Cowl tries to argue B5 weaponry

[Cowl]

He's commenting on the fact you just spent countless posts ARGUING about something you are now trying to handwave away as being 'lighthearted' rather than 'trying to run away' from the argument. I mean fuck you were even citing evidence - it wasn't GOOD evidence, and it wasn't really even properly backed up evidence, but its still evidence of a sort.

Had this actually been the 'lighthearted' conversation (and I bet if you asked Stofsk and Thanas they wouldn't consider it such -why the fuck should we go by YOUR strict interpretations of things - they wouldn't consider it 'lighthearted.') you would have been more clear about this being your opinion. Moreover you wouldnt' have acted as if you actually WERE debating (which anyone can plainly see you were, no matter what you think you were.)

What you HAVE done is demonstrated you have no interest in arguing a topic honestly, and that your ego matters more to you than consistency, and that its a waste of time taking you seriously or taking anything you say seriously, because you'll just change your story once more. As I said you deserve all the mockery you get, particularily since you've been around here long enough you should be aware of how many people on this board operate (and what the rules actually say.)

Enjoyable, a three paragraph thesis over my use of the word 'lighthearted', and to a lesser extent, my observation that the examples provided were not conclusive on either side, (debarring my use of canonical B5 merchandise, of course).

The stated fact that the show itself does not provide enough information must be most unsettling for such an 'impassioned' (intellectual dishonesty! egomania! countless posts!) debater such as yourself. And the realization of one's surroundings, such as a thread not even dealing with the subject of the B5 universe, must be a most shocking matter indeed.

And while I find your level of presumption to be most entertaining, certainly with regards to your allegations of 'intellectual dishonesty' and 'egomania', they really have no bearing on this discussion.

And to add, 'lighthearted banter' would mean a good-natured exchange, one that doesn't include hysterical allegations, upfront dismissals, and high school invectives.

[Stofsk]

Cowl, I am getting sick of you spouting this nonsense and your refusal to back up your claims or source them. You have refused my previous request of you to provide a source saying what JMS supposedly said or wrote. You're now ignoring the point I made and casually reinterpreting the entire show to fit your preconceptions. It's time to put up or shut up.

-You've claimed that Vorchans would be wiped out in a fight between Omega-class destroyers; prove this claim or shut the fuck up.

-You've claimed that Sentris would be outclassed by Thunderbolts, or that Thunderbolts are so awesome that they can take out centauri capships by themselves, which is moving the goalposts since you ORIGINALLY stated that Star Furies would triumph. You have not addressed the rebuttal I made on two points: that Captain Sheridan expressly pointed out to his pilots during training that centauri pilots are not only able but willing to perform hard-gee manoeuvres during battles to get into a optimal position, and also Star Furies are by no means hardier than any other typical fighter. Prove your claim via reference to the actual show, or something of equal weight, or shut up. Simply going 'but an RPG book!' isn't going to cut it, unless JMS specifically wrote it. This is usually why RPG or gaming material is ignored, because they make changes for gameplay balance NOT for in-universe consistency.

-You've ignored all the various points other people have listed, such as how quickly a single Vorchan succeeded in destroying a G'quan heavy cruiser in seconds after jumping out of hyperspace in 'In The Beginning'. Which is even better than my example of two Vorchans taking out the same class of ship in 'Acts of Sacrifice'.

-You still maintain that the centauri needed the Shadows in order to win their war with the narn, as part of the specific claim that the centauri are not powerful or wouldn't win in a fight against the EA. Thanas rebutted that the real game-changing intel was provided by centauri networks, which shows that even the Shadow's assistance wasn't vital at all.

I could easily argue, based on the episode where Earthforce tries to retake Babylon 5, that the rotating section is one of the sturdiest parts of the Omega Class destroyer. Seeing that it was still rotating, despite the fact that the ship in question was spewing flames from every conceivable part, up until the point where it rammed its opponent.

Another claim you haven't a shred of proof for, and you keep insisting that the rotating section is 'one of the sturdiest parts of the Omega-class'. Here's a line from the XO from that episode, after taking one hit from a Hyperion's beam laser:

'30% damage to rear decks! Major, one more of those and we're going to lose rotation and go zero gravity!'

