Just What do People Want?

[OWD]

I think we should all be able to form our own opinions either for Moore or against. I really don't wish to change anyone’s mind because like I have said, I respect all views. I'm just voicing my opinion.

Happy new year every body.

OH ya

Captain Cumquat, I don't know if you have been here yet or not but here is another board,

http://www.3dgladiators.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=336

OWD

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Captain Cumquat
Are we allowed to not like the new script here? I guess you're the moderator, so I'll await your decision as to whether or not I'm allowed to disagree with you. If not, does anyone know of any other boards where they discuss Battlestar?

I thought I had already answered this for Ray:

Originally posted by Dave
I don't want to stop you lambasting Ron Moore, but there are six or more threads here doing that already, and not a single one which tells me the qualities that made 'Battlestar Galactica' so good.

Ray started this thread, and as yet no one has actually answered his question. You all seem to be obsessed with Ron Moore.

Name me one petition that has actually changed the minds of studio directives. Even the Star Trek ones in the sixties, in very different times, never got the Original Series back, it was always going to be something more updated (Star Trek Phase II, then the Motion Picture.)

I think Ray's point is that you will never get them to change their minds, it would be too much of a loss of face. We will either get Ron Moore's version, or they will pull the plug and we will get nothing. I know which I would prefer, you disagree, fine.

But what exactly do you all want? Forget that anything had ever been on the table already. No previous revivals had failed. Starting from scratch, what would make it a good new series.

 

[ray gower]

Originally posted by Captain Cumquat
"I think for the time being I will stand on the Moore version potentially having more to offer"

Ray Gower, no one's trying to change your mind. At least, I'm not. You made a sarcastic "Sorry to interrupt with the complaints, chaps" post earlier. Are we allowed to not like the new script here? I guess you're the moderator, so I'll await your decision as to whether or not I'm allowed to disagree with you. If not, does anyone know of any other boards where they discuss Battlestar?

Captain Cumquat. You and/or anybody else are at perfect liberty to dislike the new script, or any other part of both the old and the potential new show you like and voice your opinion. That at least should be clear- Nearly half of this forum has been given over to the complaints!

My comment was intended as satirical. You started a pefectly good thread on the script, for which I thank you. I simply copied the threads complaining about the script there, where they are more on topic. If this you find objectionable, I apologise.

As Dave more succinctly pointed out. There are only two ways for the new show to go. Either it will be Ron Moores interpretation, or there will be nothing. In the later case, I suspect that will mean ever, as as many attempts at reviving Battlestar have failed because of screams of protest from the fans as Sci/Fi's shortsightedness.

All I am seeking to chissel out of the people who post here, who (as on the bigger BG boards) are very negative and dismissive, something to look forward to.

Changing my mind, well I'm afraid you have done that and probably to many others, with so little balance in the negatives.
Being only, in comparison to yourself, an enthusiast of Science Fiction and not an officianado of Galactica, I am highly reliant upon the fans of the show to tell me if something is worth watching.

So far it isn't.

Ignoring effects, which it goes without saying are going to be bigger and better.
The only thing offered so far: (by Capt Cumquat) the baddy is going to be done better.

From a show that was okay, compared to Blakes 7, Doctor Who and Star Trek. We are going to get something that makes Galactica 80 look like a production by William Shakespeare and it will be pitched against some genuinely good and/or entertaining shows like Farscape (also Sci/Fi Channel?), StarGate and even Star Trek.

Again I ask. Do you really mean that?

 

[Captain Cumquat]

"I think Ray's point is that you will never get them to change their minds."

Like I said, Dave, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. Yours, Ray's or TPTB's. Also, I'm not obsessed with Moore. This is the first time I've ever typed the name Moore (all right, that was the second time).

Ray, I'd like to answer all your questions about Galactica, but what would be the point? I learned long ago that debating on the internet is a complete waste of time. There are a lot of things I don't like about the script and two or three things that I do. I don't see any point in typing them out, because, as I said, I have no desire to change anyone's mind. I just wanted to point out to fellow BSG fans that there was a review. I don't see the point in defending my views, and I'm sorry that more people are negative about the new script than positive, but I guess things like that can't be balanced out perfectly if there are more people dissatisfied than satisfied. I can't take the blame for not liking the script or for others not liking the script.

