[edit] Set to STUFF
Lasers and similar items that are "set to stun" are usually references to the popular Star Trek series.
From: Puppet Jam: Tropical Lazor Beams
Posted on: 20:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Arguments for:
- The concept of a weapon set to stun originated in and is very prevalent in the Star Trek series.[citation needed]
- The occurrence in Star Wars is relatively obscure, in contrast to the prevalence of the concept in Star Trek.
- Star Wars debuted a decade after the original Star Trek show did, so it's very possible that its idea of a stun weapon was taken from Star Trek.
- The Star Wars quote is "set for stun" which is slightly different.
Arguments against:
- TTATOT, it's mentioned in Star Wars and several other sci-fi series.
- Re for #3: Invalid. The "taken from therefore a reference to the original" concept was rejected here. The concept of "setting to stun" is as widespread in sci-fi as "jeeves" is in butling.
Additional comments:
- see original talk page thread.
- Re Arg Against #2: Teehee, butling. Also, I agree that Arg For #3 alone wouldn't be enough to call this a reference to the original, but if even Star Wars took the idea from Star Trek, then it supports the argument that most people are meaning to as well when they talk about setting weapons to stun.
- I agree with the reference, but the wording is horribly unclear. I suggest someone revises it.
- Which part seems poorly worded to you? Do you have any recommended revisions?
- Re Arg For #4: Since the actual quote from the song is "I put my lazors on stun", which matches "set to stun" and "set for stun" equally well, I don't see how that's relevant...
Proposed revision:
The concept of lasers and similar items being "set to stun" is originally from the Star Trek series. Arguments for:
- The revise is that it shows that set to stun is originally from Star Trek, wiping out completely any other reference.
Arguments against:
- Even if it's originally from star trek, it's become TTATOT by this point.
Additional comments:
- Re Arg against 1: Why is it "TTATOT" to link this back to Star Trek, when it was perfectly all right to link other "now TTATOT" things like gangster speak and butler names back to their origins?
- Umm, it's not. The whole "Jeeves" thing was declined, remember? But thank you for proving my point.
- Umm... That was accepted. As was the "gangster speak" fun fact. (Can someone provide links to the two afformentioned STUFFed facts?)
- How does it become TTATOT all of a sudden? It helps to explain your logic.
- What I meant was that it has become widespread throughout sci-fi and is therefore not a reference to only star trek anymore.
- I see no problem to accept it, but the main problem with this fact that it relies on un-verifiable information. Notice how the original fact have [citation needed] in it's arg-for. Can someone provide a link?
- Got One. It refers to phasers, but aren't phasers and lasers pretty much the same thing?
- No, you ain't got one. That section does not claim that setting to stun is originally from Star Trek.
- And i quote "Phasers are common directed-energy weapons first seen in the original Star Trek ... Hand-held phasers have a variety of settings, able to "stun," "heat," "disrupt," and "disintegrate."" (First and second paragraph under phasers).
- It means it was seen first within the Star Trek universe, not in the whole sci-fi genre.
- How 'bout a revision that includes all sci-fi references?
- That would be the very essence of TTATOT.
[ Back to STUFF index ]
|
