don-keratic technology. The colonies' survivors are now scattered
all over the planet and they agreed to that too.
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Space travel requires people with advanced skill
sets and without them you're stuck.
I said nothing about hopping away to another planet. You are only stuck
in a stone age if stones are your most advanced tools.
But the implicatino is there, they had no choice but to reamin behind.
Again, I never said otherwise. I also never tried to imply otherwise, so
I have no idea where you're getting that from.
Moving beyond stone tools would mean going the technology route.
Tim McGaughy
2011-10-08 15:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
They would not have much choice.
Yes, they would. If you are using metal tools, you are by definition not
a stone age culture.
Metal tools would leave traces.
So?
I'm not arguing about what happened in the show, I'm arguing that it was
unrealistic.
Traces of metal tools at a time when the indigenous hominids were using
osteo-don-keratic technology. The colonies' survivors are now scattered
all over the planet and they agreed to that too.
Again, I'm not arguing what happened on the show. I'm saying it's
unrealistic. No way do you get that large a group of people to live
without technology, having originally lived with very advanced technology.
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
I said nothing about hopping away to another planet. You are only stuck
in a stone age if stones are your most advanced tools.
But the implicatino is there, they had no choice but to reamin behind.
Again, I never said otherwise. I also never tried to imply otherwise, so
I have no idea where you're getting that from.
Moving beyond stone tools would mean going the technology route.
Yeah. So? Are you saying they'd have to go to another planet to do that?
RT
2011-11-04 05:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
They would not have much choice.
Yes, they would. If you are using metal tools, you are by definition not
a stone age culture.
Metal tools would leave traces.
So?
I'm not arguing about what happened in the show, I'm arguing that it was
unrealistic.
Traces of metal tools at a time when the indigenous hominids were using
osteo-don-keratic technology. The colonies' survivors are now scattered
all over the planet and they agreed to that too.
Again, I'm not arguing what happened on the show. I'm saying it's
unrealistic. No way do you get that large a group of people to live
without technology, having originally lived with very advanced technology.
Perhaps being freed from having been hunted and on the run and caring
about future generations had something to do with it. Not that any
dissenters could do anything about it...
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
I said nothing about hopping away to another planet. You are only stuck
in a stone age if stones are your most advanced tools.
But the implicatino is there, they had no choice but to reamin behind.
Again, I never said otherwise. I also never tried to imply otherwise, so
I have no idea where you're getting that from.
Moving beyond stone tools would mean going the technology route.
Yeah. So? Are you saying they'd have to go to another planet to do that?
They didn't want to leave any traces.
Tim McGaughy
2011-11-24 02:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
They would not have much choice.
Yes, they would. If you are using metal tools, you are by definition not
a stone age culture.
Metal tools would leave traces.
So?
I'm not arguing about what happened in the show, I'm arguing that it was
unrealistic.
Traces of metal tools at a time when the indigenous hominids were using
osteo-don-keratic technology. The colonies' survivors are now scattered
all over the planet and they agreed to that too.
Again, I'm not arguing what happened on the show. I'm saying it's
unrealistic. No way do you get that large a group of people to live
without technology, having originally lived with very advanced technology.
Perhaps being freed from having been hunted and on the run and caring
about future generations had something to do with it. Not that any
dissenters could do anything about it...
It's a big planet. Are you saying dissenters couldn't wander away and
start their own tool-using society?