I think this is just a misunderstanding anyway. I didn't realize this was a debate over the merits of old BSG or new BSG or whatever. I thought it was more of a drop in and give your opinion place, but it's my fault for not reviewing the forum more. I just jumped right in, like I usually do with other things.

I liked the layout you have here, though, and the wide variety of forums. Take it easy.

 

[ray gower]

I think this is just a misunderstanding anyway. I didn't realize this was a debate over the merits of old BSG or new BSG or whatever. I thought it was more of a drop in and give your opinion place, but it's my fault for not reviewing the forum more. I just jumped right in, like I usually do with other things.

I liked the layout you have here, though, and the wide variety of forums. Take it easy.

I don't think you have misunderstood at all. Ascifi is intended to be a pleasant place to drop an opinion, and/or debate as you wish.

In the case of Battlestar Galactica, it is unfortunate that most of those posting look as if they are not in the 'We love BG' camp, but the 'We hate the new BG' camp instead. Something that has afflicted most of the BG forums I've looked at.

It was my aim here to try and balance the playing field a little, so that you can express your opinions on the good points, and discus in a level headed way, without being pilloried.

For my money, I like the concept of the Galactica being dragged from mothballs in a panic response to a sneak attack. There are a great number of parrallels to our own political and military situation after the demise of the USSR, or the end of WW2.

I also like the fact that the cylons are actually going to be inteligent. They were, as a race, pretty dim the first time around. "The base is going to be attacked by eight squadrons of enemy fighters!", We'll ignore the fact they can't carry that many on a single Battlestar and have no where to collect more from, we'll crash on that planet to avoid them instead. I ask you? Made a good quick get out for the end of the show, but made no real sense.

I am concerned about the 'backchat' element of men to senior officers. But it does happen, despite what the public military face says (Put Royal Marines and Para's together in a pub and watch the feathers fly and they are the most disciplined troops in the world!). It is especially prevalent if those men are conscripts and morale is rock bottom.

I am a little concerned over the reported 'low tech' elements. Modern warfare is reliant upon technology. On the other hand, I can see that HE and nuclear laden missiles may well provide a much greater killing power than a laser beam. If they can hit something. Again there are cases when the military have taken a step backwards in technology to use something more effective.

As I've said. I've no objection to the drivers of the Vipers being female. Women in the armed forces have come a long way since operating radars in static bases in my time- They even give WRAF's guns now (frightening)!

It does look as if the new BG has all the elements for being a lot darker and deeper than the original. Which I like. Provided a happy medium is trod, between ultimate destruction and victory.

 

[dvo47p]

Sex?

Originally posted by ray gower Whether you like it or not Richard Hatch is not going to write or direct the new Battlestar Galactica.

I do not want Richard Hatch to write or direct Battlestar Galactica, just reprise his role of Apollo in a continuation along with Dirk Benedict as Starbuck, maybe Herb Jefferson as Boomer and if I’m lucky Anne Lockhart as Sheba, These actor's are still good and would become the leadership of a new generation born in space.

Hardly the original series, get real. 25 yarens later, not TOS this is that ‘continuation’ thing, not an over sexed “re-imagined†remake.

The reasons for that are going to be far ranging. Starting from the simple fact that Fox/Universal have never been the most adventurous studio, so have gone for experience over enthusiasm. [/B]

Most fans would prefer Tom DeSantos rather than Ron D. Moore helming Battlestar Galactica.

Fox is not involved with Battlestar Galactica anymore

There is undoubtedly a degree of politics involved as well, which could have come from Universal, Moore, Hatch or more likely a combination of all three. And I dare say a certain whiff of deal scents the air as well, considering some of the cancelled projects Moore was involved in.[/B]

If not for Richard Hatch, there would not be a Battlestar Galactica revival. Ron D. Moore and everybody gives him credit for this, he should be considered. Yeah, I agree, Roswell did stink.

But if we could leave the Richard Moore is the devil incarnate bit for a minute: It just could also be because the Hatch trailer offered nothing more than the original series with better effects (we all like effects- Studios because they are cheap- Us because it looks as if something is happening). Ultimately the show failed in its original formula.
Again I stress I haven't seen the trailer, but I have read a review of it. The review makes copious mentions of the effects, but in comparison little real mention of the side issue of plot. A sentence to start and one at the end. Those same effects will almost certainly appear in Moore's Galactica (he likes effects too!) But from the rather unfair stand of only having a review of a trailer and one of a script (Neither of which give a true reflection on what really will happen) I think for the time being I will stand on the Moore version potentially having more to offer [/B]

Richard Moore? Ronald D. Moore maybe..............

