[004]
ineptizinerating10
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I don\'t want to just add this <new stuff> to the Main Page (if I even could); I want it to be treated correctly, in keeping with the site\'s expectations. There\'s no e-mail or contact form for a \
to:
I don\\\'t want to just add this <new stuff> to the Main Page (if I even could); I want it to be treated correctly, in keeping with the site\\\'s expectations. There\\\'s no e-mail or contact form for a \\\"Main Dude/Team\\\" or single person to ask about this, so I\\\'m appealing to anyone reading this who feels experienced, knowledgeable, and comfortable enough to make informed decisions about how to best handle it ...
In fact, anyone who feels okay about it can probably just go ahead and add this appropriately, if it is appropriate to do so. Or you can reach me at the e-mail I just created for this specific purpose: \\\"ineptizine +BEFORE+ gmail +PERIOD+ com\\\". I\\\'d be happy to chat about it or be redirected to comments here or told about actions taken. I\\\'m certainly not \\\"HANDS OFF\\\" about this, and welcome feedback about the concept or about how to *properly* introduce it to this wiki. I guess I\\\'m feeling not quite but pretty close to \\\"UP FOR GRABS\\\".
I want to introduce the term \\\"Ineptizine\\\" and the related term \\\"Ineptizine Rating\\\". They don\\\'t refer to a new trope; it seems pretty clear to me that they fall under \\\"Plot Hole\\\". So if anywhere, I think they should be mentioned on the \\\"Plot Hole\\\" page. Also, they\\\'re terms that I coined; I want to be up-front about that in case it affects treatment.
By the way, I\\\'m also not using any markup tags or anything, not trying to, anyway. The text I propose for inclusion is between the lines of separated dashes.
- - -
Application of, or exposure to, Ineptizine creates unintentional plot holes. If the plot hole is definitely intentional, or acknowledged with a lampshade or in any other way that shows the writer-or-whoever is defintely aware of it, Ineptizine probably isn\\\'t involved. Internal consistency should be taken into account; *having* weird rules or realities in a work isn\\\'t the result of Ineptizine exposure, but breaking your own rules & realities definitely shows you in(eptizine)haled. Of course, our own reality applies when we\\\'re not told otherwise.
An Ineptizine Rating indicates the severity of the plot hole -- how much Ineptizine was involved, with a low number indicating a minor plot hole and a high number being an egregious error, the proverbial \\\"plot hole you could drive a truck (/747/cruise ship/skyscraper/star ship/macGuffin) through\\\". Typical Ineptizine Ratings range from 1 to 10 (a common scale), but are inherently subjective, and if you want to make a point, call it an IR:15 if you want. But generally, IR:10 should be enough to point out glaring stupidity on someone\\\'s part.
Ineptizine Ratings can be applied to a specific thing, a scene, or an entire work, depending on the speaker\\\'s desires. For instance ...
* Thing: \\\"This show\\\'s Ivex Revisionator gets an IR:3 because it\\\'s made of tissue paper, but it never shows any effects from fire or rough handling, no explanation. Rarely a major plot point, but still.\\\"
* Scene: \\\"When the Highlander is running through the complex, he\\\'s got that sword again, but we saw him leave it behind, stuck in the floor beneath that descending super-diamond-ultra-drill, just two scenes ago! What the heck!?! IR:7 at least!\\\"
* Entire Work: \\\"Yeah, there was that thing where the thing went wonky, but overall, the episode had little Ineptizine, so I\\\'d give the episode an Ineptizine rating of, mmm, 1.\\\"
The terms came about when Carlos Vigil of Milwaukee, WI (just a guy, you know?) misheard a line from one of the *Star Trek* series (*Enterprise* or *Voyager*, he thinks). A character blamed something on anesthesine gas (or referred to it in some way), but Carlos asked his wife, \\\"Did he just say \\\'Ineptizine\\\'???\\\" They ROTFL and started using the term right away, mostly about *Star Trek* shows at first, but very soon for other things. The term has spread among some of their friends as convenient and amusing shorthand.