Why not?
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
I said nothing about hopping away to another planet. You are only stuck
in a stone age if stones are your most advanced tools.
But the implicatino is there, they had no choice but to reamin behind.
Again, I never said otherwise. I also never tried to imply otherwise, so
I have no idea where you're getting that from.
Moving beyond stone tools would mean going the technology route.
Yeah. So? Are you saying they'd have to go to another planet to do that?
They didn't want to leave any traces.
Yet again, I'm not arguing what happened on the show. I'm saying it's
implausible, and wouldn't actually have happened that way if real people
were involved instead of scripted people.
RT
2011-12-18 20:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
They would not have much choice.
Yes, they would. If you are using metal tools, you are by definition not
a stone age culture.
Metal tools would leave traces.
So?
I'm not arguing about what happened in the show, I'm arguing that it was
unrealistic.
Traces of metal tools at a time when the indigenous hominids were using
osteo-don-keratic technology. The colonies' survivors are now scattered
all over the planet and they agreed to that too.
Again, I'm not arguing what happened on the show. I'm saying it's
unrealistic. No way do you get that large a group of people to live
without technology, having originally lived with very advanced technology.
Perhaps being freed from having been hunted and on the run and caring
about future generations had something to do with it. Not that any
dissenters could do anything about it...
It's a big planet. Are you saying dissenters couldn't wander away and
start their own tool-using society?
Why not?
Well, what kind of tools? I suppose the prisoners from the prison ship would
be making knives ;) Being a member of a highly technological society doesn't
mean you can start from scratch by yourself. What good would a business
degree be, for example?
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
I said nothing about hopping away to another planet. You are only stuck
in a stone age if stones are your most advanced tools.
But the implicatino is there, they had no choice but to reamin behind.
Again, I never said otherwise. I also never tried to imply otherwise, so
I have no idea where you're getting that from.
Moving beyond stone tools would mean going the technology route.
Yeah. So? Are you saying they'd have to go to another planet to do that?
They didn't want to leave any traces.
Yet again, I'm not arguing what happened on the show. I'm saying it's
implausible, and wouldn't actually have happened that way if real people
were involved instead of scripted people.
See above.
Tim McGaughy
2012-01-13 04:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
They would not have much choice.
Yes, they would. If you are using metal tools, you are by definition not
a stone age culture.
Metal tools would leave traces.
So?
I'm not arguing about what happened in the show, I'm arguing that it was
unrealistic.
Traces of metal tools at a time when the indigenous hominids were using
osteo-don-keratic technology. The colonies' survivors are now scattered
all over the planet and they agreed to that too.
Again, I'm not arguing what happened on the show. I'm saying it's
unrealistic. No way do you get that large a group of people to live
without technology, having originally lived with very advanced technology.
Perhaps being freed from having been hunted and on the run and caring
about future generations had something to do with it. Not that any
dissenters could do anything about it...
It's a big planet. Are you saying dissenters couldn't wander away and
start their own tool-using society?
Why not?
Well, what kind of tools?
Wind and water mills, hammers, plows, saws, axes, ononon. You honestly
can't think of tools that you could make that would make your life
easier? Hell, you can even make a magneto and generate electricity with
bronze age materials.
RT
2012-01-13 04:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
They would not have much choice.
Yes, they would. If you are using metal tools, you are by definition not
a stone age culture.
Metal tools would leave traces.
So?
I'm not arguing about what happened in the show, I'm arguing that it was
unrealistic.
Traces of metal tools at a time when the indigenous hominids were using
osteo-don-keratic technology. The colonies' survivors are now scattered
all over the planet and they agreed to that too.
Again, I'm not arguing what happened on the show. I'm saying it's
unrealistic. No way do you get that large a group of people to live
without technology, having originally lived with very advanced technology.
Perhaps being freed from having been hunted and on the run and caring
about future generations had something to do with it. Not that any
dissenters could do anything about it...
It's a big planet. Are you saying dissenters couldn't wander away and
start their own tool-using society?
Why not?
Well, what kind of tools?
Wind and water mills, hammers, plows, saws, axes, ononon. You honestly
can't think of tools that you could make that would make your life
easier? Hell, you can even make a magneto and generate electricity with
bronze age materials.
Which would still leave traces. These people suffered from near genocide, that's
a strong motivator...
Tim McGaughy
2012-01-13 04:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
They would not have much choice.
Yes, they would. If you are using metal tools, you are by definition not
a stone age culture.
Metal tools would leave traces.
So?
I'm not arguing about what happened in the show, I'm arguing that it was
unrealistic.
Traces of metal tools at a time when the indigenous hominids were using
osteo-don-keratic technology. The colonies' survivors are now scattered
all over the planet and they agreed to that too.
Again, I'm not arguing what happened on the show. I'm saying it's
unrealistic. No way do you get that large a group of people to live
without technology, having originally lived with very advanced technology.
Perhaps being freed from having been hunted and on the run and caring
about future generations had something to do with it. Not that any
dissenters could do anything about it...
It's a big planet. Are you saying dissenters couldn't wander away and
start their own tool-using society?
Why not?
Well, what kind of tools?
Wind and water mills, hammers, plows, saws, axes, ononon. You honestly
can't think of tools that you could make that would make your life
easier? Hell, you can even make a magneto and generate electricity with
bronze age materials.
Which would still leave traces. These people suffered from near genocide, that's
a strong motivator...
... to develop weapons with which to defend themselves.