Also that was an Omega-class destroyer versus a Hyperion cruiser; the Hyperion doesn't have Thunderbolts nor a large hangar bay for embarked fighters, while according to you the Omega's vast fleets of Thunderbolts will allow it to conquer the universe. Funny how Major Ryan didn't tell his Thunderbolts to take out that Hyperion, instead he killed it with his rear heavy guns. Also the Churchill's habitat was still rotating, but so was the ship itself, so that's a bit of a stretch to say 'oh hey it's the sturdiest part of the ship' when the ship was obviously out of control. Because lol, pointing out how sturdy the ship is by referencing one that was heavily damaged and in its death throes is such a winning argument.

A design element which should hint towards the sturdy quality of this alleged 'structural weakpoint'.

This is a load of bullshit that doesn't even address the point I made.

They were incapable of circumventing the Minbari stealth technology, which caused them to eventually lose the war. The war effort itself however led to the accumulation of vast amounts of experience, and raw military data, which eventually resulted in several new ship classes (amongst other things), including the Omega Destroyer. I don't see why you would want to discount such a paradigm shifting event in Earthforce history.
...
And the point was that the military arm of the Earth Alliance has been heavily reformed since their 'encounter' with the Minbari, not to mention battle-hardened. They're trained to fight a war against unbeatable odds. As a result, they would be more then capable of fighting a war against a Dilgar-esque race bereft of any noteworthy stealth-tech or military gumption.
...
Earthforce came out stronger from the Earth-Minbari war. Its military apparatus was redesigned to give them a fighting chance against the Minbari. This would be the reason why a standard EA ship is so heavily armed/armored.

I'm going to repeat the above reply with the same:

Actually I'm going to add this quote from Captain Sheridan from '...And now for a word'

'Well with all due respect to Senator Quantrell, and speaking as someone who did his part in the frontlines I have to say we haven't fully recovered from the Minbari War. And we haven't anywhere near the level of technolgy we would need in the event of another major conflict. And anybody who thinks that we can hold our own against the minbari, the centauri, or god forbid the vorlons, is just plain kidding himself.'

Yeah because Star Furies have NEVER exploded after getting hit once.

Omega Class destroyers make use of Thunderbolts. And even if they were carrying Star Furies, these would still be more effective against larger ships than Sentries.
...
Sentries are mosquitos compared to Minbari fighters. Anti-fighter defenses would make short shrift of them. Thunderbolts are also infinitely more useful than Sentries, as they fully use strafing runs to maximum effect. They're in effect highly maneuverable sentry turrets, having the ability to blast any ship they strafe for the full duration of their run. Sentries on the other hand have only forward pointing guns, with no 360-rotation thrusters, leaving them to strafe with a small window of opportunity to deliver their limited payload.

Sentris were used in 'Acts of Sacrifice' and were seen to be quite manoeuvrable. There is also the previously established line by Sheridan pointing to how centauri pilots are willing to do hard-gees to get into optimal firing solutions through the use of their onboard autopilot system. Something which you have repeatedly failed to address.

And a Vorchan is easily taken out by a couple of Thunderbolts and their anti-ship missiles. Last time I checked, fighters were less expensive than Vorchans. And they're usually brought into a battle, en masse, being standard equipped.

Which episode are you referring to? 'Movements of Fire and Shadow'? That Vorchan was under Drahk remote control; they didn't have a full crew onboard them. In fact, they didn't have any crew onboard - that was the whole point behind the Drahk using automated systems to manipulate everyone into a war with the centauri. LT Corwin also said that its weapon systems were inactive. Also those weren't Thunderbolts you love to wank out to, it wasn't just a 'couple' of them either, it was a squadron of Star Furies. EDIT AND it wasn't 'easy' taking it out too, since it ignored them to do a suicide run on B5's jumpgates, and the squadron destroyed it in the nick of time. You've completely mischaracterised that scene and drawn the wrong conclusions from it. You could just be an idiot, if it weren't for the fact that this was explicitly mentioned in the episode in question. Basically you are wrong on virtually every count and it is straining my patience.

You're on thin ice here; you've failed to address people's points, rebutted with irrelevant or misleading information (such as the above) and failed to properly reference other rebuttals. That's dishonest debating, and it's against the rules. Specifically, you have violated DR 4 and DR 5 - employing broken record tactics by constantly repeating yourself, and failing to back up the claims you have made. As far as I'm concerned you've demonstrated a capacity for being a useless poster who has already come to the attention of mods on previous occasions. Start shaping up.