Carlos\\\' highest Ineptizine Rating goes to the people who made *Star Trek Generations* -- in which the ship\\\'s stardrive section is lost as a result of a warp core breach, and the saucer section crash lands on the surface of Veridian III! \\\"Answer me this: How could *all* of the people associated with this movie -- the writers, directors, the producers, the guy who gets the donuts, and-if-nobody-else and-even-above-all the bloody ACTORS -- have *all* forgotten all the times that warp cores have been ejected on *Star Trek*??? They could not have! The warp core breach wasn\\\'t instantaneous and they had time to discuss and react to it. Yet they don\\\'t eject it to save the ship and people, and in fact, nobody even *mentions* trying to eject it. Systems fail all the time on *Star Trek* (and in real life); they could have saved this scene and movie from a colossal IR:10+ by adding ONE line: \\\"The Warp Core Ejection System\\\'s gone off-line!\\\" In fact, with very slight variation, it\\\'s a line that\\\'s appeared in the shows, I think more than once. With that line, they could have kept the separation and crash and everything without any reason to think of Ineptizine.\\\"
- - -
In fact, anyone who feels okay about it can probably just go ahead and add this appropriately, if it is appropriate to do so. Or you can reach me at the e-mail I just created for this specific purpose: \\\"ineptizine +BEFORE+ gmail +PERIOD+ com\\\". I\\\'d be happy to chat about it or be redirected to comments here or told about actions taken. I\\\'m certainly not \\\"HANDS OFF\\\" about this, and welcome feedback about the concept or about how to *properly* introduce it to this wiki. I guess I\\\'m feeling not quite but pretty close to \\\"UP FOR GRABS\\\".
I want to introduce the term \\\"Ineptizine\\\" and the related term \\\"Ineptizine Rating\\\". They don\\\'t refer to a new trope; it seems pretty clear to me that they fall under \\\"Plot Hole\\\". So if anywhere, I think they should be mentioned on the \\\"Plot Hole\\\" page. Also, they\\\'re terms that I coined; I want to be up-front about that in case it affects treatment.
By the way, I\\\'m also not using any markup tags or anything, not trying to, anyway. The text I propose for inclusion is between the lines of separated dashes.
- - -
Application of, or exposure to, Ineptizine creates unintentional plot holes. If the plot hole is definitely intentional, or acknowledged with a lampshade or in any other way that shows the writer-or-whoever is defintely aware of it, Ineptizine probably isn\\\'t involved. Internal consistency should be taken into account; *having* weird rules or realities in a work isn\\\'t the result of Ineptizine exposure, but breaking your own rules & realities definitely shows you in(eptizine)haled. Of course, our own reality applies when we\\\'re not told otherwise.
An Ineptizine Rating indicates the severity of the plot hole -- how much Ineptizine was involved, with a low number indicating a minor plot hole and a high number being an egregious error, the proverbial \\\"plot hole you could drive a truck (/747/cruise ship/skyscraper/star ship/macGuffin) through\\\". Typical Ineptizine Ratings range from 1 to 10 (a common scale), but are inherently subjective, and if you want to make a point, call it an IR:15 if you want. But generally, IR:10 should be enough to point out glaring stupidity on someone\\\'s part.
Ineptizine Ratings can be applied to a specific thing, a scene, or an entire work, depending on the speaker\\\'s desires. For instance ...
* Thing: \\\"This show\\\'s Ivex Revisionator gets an IR:3 because it\\\'s made of tissue paper, but it never shows any effects from fire or rough handling, no explanation. Rarely a major plot point, but still.\\\"
* Scene: \\\"When the Highlander is running through the complex, he\\\'s got that sword again, but we saw him leave it behind, stuck in the floor beneath that descending super-diamond-ultra-drill, just two scenes ago! What the heck!?! IR:7 at least!\\\"
* Entire Work: \\\"Yeah, there was that thing where the thing went wonky, but overall, the episode had little Ineptizine, so I\\\'d give the episode an Ineptizine rating of, mmm, 1.\\\"
The terms came about when Carlos Vigil of Milwaukee, WI (just a guy, you know?) misheard a line from one of the *Star Trek* series (*Enterprise* or *Voyager*, he thinks). A character blamed something on anesthesine gas (or referred to it in some way), but Carlos asked his wife, \\\"Did he just say \\\'Ineptizine\\\'???\\\" They ROTFL and started using the term right away, mostly about *Star Trek* shows at first, but very soon for other things. The term has spread among some of their friends as convenient and amusing shorthand.
Carlos\\\' highest Ineptizine Rating goes to the people who made *Star Trek Generations* -- in which the ship\\\'s stardrive section is lost as a result of a warp core breach, and the saucer section crash lands on the surface of Veridian III! \\\"Answer me this: How could *all* of the people associated with this movie -- the writers, directors, the producers, the guy who gets the donuts, and-if-nobody-else and-even-above-all the bloody ACTORS -- have *all* forgotten all the times that warp cores have been ejected on *Star Trek*??? They could not have! The warp core breach wasn\\\'t instantaneous and they had time to discuss and react to it. Yet they don\\\'t eject it to save the ship and people, and in fact, nobody even *mentions* trying to eject it. Systems fail all the time on *Star Trek* (and in real life); they could have saved this scene and movie from a colossal IR:10+ by adding ONE line: \\\"The Warp Core Ejection System\\\'s gone off-line!\\\" In fact, with very slight variation, it\\\'s a line that\\\'s appeared in the shows, I think more than once. With that line, they could have kept the separation and crash and everything without any reason to think of Ineptizine.\\\"
- - -
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I don\'t want to just add this <new stuff> to the Main Page (if I even could); I want it to be treated correctly, in keeping with the site\'s expectations. There\'s no e-mail or contact form for a \
to:
I don\\\'t want to just add this <new stuff> to the Main Page (if I even could); I want it to be treated correctly, in keeping with the site\\\'s expectations. There\\\'s no e-mail or contact form for a \\\"Main Dude/Team\\\" or single person to ask about this, so I\\\'m appealing to anyone reading this who feels experienced, knowledgeable, and comfortable enough to make informed decisions about how to best handle it ...