Did you know that Battlestar Galactica, at the time, was the highest rated science fiction television series, ever. Including Star Trek, Issac Asimov was slated to write for the second season, it was replaced with Mork and Mindy

Babylon 5 did not have a big FX budget, all it takes is good writing. Ron D. Moore’s script is a horny teenager’s dream come true.

Copious references to sex, humans having regular sex, sexy Cylon spies having sex with human’s and Cylon’s having long range virtual sex. Oh yeah 'sex change' is real big with Ron D. Moore.

His script is soft porn, in space with androids screwing human then trying to kill em, go figure?

Remember Data and Tasha Yar, Ron D. Moore hasn’t strayed far from ‘Trek’. They do not talk about it they do it, in detail, even virtual handjobs.

 

[ray gower]

It strikes me:-

Assuming that ST Enterprise lasts the full distance and isn't pulled because of the steady decline in audiences, that within five years there will be no Space Sci/Fi on television, except occasional repeats of Original Series and Next Generation Star Trek.

With shows like Firefly (to name but one) strangled before it gets off the ground and Farscape gone wierd to try and maintain itself. It strikes me that BG is not only the last hope for a civilisation, but of television space based Sci/Fi as well!

Battlestar needs to do more than survive a mini-series. It must be outstandingly popular, appealing to not just BG fans and tired old Trekies like me, but everybody else as well. So, please, is there nobody than can offer a good word or idea for the New BG?

 

[Dave]

Re: Sex?

Originally posted by dvo47p
I do not want Richard Hatch to write or direct Battlestar Galactica, just reprise his role of Apollo in a continuation along with Dirk Benedict as Starbuck, maybe Herb Jefferson as Boomer and if I’m lucky Anne Lockhart as Sheba, These actor's are still good and would become the leadership of a new generation born in space.....

....Remember Data and Tasha Yar, Ron D. Moore hasn’t strayed far from ‘Trek’.

So, what you want is a kind of 'Battlestar Galactica: The Next Generation'. With Apollo and Starbuck replacing Adama as the wise old leaders?

BTW Ron D Moore had nothing to do with Data and Tasha Yar's "fully functional" experiences. He didn't arrive as a writer until Season Three.

 

[dvo47p]

I bet Ron D. Moore and David Eirk are casting Star Trek actors, to attract Tekkies to the Battlestar Galactica ‘mini’, it sure ain’t exciting fans of TOS. Hell if ‘Voyager’ can last for seven years, Scifi’s BSG abomination could turn into a multi year series.

Plus, the similarities to Star Trek do not end there. Is Cylon sex spy Number Six of Twelve is not to subtle cryptic nod to Seven of Nine from Voyager, not # six from The Prisoner?

Techno-bullsh**: Weapon coils for the Battlestar? Yes, Coils which are dropped from the Battlestar Galactica
Smells like a warp core. Plus the Galactica vents plasma/fuel in a maneuver against an enemy.
It sure looks like Star Trek, can Trekkies be far behind.

GEEZ, Battlestar Galactica was accused of being a copy of Star Wars, George Lucas even sued. Now Ron D. Moore and David Eirk are using Trek tactics, maybe even Trek actors?

Notice many of the names being banded about have a Trek connection, sort of makes me wonder if this is part of a plan. All those Trek actors to help attract Trek fans?

Wait a minute, I’m a Trek fan. We do not need to make Battlestar Galactica a step child of Trek.

Is that President Laura Roslin to be portrayed by Majel Barrett Roddennberry
*************************************************
The Tom DeSantos production was to the best of my knowledge doing a continuation for Scifi. I think DeSantos was dropped because of cost.
Then he was replaced by the Moore/Erik production.



Moore is quoted @ www.fimjerk.com as going 'Cinema verte' sort of like The Blair Witch hunt. With camcorder type filming technique, cheap.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by dvo47p
Moore is quoted @ www.fimjerk.com as going 'Cinema verte' sort of like The Blair Witch hunt. With camcorder type filming technique, cheap.

That would be nothing like 'Star Trek' though, at least. It would give it a more 'Starship Troopers'-like docu-drama-esque feel. I'm not saying that it would be any good, just different.

