Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7939
Darth Wong wrote:*Much larger, heavier turret is already pointing back*
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.Shinova wrote:Anyway, because of you and Poe, all the best possible ST vs SW debates are now impossible! WAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!
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.*Pulls trigger and the universe collapses*
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.Darth Wong wrote: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.Shinova wrote:Anyway, because of you and Poe, all the best possible ST vs SW debates are now impossible! WAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!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.*Pulls trigger and the universe collapses*
*Cue Imperial March*
*Switches to Hell March. Invades everyones planets and and fortifies them while the fools are off busy fighting in space*Darth Wong wrote: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.Shinova wrote:Anyway, because of you and Poe, all the best possible ST vs SW debates are now impossible! WAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!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.*Pulls trigger and the universe collapses*
*Cue Imperial March*
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.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.
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.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.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.
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.
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!"Alyeska wrote: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.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.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.
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.
*thwap* Look in the back of the ICS Curtis credits a bunch of people, Mike and Wayne among them.IRG CommandoJoe wrote:What the hell? A Star Wars book actually gives credit to Mike Wong?!?!?!
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.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.
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.
I don't have it...Stormbringer wrote:*thwap* Look in the back of the ICS Curtis credits a bunch of people, Mike and Wayne among them.IRG CommandoJoe wrote:What the hell? A Star Wars book actually gives credit to Mike Wong?!?!?!
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 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!"Alyeska wrote: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.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.
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 wrote: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 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!"
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]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.
Stormbringer wrote: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 wrote: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 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!"
Yes, the hard core. But the term hard core describes itself. A fanatical few.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.
I didn't Alyeska. That's why I said "VS Trekkies". Something I came up with to quell little nitpicks by Lord Edam.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.
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.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.