[Connor MacLeod]

Enjoyable, a three paragraph thesis over my use of the word 'lighthearted', and to a lesser extent, my observation that the examples provided were not conclusive on either side, (debarring my use of canonical B5 merchandise, of course).

The stated fact that the show itself does not provide enough information must be most unsettling for such an 'impassioned' (intellectual dishonesty! egomania! countless posts!) debater such as yourself. And the realization of one's surroundings, such as a thread not even dealing with the subject of the B5 universe, must be a most shocking matter indeed.

And while I find your level of presumption to be most entertaining, certainly with regards to your allegations of 'intellectual dishonesty' and 'egomania', they really have no bearing on this discussion.

And to add, 'lighthearted banter' would mean a good-natured exchange, one that doesn't include hysterical allegations, upfront dismissals, and high school invectives.

Someone is having trouble comprehending just why they were being mocked. Fine, I'll try to simplify it down for you.

See, this board has Certain rules One of those rules goes thus:

Back Up Your Claims. If you make a contentious statement of fact and someone asks for evidence, you must either provide it or withdraw the claim. Do not call it "self evident", restate it in different words, force the other person to prove your claim is not true, or use other weasel techniques to avoid backing up your claims.

I even bolded the highly relevant part. Now, as Stofsk just got done pointing out rather nicely, you've wasted a good many posts arguing this topic seriously with other people, up to and including making specific claims, citing 'evidence' and examples, etc. All in all you've made it quite clear you ARE debating. Maybe you don't think it is but its quite obvious to everyone else that you are.

And yet, when asked to meet that pesky thing called 'burden of proof' you pull a complete 180. Now the serious debate has gotten 'too serious' and you start lecturing people about how we should lighten up. Which is where the mockery begins, because you're weasaling out of backing up your claims. In fact its gotten even more hilarious because of how far you're pushing it simply to avoid that whole 'burden of proof' thing. And to top it off, you're demonstrating that you either are dishonest, or you were foolish enough to post on a board without reading up on those all important board policies I linked to. Maybe there's some other excuse and I expect more blustering, but I can't really see an alternative here.

[Cowl]

Someone is having trouble comprehending just why they were being mocked. Fine, I'll try to simplify it down for you.

I don't think you quite understand the concept of mockery. For your attempt at mockery to be effective, you would first require to possess a manner of conduct that would command a level of respect and/or esteem. Unfortunately, due to your liberal use of hyperbole and calumny I see no reason to accord you with such.

See, this board has Certain rules One of those rules goes thus:

I even bolded the highly relevant part. Now, as Stofsk just got done pointing out rather nicely, you've wasted a good many posts arguing this topic seriously with other people, up to and including making specific claims, citing 'evidence' and examples, etc. All in all you've made it quite clear you ARE debating. Maybe you don't think it is but its quite obvious to everyone else that you are.

A proper debate would adhere to a sense of decorum. Certain rules of conduct that would provide a friendly format and/or a standard of conduct that promotes a civil exchange of ideas. These standards do not include the puerile use of invectives, or the upfront dismissal of RPG books due to misplaced arrogance and/or ignorance.

And yet, when asked to meet that pesky thing called 'burden of proof' you pull a complete 180. Now the serious debate has gotten 'too serious' and you start lecturing people about how we should lighten up. Which is where the mockery begins, because you're weasaling out of backing up your claims. In fact its gotten even more hilarious because of how far you're pushing it simply to avoid that whole 'burden of proof' thing. And to top it off, you're demonstrating that you either are dishonest, or you were foolish enough to post on a board without reading up on those all important board policies I linked to. Maybe there's some other excuse and I expect more blustering, but I can't really see an alternative here.

Your partiality in this matter has since been established, and punctuated by your limited scope of understanding of dialectical exchanges. Therefore I would not expect you to provide a reasonable set of character motivations.

And my disregard in citing a source has been hinged upon the fact that the 'interested parties' have been outright is their dismissal of the RPG books, even rendering them with derision. I don't see the point as such.

Incidentally, the easiest course of action was to wiki the books in question, e.g. Agents of Gaming and A Call To Arms. The latter does not contain a reference to its canonicity, and thus it would be left to JMS to decide whether or not he considers it an adequate portrayal of the Babylon 5 universe.