 

[ray gower]

From Filmjerk.Com Purported to be Mr R Moore's mission statement

Battlestar Galactica:
Naturalistic Science Fiction
or
Taking the Opera out of Space Opera

Our goal is nothing less than the reinvention of the science fiction television series. We take as a given the idea that the traditional space opera, with its stock characters, techno-double-talk, bumpy-headed aliens, thespian histrionics, and empty heroics has run its course and a new approach is required. That approach is to introduce realism into what has heretofore been an aggressively unrealistic genre.

Call it "Naturalistic Science Fiction."

This idea, the presentation of a fantastical situation in naturalistic terms, will permeate every aspect of our series:

Visual. The first thing that will leap out at viewers is the dynamic use of the documentary or cinema verite style. Through the extensive use of hand-held cameras, practical lighting, and functional set design, the battlestar Galactica will feel on every level like a real place.

This shift in tone and look cannot be overemphasized. It is our intention to deliver a show that does not look like any other science fiction series ever produced. A casual viewer should for a moment feel like he or she has accidentally surfed onto a "60 Minutes" documentary piece about life aboard an aircraft carrier until someone starts talking about Cylons and battlestars.

That is not to say we're shooting on videotape under fluorescent lights, but we will be striving for a verisimilitude that is sorely lacking in virtually every other science fiction series ever attempted. We're looking for filmic truth, not manufactured "pretty pictures" or the "way cool" factor.

Perhaps nowhere will this be more surprising than in our visual effects shots. Our ships will be treated like real ships that someone had to go out and film with a real camera. That means no 3-D "hero" shots panning and zooming wildly with the touch of a mousepad. The questions we will ask before every VFX shot are things like: "How did we get this shot? Where is the camera? Who's holding it? Is the cameraman in another spacecraft? Is the camera mounted on the wing?" This philosophy will generate images that will present an audience jaded and bored with the same old "Wow -- it's a CGI shot!" with a different texture and a different cinematic language that will force them to re-evaluate their notions of science fiction.

Another way to challenge the audience visually will be our extensive use of the multi-split screen format. By combining multiple angles during dogfights, for example, we will be able to present an entirely new take on what has become a tired and familiar sequence that has not changed materially since George Lucas established it in the mid 1970s.

Finally, our visual style will also capitalize on the possibilities inherent in the series concept itself to deliver unusual imagery not typically seen in this genre. That is, the inclusion of a variety of civilian ships each of which will have unique properties and visual references that can be in stark contrast to the military life aboard Galactica. For example, we have a vessel in our rag-tag fleet which was designed to be a space-going marketplace or "City Walk" environment. The juxtaposition of this high-gloss, sexy atmosphere against the gritty reality of a story for survival will give us more textures and levels to play than in typical genre fare.

Editorial. Our style will avoid the now clichéd MTV fast-cutting while at the same time foregoing Star Trek's somewhat ponderous and lugubrious "master, two-shot, close-up, close-up, two-shot, back to master" pattern. If there is a model here, it would be vaguely Hitchcockian -- that is, a sense of building suspense and dramatic tension through the use of extending takes and long masters which pull the audience into the reality of the action rather than the distract through the use of ostentatious cutting patterns.

Story. We will eschew the usual stories about parallel universes, time-travel, mind-control, evil twins, God-like powers and all the other clichés of the genre. Our show is first and foremost a drama. It is about people. Real people that the audience can identify with and become engaged in. It is not a show about hardware or bizarre alien cultures. It is a show about us. It is an allegory for our own society, our own people and it should be immediately recognizable to any member of the audience.

Science. Our spaceships don't make noise because there is no noise in space. Sound will be provided from sources inside the ships -- the whine of an engine audible to the pilot for instance. Our fighters are not airplanes and they will not be shackled by the conventions of WWII dogfights. The speed of light is a law and there will be no moving violations.

And finally, Character. This is perhaps, the biggest departure from the science fiction norm. We do not have "the cocky guy" "the fast-talker" "the brain" "the wacky alien sidekick" or any of the other usual characters who populate a space series. Our characters are living, breathing people with all the emotional complexity and contradictions present in quality dramas like "The West Wing" or "The Sopranos." In this way, we hope to challenge our audience in ways that other genre pieces do not. We want the audience to connect with the characters of Galactica as people. Our characters are not super-heroes. They are not an elite. They are everyday people caught up in a enormous cataclysm and trying to survive it as best they can.