In fact, anyone who feels okay about it can probably just go ahead and add this appropriately, if it is appropriate to do so. Or you can reach me at the e-mail I just created for this specific purpose: \\\"ineptizine +BEFORE+ gmail +PERIOD+ com\\\". I\\\'d be happy to chat about it or be redirected to comments here or told about actions taken. I\\\'m certainly not \\\"HANDS OFF\\\" about this, and welcome feedback about the concept or about how to *properly* introduce it to this wiki. I guess I\\\'m feeling not quite but pretty close to \\\"UP FOR GRABS\\\".
I want to introduce the term \\\"Ineptizine\\\" and the related term \\\"Ineptizine Rating\\\". They don\\\'t refer to a new trope; it seems pretty clear to me that they fall under \\\"Plot Hole\\\". So if anywhere, I think they should be mentioned on the \\\"Plot Hole\\\" page. Also, they\\\'re terms that I coined; I want to be up-front about that in case it affects treatment.
By the way, I\\\'m also not using any markup tags or anything, not trying to, anyway. The text I propose for inclusion is between the lines of separated dashes.
- - -
Application of, or exposure to, Ineptizine creates unintentional plot holes. If the plot hole is definitely intentional, or acknowledged with a lampshade or in any other way that shows the writer-or-whoever is defintely aware of it, Ineptizine probably isn\\\'t involved. Internal consistency should be taken into account; *having* weird rules or realities in a work isn\\\'t the result of Ineptizine exposure, but breaking your own rules & realities definitely shows you in(eptizine)haled. Of course, our own reality applies when we\\\'re not told otherwise.
An Ineptizine Rating indicates the severity of the plot hole -- how much Ineptizine was involved, with a low number indicating a minor plot hole and a high number being an egregious error, the proverbial \\\"plot hole you could drive a truck (/747/cruise ship/skyscraper/star ship/macGuffin) through\\\". Typical Ineptizine Ratings range from 1 to 10 (a common scale), but are inherently subjective, and if you want to make a point, call it an IR:15 if you want. But generally, IR:10 should be enough to point out glaring stupidity on someone\\\'s part.
Ineptizine Ratings can be applied to a specific thing, a scene, or an entire work, depending on the speaker\\\'s desires. For instance ...
* Thing: \\\"This show\\\'s Ivex Revisionator gets an IR:3 because it\\\'s made of tissue paper, but it never shows any effects from fire or rough handling, no explanation. Rarely a major plot point, but still.\\\"
* Scene: \\\"When the Highlander is running through the complex, he\\\'s got that sword again, but we saw him leave it behind, stuck in the floor beneath that descending super-diamond-ultra-drill, just two scenes ago! What the heck!?! IR:7 at least!\\\"
* Entire Work: \\\"Yeah, there was that thing where the thing went wonky, but overall, the episode had little Ineptizine, so I\\\'d give the episode an Ineptizine rating of, mmm, 1.\\\"
The terms came about when Carlos Vigil of Milwaukee, WI (just a guy, you know?) misheard a line from one of the *Star Trek* series (*Enterprise* or *Voyager*, he thinks). A character blamed something on anesthesine gas (or referred to it in some way), but Carlos asked his wife, \\\"Did he just say \\\'Ineptizine\\\'???\\\" They ROTFL and started using the term right away, mostly about *Star Trek* shows at first, but very soon for other things. The term has spread among some of their friends as convenient and amusing shorthand.