Also, since I consider this thread to be in bad taste, with the title providing a reasonable indication of the level of bad sportsmanship in this discussion, I will take my leave of it. Therefore pursuant to the rules of this forum, I hereby rescind all of my contributions and/or controversial arguments, including those based on the AoG rule book and the B5 show.

[Thanas]

Someone is having trouble comprehending just why they were being mocked. Fine, I'll try to simplify it down for you.

I don't think you quite understand the concept of mockery. For your attempt at mockery to be effective, you would first require to possess a manner of conduct that would command a level of respect and/or esteem. Unfortunately, due to your liberal use of hyperbole and calumny I see no reason to accord you with such.

This section is in violation of Debating Rule 3:

Miss Manners Does Not Live Here. Do not whine about other people being rude. In particular, do not use someone's rudeness as an excuse to ignore his arguments.

It is also in violation of Posting Rule 5:

Grow a Thick Skin. People are allowed to insult each other and use profanity on these forums. Do not run to a moderator or dismiss someone's argument just because he's insulting or rude. The best way to respond to a rude person is to show him up by producing a better argument than he can.

A proper debate would adhere to a sense of decorum. Certain rules of conduct that would provide a friendly format and/or a standard of conduct that promotes a civil exchange of ideas. These standards do not include the puerile use of invectives, or the upfront dismissal of RPG books due to misplaced arrogance and/or ignorance.

This is also in violation of Debating Rule 3

Do not whine about other people being rude. In particular, do not use someone's rudeness as an excuse to ignore his arguments.

It is also in violation of Posting Rule 5

Grow a Thick Skin. People are allowed to insult each other and use profanity on these forums. Do not run to a moderator or dismiss someone's argument just because he's insulting or rude. The best way to respond to a rude person is to show him up by producing a better argument than he can.

Your partiality in this matter has since been established, and punctuated by your limited scope of understanding of dialectical exchanges. Therefore I would not expect you to provide a reasonable set of character motivations.

Miss Manners Does Not Live Here. Do not whine about other people being rude. In particular, do not use someone's rudeness as an excuse to ignore his arguments.

Grow a Thick Skin. People are allowed to insult each other and use profanity on these forums. Do not run to a moderator or dismiss someone's argument just because he's insulting or rude. The best way to respond to a rude person is to show him up by producing a better argument than he can.

Also, since I consider this thread to be in bad taste, with the title providing a reasonable indication of the level of bad sportsmanship in this discussion, I will take my leave of it. Therefore pursuant to the rules of this forum, I hereby rescind all of my contributions and/or controversial arguments, including those based on the AoG rule book and the B5 show.

WAAAAAAH. Mummy mummy, the grown ups are meeeeeaan to meee. WAAAH.



Seriously, the way you act, you cannot be any older than 14. 15 at the utmost but I know neither I nor my siblings pulled stuff like this at 15.

[Cowl]

I don't think you quite understand the concept of mockery. For your attempt at mockery to be effective, you would first require to possess a manner of conduct that would command a level of respect and/or esteem. Unfortunately, due to your liberal use of hyperbole and calumny I see no reason to accord you with such.

This section is in violation of Debating Rule 3:

Miss Manners Does Not Live Here. Do not whine about other people being rude. In particular, do not use someone's rudeness as an excuse to ignore his arguments.

It states that one should not ignore the arguments of another because of their apparent rudeness, however the 'arguments' in question were not relevant to the subject matter. Instead my argument focused on his understanding of the term 'mockery'.

It is also in violation of Posting Rule 5:

Grow a Thick Skin. People are allowed to insult each other and use profanity on these forums. Do not run to a moderator or dismiss someone's argument just because he's insulting or rude. The best way to respond to a rude person is to show him up by producing a better argument than he can.

I would argue that the cited incidences do not fall under rule 5, seeing that the 'interested parties' in question dismissed the sources before reviewing the material in question. I also had reason to believe that the 'interested parties' in question were acquainted with said material, or should have been familiar with the role that these sources played in the general discussion involving B5.

Also, the contradictory position as taken by these 'interested parties', in addition to the context of the discussion - that of a thread not dealing with the subject matter being discussed - left me with a general disinterest in the discussion at hand. Rule 10 would provide an ample amount of ambiguity in this regard, which should buttress my stance on this matter.