They are you and me.

Not sure if what is being offered here is a new concept, or just a very old one that is about to be reinvented and tarted up with modern effects.

What Ron Moore appears to be offering is a serious attempt to reintroduce a story lead series. Trying to use characters, rather than what has become a mindless tedium of cardboard and big flashes of special effects that blights most Science Fiction.

He also appears to be offering the full gambit of stories available. Not just "There is a Cylon, shoot it!" but the wide range of problems that face the the occupants of the 'Rag Tag Fleet'.

If he gets the level right, then Battlestar will be transformed into something notably good and different. Though I think the path between making it too dark and moody and Star Trek frivolous may be a very narrow one.

Whatever it may be, it is not Star Trek in drag, too much depth is being promised. It may even be a cheapish series to produce, which bodes well for an extension.

All in all, it is starting to look very promising!

 

[dvo47p]

Originally posted by ray gower

What Ron Moore appears to be offering is a serious attempt to reintroduce a story lead series. Trying to use characters, rather than what has become a mindless tedium of cardboard and big flashes of special effects that blights most Science Fiction.


If he gets the level right, then Battlestar will be transformed into something notably good and different. Though I think the path between making it too dark and moody and Star Trek frivolous may be a very narrow one.

Whatever it may be, it is not Star Trek in drag, too much depth is being promised. It may even be a cheapish series to produce, which bodes well for an extension.

All in all, it is starting to look very promising!

Promising? Are you for real?

The Scifi Channel cut Tom DeSantos & his budget, big time.

Since then Vivendi/Universal has had more bad economic news.

Battlestar Galactica is going to be the next B: 5 The Legend of the Rangers

Star Trek second string actors, worse than Star Trek in drag.

Plus this thing is going to look like "The Blair Witch Hunt"

 

[OWD]

Yes it's pretty hard to see how some one who is a fan of the original can like what Moore has in mind but I guess to each their own.

Ray you said

(In the case of Battlestar Galactica, it is unfortunate that most of those posting look as if they are not in the 'We love BG' camp, but the 'We hate the new BG' camp instead. Something that has afflicted most of the BG forums I've looked at.)


There are many aspects of Battlestar Galactica that I love and it is because that many of those aspects are being changed that I dislike the new production. We fought long and hard for the original and we have been flexible on many points but almost every thing that we have asked for has been ignored.

Starbuck has been changed to a woman, Boomer has been changed to a woman, and both their names are now handles. There are no longer 12 colonies on 12 planets because now it's 12 colonies on the planet Cobol. In the original, planet Cobol was the original planet that had the 12 colonies leave from that planet and go one way but the 13th left and went another(Earth) this fits Some of our mysteries in our past but the new production has earth being the planet of origin. From what I heard, the new production has little of the unique language from the original show. The original was more of a family show and this new one is far from it. The cylons are human made in the new one and they even have a #6 lady Cylon that even though is evil , is obviously a take on 7 of 9 from trek.

In the original, the cylons are their own race that evolved due to the help of a fallen angle of sorts. (Count Iblis)

And like I said, in the new one, man made them. The big musical sound that was a big part of Galactica is gone in the new one. It is a remake with none of the original actors reprising their roles. Adama or what ever his full name is now, takes orders from a lady who is thrown in the position of the head of the counsel of the 12. In the original, Adama takes the leader ship role and it is because of his constant stand against the new counsel of the 12 that they survive even longer.

I could name many more things that are different but this post is to long as it is. lol

The petition is now at 16000 and most of them are saying the same thing. We want our show to continue in an updated well written continuation.

Ron has said that we had our chance for a continuation with Galactica 80 but none of us have asked for a poorly written show with out the 2 main lead actors and not many are asking for what Ron is giving us now.

I don't mean to come off angry in any way because it's just my opinion and I can understand that others are excited about the show coming back. If Battlestar Galactica was to me, some vipers, the exterior ship her self (the inside is another thing being changed) The attack, destruction of the 12 colonies and the cylons pursuing the last survivors, I would be very excited about Ron's new production but the show was so much more to me and with 16000 on a petition, I'm obviously not alone.

I look at it this way. If my wife disappeared 20 some years ago and came back , I would expect some change but if it was not even the same woman, should I say well I should be thankful because she is going under the same name and she is about the same age with a very few of the characteristics that my wife had.