Carlos\\\' highest Ineptizine Rating goes to the people who made *Star Trek Generations* -- in which the ship\\\'s stardrive section is lost as a result of a warp core breach, and the saucer section crash lands on the surface of Veridian III! \\\"Answer me this: How could *all* of the people associated with this movie -- the writers, directors, the producers, the guy who gets the donuts, and-if-nobody-else and-even-above-all the bloody ACTORS -- have *all* forgotten all the times that warp cores have been ejected on *Star Trek*??? They could not have! The warp core breach wasn\\\'t instantaneous and they had time to discuss and react to it. Yet they don\\\'t eject it to save the ship and people, and in fact, nobody even *mentions* trying to eject it. Systems fail all the time on *Star Trek* (and in real life); they could have saved this scene and movie from a colossal IR:10+ by adding ONE line: \\\"The Warp Core Ejection System\\\'s gone off-line!\\\" In fact, with very slight variation, it\\\'s a line that\\\'s appeared in the shows, I think more than once. With that line, they could have kept the separation and crash and everything without any reason to think of Ineptizine.\\\"
- - -
In fact, anyone who feels okay about it can probably just go ahead and add this appropriately, if it is appropriate to do so. Or you can reach me at the e-mail I just created for this specific purpose: \\\"ineptizine +BEFORE+ gmail +PERIOD+ com\\\". I\\\'d be happy to chat about it or be redirected to comments here or told about actions taken. I\\\'m certainly not \\\"HANDS OFF\\\" about this, and welcome feedback about the concept or about how to *properly* introduce it to this wiki. I guess I\\\'m feeling not quite but pretty close to \\\"UP FOR GRABS\\\".
I want to introduce the term \\\"Ineptizine\\\" and the related term \\\"Ineptizine Rating\\\". They don\\\'t refer to a new trope; it seems pretty clear to me that they fall under \\\"Plot Hole\\\". So if anywhere, I think they should be mentioned on the \\\"Plot Hole\\\" page. Also, they\\\'re terms that I coined; I want to be up-front about that in case it affects treatment.
By the way, I\\\'m also not using any markup tags or anything, not trying to, anyway. The text I propose for inclusion is between the lines of separated dashes.
- - -
Application of, or exposure to, Ineptizine creates unintentional plot holes. If the plot hole is definitely intentional, or acknowledged with a lampshade or in any other way that shows the writer-or-whoever is defintely aware of it, Ineptizine probably isn\\\'t involved. Internal consistency should be taken into account; *having* weird rules or realities in a work isn\\\'t the result of Ineptizine exposure, but breaking your own rules & realities definitely shows you in(eptizine)haled. Of course, our own reality applies when we\\\'re not told otherwise.
An Ineptizine Rating indicates the severity of the plot hole -- how much Ineptizine was involved, with a low number indicating a minor plot hole and a high number being an egregious error, the proverbial \\\"plot hole you could drive a truck (/747/cruise ship/skyscraper/star ship/macGuffin) through\\\". Typical Ineptizine Ratings range from 1 to 10 (a common scale), but are inherently subjective, and if you want to make a point, call it an IR:15 if you want. But generally, IR:10 should be enough to point out glaring stupidity on someone\\\'s part.
Ineptizine Ratings can be applied to a specific thing, a scene, or an entire work, depending on the speaker\\\'s desires. For instance ...
* Thing: \\\"This show\\\'s Ivex Revisionator gets an IR:3 because it\\\'s made of tissue paper, but it never shows any effects from fire or rough handling, no explanation. Rarely a major plot point, but still.\\\"
* Scene: \\\"When the Highlander is running through the complex, he\\\'s got that sword again, but we saw him leave it behind, stuck in the floor beneath that descending super-diamond-ultra-drill, just two scenes ago! What the heck!?! IR:7 at least!\\\"
* Entire Work: \\\"Yeah, there was that thing where the thing went wonky, but overall, the episode had little Ineptizine, so I\\\'d give the episode an Ineptizine rating of, mmm, 1.\\\"
The terms came about when Carlos Vigil of Milwaukee, WI (just a guy, you know?) misheard a line from one of the *Star Trek* series (*Enterprise* or *Voyager*, he thinks). A character blamed something on anesthesine gas (or referred to it in some way), but Carlos asked his wife, \\\"Did he just say \\\'Ineptizine\\\'???\\\" They ROTFL and started using the term right away, mostly about *Star Trek* shows at first, but very soon for other things. The term has spread among some of their friends as convenient and amusing shorthand.
Carlos\\\' highest Ineptizine Rating goes to the people who made *Star Trek Generations* -- in which the ship\\\'s stardrive section is lost as a result of a warp core breach, and the saucer section crash lands on the surface of Veridian III! \\\"Answer me this: How could *all* of the people associated with this movie -- the writers, directors, the producers, the guy who gets the donuts, and-if-nobody-else and-even-above-all the bloody ACTORS -- have *all* forgotten all the times that warp cores have been ejected on *Star Trek*??? They could not have! The warp core breach wasn\\\'t instantaneous and they had time to discuss and react to it. Yet they don\\\'t eject it to save the ship and people, and in fact, nobody even *mentions* trying to eject it. Systems fail all the time on *Star Trek* (and in real life); they could have saved this scene and movie from a colossal IR:10+ by adding ONE line: \\\"The Warp Core Ejection System\\\'s gone off-line!\\\" In fact, with very slight variation, it\\\'s a line that\\\'s appeared in the shows, I think more than once. With that line, they could have kept the separation and crash and everything without any reason to think of Ineptizine.\\\"
- - -
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I don\'t want to just add this <new stuff> to the Main Page (if I even could); I want it to be treated correctly, in keeping with the site\'s expectations. There\'s no e-mail or contact form for the \
to:
I don\\\'t want to just add this <new stuff> to the Main Page (if I even could); I want it to be treated correctly, in keeping with the site\\\'s expectations. There\\\'s no e-mail or contact form for a \\\"Main Dude/Team\\\" or single person to ask about this, so I\\\'m appealing to anyone reading this who feels experienced, knowledgeable, and comfortable enough to make informed decisions about how to best handle it ...