You and I disagree about what they should do, and that's my point...
They would not all agree, either.
RT
2012-02-03 16:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
They would not have much choice.
Yes, they would. If you are using metal tools, you are by definition not
a stone age culture.
Metal tools would leave traces.
So?
I'm not arguing about what happened in the show, I'm arguing that it was
unrealistic.
Traces of metal tools at a time when the indigenous hominids were using
osteo-don-keratic technology. The colonies' survivors are now scattered
all over the planet and they agreed to that too.
Again, I'm not arguing what happened on the show. I'm saying it's
unrealistic. No way do you get that large a group of people to live
without technology, having originally lived with very advanced technology.
Perhaps being freed from having been hunted and on the run and caring
about future generations had something to do with it. Not that any
dissenters could do anything about it...
It's a big planet. Are you saying dissenters couldn't wander away and
start their own tool-using society?
Why not?
Well, what kind of tools?
Wind and water mills, hammers, plows, saws, axes, ononon. You honestly
can't think of tools that you could make that would make your life
easier? Hell, you can even make a magneto and generate electricity with
bronze age materials.
Which would still leave traces. These people suffered from near genocide, that's
a strong motivator...
... to develop weapons with which to defend themselves.
which would leave mega traces...
Post by Tim McGaughy
You and I disagree about what they should do, and that's my point...
They would not all agree, either.
And good luck to those disagreeing because beyond stone knives and bearskins
a greap deal of technology and cooperation and skills and resources are
needed.

*That's* what will prevent it from happening.

Now, a flaw in the writers' scenario here is having the colonials scatter
around the planet. Imagine finding remains of AMHs at a time and place
where they shouldn't be...

redhawk
2011-09-21 20:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along.  Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
They would not have much choice. Space travel requires people with advanced skill
sets and without them you're stuck. But, agreement was probably easily had
considering the time on the run plus what they saw on the other Earth.
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
They would have almost unlimited animal power available, including now-
extinct giant mammals such as the wooly mammoth. It would not be long
before the Graystones were a modern stone age family, with many labor-
saving devices in the home:

http://i-flintstones.tripod.com/tools.htm
RT
2011-10-03 19:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by redhawk
Post by RT
Post by Tim McGaughy
Post by RT
Post by jack
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
In a quirky way, a sequel to BG might be interesting; maybe set a few
generations further along. Even without their technology you'd think
it would not take the colonists 150,000 years to get back to where we
?
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_%28RDM%29
The people of the Fleet decide to abandon advanced technology in an attempt
to avoid repeating the cycle of destruction and rebirth, and the planet is
named after the original Earth.
I find it completely implausible that the entire population would agree
to such a plan. I would not wish to live in the stone age no matter what
They would not have much choice. Space travel requires people with advanced skill
sets and without them you're stuck. But, agreement was probably easily had
considering the time on the run plus what they saw on the other Earth.
Post by Tim McGaughy
rationale you gave me for doing so. Put me out in the wilderness with a
small group of like-minded people, and we will have various crude
machines and weapons to make our lives easier within a week.
Like what? Steam engines?
They would have almost unlimited animal power available, including now-
extinct giant mammals such as the wooly mammoth. It would not be long
before the Graystones were a modern stone age family, with many labor-
http://i-flintstones.tripod.com/tools.htm
This is so not right. Thank gods there was no animal toilet shown...
RT
2011-09-04 16:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by QN
It must be pretty bad, despite the cool title.
Possibly one of the greatest titles ever.
Loading...