ICS Acknowledgements

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2002-12-10 10:00pm

Holy shit, I must have missed something. A post or an update on the site. However it has come to my attention that in the acknowledgements in the Episode II Incrediable Cross Sections that Mike Wong and Wayne Poe are both mentioned. LoL! That's bad as hell. Congratulations you fucktards, for doing what I know I will never be able to accomplish, contributing 'officially' to the world of Star Wars. LoL!

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-12-10 10:06pm

Ahhh, I see.....

*Turret slowly turns on axis to point at Wong*

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-10 10:33pm

*Much larger, heavier turret is already pointing back*

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-12-10 10:36pm

Darth Wong wrote:*Much larger, heavier turret is already pointing back*

Anyway, because of you and Poe, all the best possible ST vs SW debates are now impossible! WAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!

*Pulls trigger and the universe collapses*

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-10 10:45pm

Shinova wrote:Anyway, because of you and Poe, all the best possible ST vs SW debates are now impossible! WAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!

How so? The figures are well within the range indicated on my website before the book came out, just as they were similar to those predicted by Curtis' website. The fact that a BDZ annihilates all population, arable land, mines, and fisheries is the real problem for Trekkie debaters, not the fact that the ICS described turbolasers having enough power to do the job.

*Pulls trigger and the universe collapses*

Your universe, perhaps. In mine, your puny phasers are dissipated harmlessly by my shields, and the heavy turbolaser return fire dissociates your puny vessel into its component atoms.

*Cue Imperial March*

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2002-12-10 10:52pm

Awesome...I still wonder to just purely casual glance of Star Wars and Trek you pretty much get a good idea who wins.

A casual glance of the Death Star vs DS9...and people wonder...pfft I like the ToS but unless some uber trek being comes in...pure military Trek loses so fast it's barely worth mentioning but I give my respect to Wong, Saxton, Poe and rest for making this much easier to do than the eternal "nu-uh!!!" wars of old.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-10 11:06pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Shinova wrote:Anyway, because of you and Poe, all the best possible ST vs SW debates are now impossible! WAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!
How so? The figures are well within the range indicated on my website before the book came out, just as they were similar to those predicted by Curtis' website. The fact that a BDZ annihilates all population, arable land, mines, and fisheries is the real problem for Trekkie debaters, not the fact that the ICS described turbolasers having enough power to do the job.
*Pulls trigger and the universe collapses*
Your universe, perhaps. In mine, your puny phasers are dissipated harmlessly by my shields, and the heavy turbolaser return fire dissociates your puny vessel into its component atoms.

*Cue Imperial March*

Ok, your explination is fine. But the response "How so?" is not quite. You know perfectly well why ST vs SW debates are now impossible.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-12-10 11:12pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Shinova wrote:Anyway, because of you and Poe, all the best possible ST vs SW debates are now impossible! WAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!
How so? The figures are well within the range indicated on my website before the book came out, just as they were similar to those predicted by Curtis' website. The fact that a BDZ annihilates all population, arable land, mines, and fisheries is the real problem for Trekkie debaters, not the fact that the ICS described turbolasers having enough power to do the job.
*Pulls trigger and the universe collapses*
Your universe, perhaps. In mine, your puny phasers are dissipated harmlessly by my shields, and the heavy turbolaser return fire dissociates your puny vessel into its component atoms.

*Cue Imperial March*

*Switches to Hell March. Invades everyones planets and and fortifies them while the fools are off busy fighting in space*

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2002-12-10 11:15pm

Alyeska wrote:Ok, your explination is fine. But the response "How so?" is not quite. You know perfectly well why ST vs SW debates are now impossible.

They are impossible from a military standpoint. But frankly, they always were. All sensible Trek debaters quickly realized upon reflection that the only way the Federation could survive the Empire would be if the Empire doesn't bother wasting effort on them.

However, it is still possible to have debates on other subjects, such as medical tech or small-scale force substitutions. And there is a seemingly endless supply of Trekkie neophytes who construct Walls of Ignorance(TM) which must be brought down, despite every attempt to prepare them with FAQ's and other such warnings.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2002-12-10 11:26pm

Hey, What about me?