I know this example is drastic but it's the only comparison that I can think of right now.

OWD

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by OWD
.....There are many aspects of Battlestar Galactica that I love and it is because that many of those aspects are being changed that I dislike the new production. We fought long and hard for the original and we have been flexible on many points but almost every thing that we have asked for has been ignored.

.....Ron has said that we had our chance for a continuation with Galactica 80 but none of us have asked for a poorly written show with out the 2 main lead actors and not many are asking for what Ron is giving us now.

I don't mean to come off angry in any way because it's just my opinion and I can understand that others are excited about the show coming back.....

.....If my wife disappeared 20 some years ago and came back , I would expect some change but if it was not even the same woman, should I say well I should be thankful because she is going under the same name and she is about the same age with a very few of the characteristics that my wife had.

This answers what I was asking. I have great sympathy with you.

While I agree with Ray that what Ron Moore is suggesting might be an excellent new show, unlike Star Trek, B5, Firefly or anything else we have at present, it clearly is very unlike Battlestar Galactica too! (though Starship Troopers is a better comparison than Blair Witch)

It seems that if you are going to take something and change it THAT much, then you should no longer call it the same thing. Otherwise you are cashing in on the name undeservedly.

 

[OWD]

Thanks Dave for the reply.
Even though the new production isn't my cup of tea, I still hope the show turns out to be what others enjoy.

OWD

 

[Captain Cumquat]

Originally posted by OWD
the new production has earth being the planet of origin.

Incorrect. The 13th tribe left Kobol long ago and traveled to Earth.

From what I heard, the new production has little of the unique language from the original show.

Correct.

The original was more of a family show and this new one is far from it.

Correct. It's loaded with sexual situations.

 

[ray gower]

Thanks to OWD and Capt' Cumquat for being positively critical!

As I recall. The original Battlestar was not divorced from sexual inuendo, all be it frivolous and naive. Every week had Starbuck trying to get off with at least one female. Nor will I claim that more sex is going to make the show any better, it will depend totally on how it is used. I only observe it is thought to be a good way to gain a few younger viewers.

I also agree that a continuation of the original, set some thirty/forty years after Galactica 80, would have been a desirable concept on the face of it.

They may even have got to the point where thinking they have out run their nemesis they are starting to settle on a planet. Only to be discovered again, to restart their flight. It would give scope for something approaching a re-enactment of the original.

As a concept it would probably satisfy the original fans, drag a few of the disappointed Trekies and satisfy Ron Moore's desire to reinvent the wheel. I just wonder if it would draw enough to make it a success?

The film was often considered a cut cost Star Wars the series was often defined as a copycat Star Trek and for more than just being a ship in space (I am not interested in physical budget, just perception).
With audiences for shows like ST withering, Battlestar cannot afford to be thought of as anything but something totally new to have any chance to survive beyond a mini-series.
It looks as though Moore has an extension firmly in mind and whilst ST has had five chances to reinvent itself (which arguably it has never done) BG has less scope, without destroying what went before.

By all means enjoy the old series. I do on the rare occaisions part of it or the film is shown. But keep an open mind for the new one. It might be the disaster the BG fans complain of, but a simple continuation of what went before will be just as big a failure for the producers and in the end it is their pocket that counts. The new BG is trying to be different.

 

[Captain Cumquat]

Ray, I just don't get you. We emailed each other and you said you were a little too harsh on me, and I said forget about it, but suddenly you're all over me again because I'm "critical" of the new BG. First, I wasn't being critical, I was just answering OWD's questions. I barely wrote ten words. But even if I WAS being critical...so what? I can't be critical? Why do we all have to agree with you? I just don't understand. I thought moderators were supposed to censor foul language and stuff, not ideas.

 

[ray gower]

Captain Cumquat,
I was not being critical of you nor am I all over you or your opinion!

What both you and DWO have posted were the first things that have actually explained why you have concerns. Thus being 'positively critical' rather than just critical and is positively welcomed.

The rest of my post presented suggestions, thoughts and questions and the reasons for them. These you are also at liberty to disagree with and state the reasons. This is often called constructive debate!

 

[Captain Cumquat]

Thank God! I misread your words and I'm very glad I did, otherwise nothing would have made any sense anymore. It was the word positively that threw me, as in a person being positively crazy, or positively obsessed, or whatever. Sorry I misunderstood. If you want, you can go back and just totally erase my last post.