In fact, anyone who feels okay about it can probably just go ahead and add this appropriately, if it is appropriate to do so. Or you can reach me at the e-mail I just created for this specific purpose: \\\"ineptizine +BEFORE+ gmail +PERIOD+ com\\\". I\\\'d be happy to chat about it or be redirected to comments here or told about actions taken. I\\\'m certainly not \\\"HANDS OFF\\\" about this, and welcome feedback about the concept or about how to *properly* introduce it to this wiki. I guess I\\\'m feeling not quite but pretty close to \\\"UP FOR GRABS\\\".
I want to introduce the term \\\"Ineptizine\\\" and the related term \\\"Ineptizine Rating\\\". They don\\\'t refer to a new trope; it seems pretty clear to me that they fall under \\\"Plot Hole\\\". So if anywhere, I think they should be mentioned on the \\\"Plot Hole\\\" page. Also, they\\\'re terms that I coined; I want to be up-front about that in case it affects treatment.
By the way, I\\\'m also not using any markup tags or anything, not trying to, anyway.
---
Application of, or exposure to, Ineptizine creates unintentional plot holes. If the plot hole is definitely intentional, or acknowledged with a lampshade or in any other way that shows the writer-or-whoever is defintely aware of it, Ineptizine probably isn\\\'t involved. Internal consistency should be taken into account; *having* weird rules or realities in a work isn\\\'t the result of Ineptizine exposure, but breaking your own rules & realities definitely shows you in(eptizine)haled. Of course, our own reality applies when we\\\'re not told otherwise.
An Ineptizine Rating indicates the severity of the plot hole -- how much Ineptizine was involved, with a low number indicating a minor plot hole and a high number being an egregious error, the proverbial \\\"plot hole you could drive a truck (/747/cruise ship/skyscraper/star ship/macGuffin) through\\\". Typical Ineptizine Ratings range from 1 to 10 (a common scale), but are inherently subjective, and if you want to make a point, call it an IR:15 if you want. But generally, IR:10 should be enough to point out glaring stupidity on someone\\\'s part.
Ineptizine Ratings can be applied to a specific thing, a scene, or an entire work, depending on the speaker\\\'s desires. For instance ...
* Thing: \\\"This show\\\'s Ivex Revisionator gets an IR:3 because it\\\'s made of tissue paper, but it never shows any effects from fire or rough handling, no explanation. Rarely a major plot point, but still.\\\"
* Scene: \\\"When the Highlander is running through the complex, he\\\'s got that sword again, but we saw him leave it behind, stuck in the floor beneath that descending super-diamond-ultra-drill, just two scenes ago! What the heck!?! IR:7 at least!\\\"
* Entire Work: \\\"Yeah, there was that thing where the thing went wonky, but overall, the episode had little Ineptizine, so I\\\'d give the episode an Ineptizine rating of, mmm, 1.\\\"
The terms came about when Carlos Vigil of Milwaukee, WI (just a guy, you know?) misheard a line from one of the *Star Trek* series (*Enterprise* or *Voyager*, he thinks). A character blamed something on anesthesine gas (or referred to it in some way), but Carlos asked his wife, \\\"Did he just say \\\'Ineptizine\\\'???\\\" They ROTFL and started using the term right away, mostly about *Star Trek* shows at first, but very soon for other things. The term has spread among some of their friends as convenient and amusing shorthand.