The subsequent new thread could arguably fall under rule 2, given the title of the thread, and the nature of the discussion. For reference:

"In particular, do not start a thread solely to attack or challenge some other member of the forum."

A proper debate would adhere to a sense of decorum. Certain rules of conduct that would provide a friendly format and/or a standard of conduct that promotes a civil exchange of ideas. These standards do not include the puerile use of invectives, or the upfront dismissal of RPG books due to misplaced arrogance and/or ignorance.

This is also in violation of Debating Rule 3

Do not whine about other people being rude. In particular, do not use someone's rudeness as an excuse to ignore his arguments.

I would argue that it's a semantic disagreement between McLeod and myself, incorporating a synoptic philosophical analysis of the nature of dialectics.

It is also in violation of Posting Rule 5

Grow a Thick Skin. People are allowed to insult each other and use profanity on these forums. Do not run to a moderator or dismiss someone's argument just because he's insulting or rude. The best way to respond to a rude person is to show him up by producing a better argument than he can.

McLeod didn't provide any substantive arguments pertaining to the subject material at hand, only opinionated editorials concerning my alleged motives in said discussion. As such, the corollary would be that no arguments were being ignored.

Your partiality in this matter has since been established, and punctuated by your limited scope of understanding of dialectical exchanges. Therefore I would not expect you to provide a reasonable set of character motivations.

Miss Manners Does Not Live Here. Do not whine about other people being rude. In particular, do not use someone's rudeness as an excuse to ignore his arguments.

The comment in question did not focus on indecorous manners, simply the non-contributing elements of McLeods posts. With rudeness allowed, a response to said rudeness, while qualitatively superior, does not automatically classify it as 'whining'.

Also, since I consider this thread to be in bad taste, with the title providing a reasonable indication of the level of bad sportsmanship in this discussion, I will take my leave of it. Therefore pursuant to the rules of this forum, I hereby rescind all of my contributions and/or controversial arguments, including those based on the AoG rule book and the B5 show.

WAAAAAAH. Mummy mummy, the grown ups are meeeeeaan to meee. WAAAH.

It's a matter of taste, and personal standards.

Seriously, the way you act, you cannot be any older than 14. 15 at the utmost but I know neither I nor my siblings pulled stuff like this at 15.

Fascinating, really.

[Stark]

Is the best way to prove you were OF COURSE NOT SRS to become a pompous rules lawyer??? The shift from fattynerd RPG quoting to butthurt defensiveness is great. Does this mean you don't want to talk about B5 anymore? :v

[Cowl]

Reading comprehension 101 - I believe a lot of Australian colleges offer the course for free.

[Themightytom]

Using that scene as some kind of 'calc' is dumb anyway, because it was driven by brinksmanship. B5 didn't believe the Centauri would attack them; the Centauri didn't think B5 would take direct action to protect the Narn. It was a standoff that went hot due to Centauri arrogance.

B5 crew's reaction makes it clear they were well aware that if the Cenauri ship had shot to kill, they'd be dead. It was arguably a miscalculated warning shot that still blew right trough and delivered more damage than anything B5 had. They simply weren't expecting the station to shoot to kill rather than be cowed into standing aside.

How do you 'calc' this complex situation?

What it blew off a docking arm? it was fixed by the next episode. Guess what, the Centauri ship was Cleaned Up by the next episode. B5 was pulling it's punches too you know it was supposedly able to take on a warship and guess what... Sheridan had been training them to take on Centauri fighters. The Centauri relied on brinksmanship... and regularly failed with it.

Narn brinksmanship worked pretty well against the Centauri until the Shadows got involved, so you WOULD want to consider it in calculating a victor. During the first season of Babylon 5 the Centauri bemoaned their decay, while the Narn were in ascendance. They were taking Centauri worlds for crying out loud, the argument that "eh the Centauri could afford to lose them" was NOT born out by Lando's outrage at their loss, and subsequent frustration that the Centauri wasn't going to do anything about it.

The Narn supplied Earth with better weapons during the war, HOWEVER, that doesn't mean Earth didn't already have effective weapons, they DID manage to blast Dukhat's ship. Sheridan stated at the beginning of season 2 that their weapons worked just fine, they just couldn't hit the Mimbari.

The Narn had no problem hitting Centauri ships. if Narn weapons are depicted as at least as effective as the EA tech, then both EA and Narn military tech. Are we going to forget it was Narn heavy Cruiser that took out a Shadow vessel?