I'm not getting any guns aimed at me

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-10 11:35pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:
Alyeska wrote:Ok, your explination is fine. But the response "How so?" is not quite. You know perfectly well why ST vs SW debates are now impossible.
They are impossible from a military standpoint. But frankly, they always were. All sensible Trek debaters quickly realized upon reflection that the only way the Federation could survive the Empire would be if the Empire doesn't bother wasting effort on them.

However, it is still possible to have debates on other subjects, such as medical tech or small-scale force substitutions. And there is a seemingly endless supply of Trekkie neophytes who construct Walls of Ignorance(TM) which must be brought down, despite every attempt to prepare them with FAQ's and other such warnings.

Well, I already knew the full scale military was out of the question. But I am talking about how ICS made it offical that most tactical engagements are even worthless to debate.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2002-12-10 11:45pm

Alyeska wrote:
AdmiralKanos wrote:
Alyeska wrote:Ok, your explination is fine. But the response "How so?" is not quite. You know perfectly well why ST vs SW debates are now impossible.
They are impossible from a military standpoint. But frankly, they always were. All sensible Trek debaters quickly realized upon reflection that the only way the Federation could survive the Empire would be if the Empire doesn't bother wasting effort on them.

However, it is still possible to have debates on other subjects, such as medical tech or small-scale force substitutions. And there is a seemingly endless supply of Trekkie neophytes who construct Walls of Ignorance(TM) which must be brought down, despite every attempt to prepare them with FAQ's and other such warnings.
Well, I already knew the full scale military was out of the question. But I am talking about how ICS made it offical that most tactical engagements are even worthless to debate.

Don't you mean that now Trekkies can't nitpick every single argument they knew was true in the first place with "Well, that's not official IS it? You have NOTHING in writing stating that!"

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-12-10 11:47pm

What the hell? A Star Wars book actually gives credit to Mike Wong?!?!?!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-12-10 11:50pm

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:What the hell? A Star Wars book actually gives credit to Mike Wong?!?!?!

*thwap* Look in the back of the ICS Curtis credits a bunch of people, Mike and Wayne among them.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-12-10 11:50pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:
Alyeska wrote:Ok, your explination is fine. But the response "How so?" is not quite. You know perfectly well why ST vs SW debates are now impossible.
They are impossible from a military standpoint. But frankly, they always were. All sensible Trek debaters quickly realized upon reflection that the only way the Federation could survive the Empire would be if the Empire doesn't bother wasting effort on them.

However, it is still possible to have debates on other subjects, such as medical tech or small-scale force substitutions. And there is a seemingly endless supply of Trekkie neophytes who construct Walls of Ignorance(TM) which must be brought down, despite every attempt to prepare them with FAQ's and other such warnings.

Think about it.

Who'd WANT to debate about medical tech!?

And why debate small scale when large scale debates are more....GRAND

But there's a very small possibility that Nemesis may insert something new into the whole equation.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-12-10 11:51pm

Stormbringer wrote:
IRG CommandoJoe wrote:What the hell? A Star Wars book actually gives credit to Mike Wong?!?!?!
*thwap* Look in the back of the ICS Curtis credits a bunch of people, Mike and Wayne among them.

I don't have it...

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-10 11:52pm

Lord Poe wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
AdmiralKanos wrote: They are impossible from a military standpoint. But frankly, they always were. All sensible Trek debaters quickly realized upon reflection that the only way the Federation could survive the Empire would be if the Empire doesn't bother wasting effort on them.

However, it is still possible to have debates on other subjects, such as medical tech or small-scale force substitutions. And there is a seemingly endless supply of Trekkie neophytes who construct Walls of Ignorance(TM) which must be brought down, despite every attempt to prepare them with FAQ's and other such warnings.
Well, I already knew the full scale military was out of the question. But I am talking about how ICS made it offical that most tactical engagements are even worthless to debate.
Don't you mean that now Trekkies can't nitpick every single argument they knew was true in the first place with "Well, that's not official IS it? You have NOTHING in writing stating that!"