Carlos\\\' highest Ineptizine Rating goes to the people who made *Star Trek Generations* -- in which the ship\\\'s stardrive section is lost as a result of a warp core breach, and the saucer section crash lands on the surface of Veridian III! \\\"Answer me this: How could *all* of the people associated with this movie -- the writers, directors, the producers, the guy who gets the donuts, and-if-nobody-else and-even-above-all the bloody ACTORS -- have *all* forgotten all the times that warp cores have been ejected on *Star Trek*??? They could not have! The warp core breach wasn\\\'t instantaneous and they had time to discuss and react to it. Yet they don\\\'t eject it to save the ship and people, and in fact, nobody even *mentions* trying to eject it. Systems fail all the time on *Star Trek* (and in real life); they could have saved this scene and movie from a colossal IR:10+ by adding ONE line: \\\"The Warp Core Ejection System\\\'s gone off-line!\\\" In fact, with very slight variation, it\\\'s a line that\\\'s appeared in the shows, I think more than once. With that line, they could have kept the separation and crash and everything without any reason to think of Ineptizine.\\\"
---
In fact, anyone who feels okay about it can probably just go ahead and add this appropriately, if it is appropriate to do so. Or you can reach me at the e-mail I just created for this specific purpose: \\\"ineptizine +BEFORE+ gmail +PERIOD+ com\\\". I\\\'d be happy to chat about it or be redirected to comments here or told about actions taken. I\\\'m certainly not \\\"HANDS OFF\\\" about this, and welcome feedback about the concept or about how to *properly* introduce it to this wiki. I guess I\\\'m feeling not quite but pretty close to \\\"UP FOR GRABS\\\".
I want to introduce the term \\\"Ineptizine\\\" and the related term \\\"Ineptizine Rating\\\". They don\\\'t refer to a new trope; it seems pretty clear to me that they fall under \\\"Plot Hole\\\". So if anywhere, I think they should be mentioned on the \\\"Plot Hole\\\" page. Also, they\\\'re terms that I coined; I want to be up-front about that in case it affects treatment.
By the way, I\\\'m also not using any markup tags or anything, not trying to, anyway.
---
Application of, or exposure to, Ineptizine creates unintentional plot holes. If the plot hole is definitely intentional, or acknowledged with a lampshade or in any other way that shows the writer-or-whoever is defintely aware of it, Ineptizine probably isn\\\'t involved. Internal consistency should be taken into account; *having* weird rules or realities in a work isn\\\'t the result of Ineptizine exposure, but breaking your own rules & realities definitely shows you in(eptizine)haled. Of course, our own reality applies when we\\\'re not told otherwise.
An Ineptizine Rating indicates the severity of the plot hole -- how much Ineptizine was involved, with a low number indicating a minor plot hole and a high number being an egregious error, the proverbial \\\"plot hole you could drive a truck (/747/cruise ship/skyscraper/star ship/macGuffin) through\\\". Typical Ineptizine Ratings range from 1 to 10 (a common scale), but are inherently subjective, and if you want to make a point, call it an IR:15 if you want. But generally, IR:10 should be enough to point out glaring stupidity on someone\\\'s part.
Ineptizine Ratings can be applied to a specific thing, a scene, or an entire work, depending on the speaker\\\'s desires. For instance ...
* Thing: \\\"This show\\\'s Ivex Revisionator gets an IR:3 because it\\\'s made of tissue paper, but it never shows any effects from fire or rough handling, no explanation. Rarely a major plot point, but still.\\\"
* Scene: \\\"When the Highlander is running through the complex, he\\\'s got that sword again, but we saw him leave it behind, stuck in the floor beneath that descending super-diamond-ultra-drill, just two scenes ago! What the heck!?! IR:7 at least!\\\"
* Entire Work: \\\"Yeah, there was that thing where the thing went wonky, but overall, the episode had little Ineptizine, so I\\\'d give the episode an Ineptizine rating of, mmm, 1.\\\"
The terms came about when Carlos Vigil of Milwaukee, WI (just a guy, you know?) misheard a line from one of the *Star Trek* series (*Enterprise* or *Voyager*, he thinks). A character blamed something on anesthesine gas (or referred to it in some way), but Carlos asked his wife, \\\"Did he just say \\\'Ineptizine\\\'???\\\" They ROTFL and started using the term right away, mostly about *Star Trek* shows at first, but very soon for other things. The term has spread among some of their friends as convenient and amusing shorthand.
Carlos\\\' highest Ineptizine Rating goes to the people who made *Star Trek Generations* -- in which the ship\\\'s stardrive section is lost as a result of a warp core breach, and the saucer section crash lands on the surface of Veridian III! \\\"Answer me this: How could *all* of the people associated with this movie -- the writers, directors, the producers, the guy who gets the donuts, and-if-nobody-else and-even-above-all the bloody ACTORS -- have *all* forgotten all the times that warp cores have been ejected on *Star Trek*??? They could not have! The warp core breach wasn\\\'t instantaneous and they had time to discuss and react to it. Yet they don\\\'t eject it to save the ship and people, and in fact, nobody even *mentions* trying to eject it. Systems fail all the time on *Star Trek* (and in real life); they could have saved this scene and movie from a colossal IR:10+ by adding ONE line: \\\"The Warp Core Ejection System\\\'s gone off-line!\\\" In fact, with very slight variation, it\\\'s a line that\\\'s appeared in the shows, I think more than once. With that line, they could have kept the separation and crash and everything without any reason to think of Ineptizine.\\\"
---
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I don\'t want to just add this <new stuff> to the Main Page (if I even could); I want it to be treated correctly, in keeping with the site\'s expectations. There\'s no e-mail or contact form for the \
to:
I don\\\'t want to just add this <new stuff> to the Main Page (if I even could); I want it to be treated correctly, in keeping with the site\\\'s expectations. There\\\'s no e-mail or contact form for the \\\"Main Dude\\\" or single person to ask about this, so I\\\'m appealing to anyone reading this who feels experienced, knowledgeable, and comfortable enough to make informed decisions about how to best handle it ...