Brinksmanship is everything here Stark, welcome to B5verse? If the Narn Regime had attacked the Centauri without the Shadows galvanizing them with victory, they COULD have succeeded, because the Centauri wouldn't necessarily respond effectively. The Narn WERE fighting the Centauri effectively in quadrant 37 with little effective response by the Centauri until the Shadows showed up. Gorash was an important supply post that was lightly defended. The Centauri routinely displayed poor judgement. When they attacked B5 it got them killed, in quadrant 37 it was losing them ships and planets, at Gorash it nearly lost them a supply base.

The Centauri suck at warfare, they were a decadent backstabbing race in decline. That's just as important as how many ships they have, and that was PRETTY explicitly depicted in the first two seasons.



With regards to season 5, where they were holding off the league of nonaligned worlds, weren't they using Drakh/Shadow technology to pilot drone ships? That's STILL getting help, and they LOST the fricking war, despite the nonaligned worlds being at reduced capacity from fighting the shadows, which the Centauri weren't.. AND fighting amongst themselves.

[Stark]

The next episode also stared with a shot of the construction scaffolds erected to replace the arm. Uh oh!

The point is that if they'd fired on the command deck instead of a glancing shot B5 probably would have been totally destroyed before it could have responded. They didn't expect Sheridan's switch from conciliatory to massive counterattack and were unprepared (they may have been unaware of B5s new weapons anyway).

And dude I don't know what you're talking about regarding Narn 'ascendance'. They lost their war in what seemed to be a few weeks against the 'decaying' Centauri. You know if you have one and I have five, I can decay to four and you can ascend to two and you still suck, right? :v

[Themightytom]

The next episode also stared with a shot of the construction scaffolds erected to replace the arm. Uh oh!

The point is that if they'd fired on the command deck instead of a glancing shot B5 probably would have been totally destroyed before it could have responded. They didn't expect Sheridan's switch from conciliatory to massive counterattack and were unprepared (they may have been unaware of B5s new weapons anyway).

And dude I don't know what you're talking about regarding Narn 'ascendance'. They lost their war in what seemed to be a few weeks against the 'decaying' Centauri. You know if you have one and I have five, I can decay to four and you can ascend to two and you still suck, right? :v

If they didn't know about B5s upgrades, that seriously undermines their intelligence, Londo was helping them, and he'd been on the station for months since the upgrades. They shouldn't have gone in there without having an idea of the station's capabilities, I don't even think they did. I acept your proposal of brinksmanship and maintain that the Centauri were just bad at it. otherwise we'd have to assume they INTENTIONALLY shot the docking arm. Based on the number of shots that completely missed, I think they actually hit the station by accident, that STILL reflects poorly on them, they risked alienating a major power they were trying to sign a nonagression pact with, and NEARLY screwed it up. If they'd blown up babylon 5 with the guy who just negotiated a nonagression pact, as you propose, do you really think they wouldn't have been immediately fighting on at least two fronts? Earth and Narn? Possibly even Mimbari, if things went badly for Earth, because now the Mimbari know they have mimbari souls even.

The Narn were still putting up a fight when the home world was being mass drivered, and the Centauri only made it there because they didn't have to guard their base, and again, the Centauri were NOT mobilized until Morden made his deal with Mollari. If the Centauri could have dealt with Quadrant 37 as easily as you think, without the Shadows, why didn't they?

Has it even occurred to you that the Shadows were probably behind the nonagression pact? The Narn DID help Earth before when the Centauri didn't, they WERE prominent enough to be on the advisory council. Hell, weren't the Centauri stupid enough to start annexing neighboring races' territories? The Centauri military in general DIDN'T know about the Shadows, and they pulled that? If the Shadows hadn't been influencing Earth, they might have stepped in, especially following babylon 5, and if they stepped in, others would have. Politics is everything in JMS verse.

[gigabytelord]

Reading comprehension 101 - I believe a lot of Australian colleges offer the course for free.

Resorting to worthless insults and sarcasm on an internet forum that is almost entirely devoted to sci-fi debates?

Useless troll is useless. If you are unable to respond truthfully to the questions which you have been presented with, then perhaps you need to take a lesson in humility.
Stating your opinion and then becoming defensive when others start poking holes in it, and then proceeding to claim that it was just lighthearted banter afterward?