Oh piss off. Do you really think I believe ICS? I accept it by the debate rules but I sure as hell don't believe it. I get sick and tired of your antics regarding insulting trekkies for any reason and making them out to be liars and evassive debaters. Just fuck off.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2002-12-11 12:09am

[quote="Alyeska]Oh piss off. Do you really think I believe ICS? I accept it by the debate rules but I sure as hell don't believe it. I get sick and tired of your antics regarding insulting trekkies for any reason and making them out to be liars and evassive debaters. Just fuck off.[/quote]

Hey, this is what happens when you have to put up with the bullshit the stalwart VS Trekkies are FAMOUS for. And that is nitpicking every single BDZ entry for instance, because ONE section doesn't say "slag" and have "BDZ" in the same sentence.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-12-11 12:11am

Alyeska wrote:
Lord Poe wrote: Don't you mean that now Trekkies can't nitpick every single argument they knew was true in the first place with "Well, that's not official IS it? You have NOTHING in writing stating that!"
Oh piss off. Do you really think I believe ICS? I accept it by the debate rules but I sure as hell don't believe it. I get sick and tired of your antics regarding insulting trekkies for any reason and making them out to be liars and evassive debaters. Just fuck off.

Alyeska, the vast majority of Star Trek debaters are dishonest and dumb. You are a rare and welcome exception but you have to face the facts, most hardcore trekkies are that way.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-11 12:12am

Lord Poe wrote:[quote="Alyeska]Oh piss off. Do you really think I believe ICS? I accept it by the debate rules but I sure as hell don't believe it. I get sick and tired of your antics regarding insulting trekkies for any reason and making them out to be liars and evassive debaters. Just fuck off.

Hey, this is what happens when you have to put up with the bullshit the stalwart VS Trekkies are FAMOUS for. And that is nitpicking every single BDZ entry for instance, because ONE section doesn't say "slag" and have "BDZ" in the same sentence.[/quote]

Shit, I haven't even debated BDZ before. I have not seen any of the source material for it so I just stayed away from those debates.

Don't lump all trekkies into the same catagory.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-12-11 12:14am

Alyeska, you're judged by the company you keep. You might be the exception but the hard core versus trekkies are that bad.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-11 12:14am

Stormbringer wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Lord Poe wrote: Don't you mean that now Trekkies can't nitpick every single argument they knew was true in the first place with "Well, that's not official IS it? You have NOTHING in writing stating that!"
Oh piss off. Do you really think I believe ICS? I accept it by the debate rules but I sure as hell don't believe it. I get sick and tired of your antics regarding insulting trekkies for any reason and making them out to be liars and evassive debaters. Just fuck off.
Alyeska, the vast majority of Star Trek debaters are dishonest and dumb. You are a rare and welcome exception but you have to face the facts, most hardcore trekkies are that way.

Ok, I see the compliment in that, but I still disagree with the overall assumption. There is a difference between ignorant trekkies who have not seen the whole picture and openly dishonest ones. There is no reason any trek fan would be any more dishonest then any other fan.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-11 12:15am

Stormbringer wrote:Alyeska, you're judged by the company you keep. You might be the exception but the hard core versus trekkies are that bad.

Yes, the hard core. But the term hard core describes itself. A fanatical few.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2002-12-11 12:15am

Alyeska wrote: Shit, I haven't even debated BDZ before. I have not seen any of the source material for it so I just stayed away from those debates.

Don't lump all trekkies into the same catagory.

I didn't Alyeska. That's why I said "VS Trekkies". Something I came up with to quell little nitpicks by Lord Edam.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2002-12-11 12:16am

Alyeska wrote:Ok, I see the compliment in that, but I still disagree with the overall assumption. There is a difference between ignorant trekkies who have not seen the whole picture and openly dishonest ones. There is no reason any trek fan would be any more dishonest then any other fan.

Actually, the side with the weaker position tends to be more dishonest in order to compensate for it (if they were honest, they might realize that having a weak position might mean that, oh, perhaps you're wrong). This is hardly unique to SW vs ST. It is common to virtually all debates on all subjects.