In fact, anyone who feels okay about it can probably just go ahead and add this appropriately, if it is appropriate to do so. Or you can reach me at the e-mail I just created for this specific purpose: \\\"ineptizine +BEFORE+ gmail +PERIOD+ com\\\". I\\\'d be happy to chat about it or be redirected to comments here or told about actions taken. I\\\'m certainly not \\\"HANDS OFF\\\" about this, and welcome feedback about the concept or about how to *properly* introduce it to this wiki. I guess I\\\'m feeling not quite but pretty close to \\\"UP FOR GRABS\\\".
I want to introduce the term \\\"Ineptizine\\\" and the related term \\\"Ineptizine Rating\\\". They don\\\'t refer to a new trope; it seems pretty clear to me that they fall under \\\"Plot Hole\\\". So if anywhere, I think they should be mentioned on the \\\"Plot Hole\\\" page. Also, they\\\'re terms that I coined; I want to be up-front about that in case it affects treatment.
~ ~ ~
Application of, or exposure to, Ineptizine creates unintentional plot holes. If the plot hole is definitely intentional, or acknowledged with a lampshade or in any other way that shows the writer-or-whoever is defintely aware of it, Ineptizine probably isn\\\'t involved. Internal consistency should be taken into account; *having* weird rules or realities in a work isn\\\'t the result of Ineptizine exposure, but breaking your own rules & realities definitely shows you in(eptizine)haled. Of course, our own reality applies when we\\\'re not told otherwise.
An Ineptizine Rating indicates the severity of the plot hole -- how much Ineptizine was involved, with a low number indicating a minor plot hole and a high number being an egregious error, the proverbial \\\"plot hole you could drive a truck (/747/cruise ship/skyscraper/star ship/macGuffin) through\\\". Typical Ineptizine Ratings range from 1 to 10 (a common scale), but are inherently subjective, and if you want to make a point, call it an IR:15 if you want. But generally, IR:10 should be enough to point out glaring stupidity on someone\\\'s part.
Ineptizine Ratings can be applied to a specific thing, a scene, or an entire work, depending on the speaker\\\'s desires. For instance ...
* Thing: \\\"This show\\\'s Ivex Revisionator gets an IR:3 because it\\\'s made of tissue paper, but it never shows any effects from fire or rough handling, no explanation. Rarely a major plot point, but still.\\\"
* Scene: \\\"When the Highlander is running through the complex, he\\\'s got that sword again, but we saw him leave it behind, stuck in the floor beneath that descending super-diamond-ultra-drill, just two scenes ago! What the heck!?! IR:7 at least!\\\"
* Entire Work: \\\"Yeah, there was that thing where the thing went wonky, but overall, the episode had little Ineptizine, so I\\\'d give the episode an Ineptizine rating of, mmm, 1.\\\"
The terms came about when Carlos Vigil of Milwaukee, WI (just a guy, you know?) misheard a line from one of the *Star Trek* series (*Enterprise* or *Voyager*, he thinks). A character blamed something on anesthesine gas (or referred to it in some way), but Carlos asked his wife, \\\"Did he just say \\\'Ineptizine\\\'???\\\" They ROTFL and started using the term right away, mostly about *Star Trek* shows at first, but very soon for other things. The term has spread among some of their friends as convenient and amusing shorthand.
Carlos\\\' highest Ineptizine Rating goes to the people who made *Star Trek Generations* -- in which the ship\\\'s stardrive section is lost as a result of a warp core breach, and the saucer section crash lands on the surface of Veridian III! \\\"Answer me this: How could *all* of the people associated with this movie -- the writers, directors, the producers, the guy who gets the donuts, and-if-nobody-else and-even-above-all the bloody ACTORS -- have *all* forgotten all the times that warp cores have been ejected on *Star Trek*??? They could not have! The warp core breach wasn\\\'t instantaneous and they had time to discuss and react to it. Yet they don\\\'t eject it to save the ship and people, and in fact, nobody even *mentions* trying to eject it. Systems fail all the time on *Star Trek* (and in real life); they could have saved this scene and movie from a colossal IR:10+ by adding ONE line: \\\"The Warp Core Ejection System\\\'s gone off-line!\\\" In fact, with very slight variation, it\\\'s a line that\\\'s appeared in the shows, I think more than once. With that line, they could have kept the separation and crash and everything without any reason to think of Ineptizine.\\\"
~ ~ ~
In fact, anyone who feels okay about it can probably just go ahead and add this appropriately, if it is appropriate to do so. Or you can reach me at the e-mail I just created for this specific purpose: \\\"ineptizine +BEFORE+ gmail +PERIOD+ com\\\". I\\\'d be happy to chat about it or be redirected to comments here or told about actions taken. I\\\'m certainly not \\\"HANDS OFF\\\" about this, and welcome feedback about the concept or about how to *properly* introduce it to this wiki. I guess I\\\'m feeling not quite but pretty close to \\\"UP FOR GRABS\\\".
I want to introduce the term \\\"Ineptizine\\\" and the related term \\\"Ineptizine Rating\\\". They don\\\'t refer to a new trope; it seems pretty clear to me that they fall under \\\"Plot Hole\\\". So if anywhere, I think they should be mentioned on the \\\"Plot Hole\\\" page. Also, they\\\'re terms that I coined; I want to be up-front about that in case it affects treatment.
~ ~ ~
Application of, or exposure to, Ineptizine creates unintentional plot holes. If the plot hole is definitely intentional, or acknowledged with a lampshade or in any other way that shows the writer-or-whoever is defintely aware of it, Ineptizine probably isn\\\'t involved. Internal consistency should be taken into account; *having* weird rules or realities in a work isn\\\'t the result of Ineptizine exposure, but breaking your own rules & realities definitely shows you in(eptizine)haled. Of course, our own reality applies when we\\\'re not told otherwise.
An Ineptizine Rating indicates the severity of the plot hole -- how much Ineptizine was involved, with a low number indicating a minor plot hole and a high number being an egregious error, the proverbial \\\"plot hole you could drive a truck (/747/cruise ship/skyscraper/star ship/macGuffin) through\\\". Typical Ineptizine Ratings range from 1 to 10 (a common scale), but are inherently subjective, and if you want to make a point, call it an IR:15 if you want. But generally, IR:10 should be enough to point out glaring stupidity on someone\\\'s part.
Ineptizine Ratings can be applied to a specific thing, a scene, or an entire work, depending on the speaker\\\'s desires. For instance ...
* Thing: \\\"This show\\\'s Ivex Revisionator gets an IR:3 because it\\\'s made of tissue paper, but it never shows any effects from fire or rough handling, no explanation. Rarely a major plot point, but still.\\\"
* Scene: \\\"When the Highlander is running through the complex, he\\\'s got that sword again, but we saw him leave it behind, stuck in the floor beneath that descending super-diamond-ultra-drill, just two scenes ago! What the heck!?! IR:7 at least!\\\"
* Entire Work: \\\"Yeah, there was that thing where the thing went wonky, but overall, the episode had little Ineptizine, so I\\\'d give the episode an Ineptizine rating of, mmm, 1.\\\"
The terms came about when Carlos Vigil of Milwaukee, WI (just a guy, you know?) misheard a line from one of the *Star Trek* series (*Enterprise* or *Voyager*, he thinks). A character blamed something on anesthesine gas (or referred to it in some way), but Carlos asked his wife, \\\"Did he just say \\\'Ineptizine\\\'???\\\" They ROTFL and started using the term right away, mostly about *Star Trek* shows at first, but very soon for other things. The term has spread among some of their friends as convenient and amusing shorthand.
Carlos\\\' highest Ineptizine Rating goes to the people who made *Star Trek Generations* -- in which the ship\\\'s stardrive section is lost as a result of a warp core breach, and the saucer section crash lands on the surface of Veridian III! \\\"Answer me this: How could *all* of the people associated with this movie -- the writers, directors, the producers, the guy who gets the donuts, and-if-nobody-else and-even-above-all the bloody ACTORS -- have *all* forgotten all the times that warp cores have been ejected on *Star Trek*??? They could not have! The warp core breach wasn\\\'t instantaneous and they had time to discuss and react to it. Yet they don\\\'t eject it to save the ship and people, and in fact, nobody even *mentions* trying to eject it. Systems fail all the time on *Star Trek* (and in real life); they could have saved this scene and movie from a colossal IR:10+ by adding ONE line: \\\"The Warp Core Ejection System\\\'s gone off-line!\\\" In fact, with very slight variation, it\\\'s a line that\\\'s appeared in the shows, I think more than once. With that line, they could have kept the separation and crash and everything without any reason to think of Ineptizine.\\\"
~ ~ ~