Last I checked this was the internet, and emotion doesn't translate very well through text.

[OmegaChief]

An interesting tidbit on the "Earthforce vs Centauri" topic, while it wasn't the best B5 related thing ever, 'The Lost Tales' did show a hypothetical engagment between the Centauri and the post ISA founding Earth Alliance, which was much better then anythign during the series timeline.

The EA forces got totaled and the Centauri turned Earth into Narn Homeworld 2.0.

[Thanas]

^Besides that, there is also the indicator of Sheridan himself giving his opinion on things. Stofsk already quoted him on that, so I won't repeat it.

[Stark]

I don't think Tom understands what 'brinksmanship' means. We all know why the Centauri didn't shoot to kill (and seriously 'lucky to hit' wtf) - those are almost the same reasons they Centauri expected B5 to back down. None of this affects the fact that saying that ship 'sucked' because of that one example is stupid because there is a lot more going on than just GIGATON VS ARMORZ. It doesn't even matter because he smaller ships are seen kicking so much ass, but I don't really get where it even comes from.

[Thanas]

Yeah. It should be clear to everyone that the Centauri were never really firing on the station because it would make no sense for them to kill their ambassador, the minbari and Vorlon ambassadors and hundreds of their own people. Tbh the Centauri commander was probably up shit's creek - he couldn't destroy the station but the station was shielding the Narn ship. Guess the warning shot was his only option to get the station to back off but instead they answered with full out attack.

[Lord Revan]

to me it seems now that I think about that episode, that the Centauri ship was trying to scare B5 command staff into surrendering the Narn Cruiser, kind of "look what we can do when we don't attack properly, just think what we would do if we did", but Sheridan called their bluff by returing fire instead of backing down, so instead of being able to take out the narns with essentially minor damage to B5 (seeing as Earthgov was on the pay roll of the shadows (though we didn't know that yet)), the centauri ended up with loss of the cruiser and its crew.

[Stark]

The events are largely driven by Sheridan's personality; he was sure they wouldn't fire, but once they put his station in danger he was prepared to totally destroy them. I think that splitting their fire the way they did left them basically defenseless.

[Lord Revan]

The events are largely driven by Sheridan's personality; he was sure they wouldn't fire, but once they put his station in danger he was prepared to totally destroy them. I think that splitting their fire the way they did left them basically defenseless.

yeah the Centauri were in my opinion gambling Sheridan would be like that older mini-pax guy, too concerned at keeping the peace to responce, granted seeing what Sheridan's reputations was before becoming the commander of B5 (and to extent after) they should have known better (maybe not the cruiser captain but at least someone at the Centauri chain of command).

[Stark]

Remember the Cntauri were riding high and flexing their muscles and reliving their glory and shit; the commander of the ship would have been set for maximum arrogance.

[Edi]

Cowl gets a warning for violation of several debating rules and general dishonesty in this thread.

[Themightytom]

I don't think Tom understands what 'brinksmanship' means. We all know why the Centauri didn't shoot to kill (and seriously 'lucky to hit' wtf) - those are almost the same reasons they Centauri expected B5 to back down. None of this affects the fact that saying that ship 'sucked' because of that one example is stupid because there is a lot more going on than just GIGATON VS ARMORZ. It doesn't even matter because he smaller ships are seen kicking so much ass, but I don't really get where it even comes from.

Stark the key to brinksmanship is not falling over the brink, is your ego not letting you acknowledge that the Centauri CLEARLY misinterpreted the brink? They did not read Sheridan well at all, they did not react to B5 changing tactics quickly enough, and were blown up, there's no misunderstanding here.

Yeah. It should be clear to everyone that the Centauri were never really firing on the station because it would make no sense for them to kill their ambassador, the minbari and Vorlon ambassadors and hundreds of their own people. Tbh the Centauri commander was probably up shit's creek - he couldn't destroy the station but the station was shielding the Narn ship. Guess the warning shot was his only option to get the station to back off but instead they answered with full out attack.

It is clear they were pulling their punches, but it is also clear that their warning shot escalated the situation rather than de-escalated. Whether they hit the intended target and misread their opponent, or missed their intended warning, and hit the station, they still efffed it up, which again could have alienated Earth had the Shadows not been pulling strings.

The events are largely driven by Sheridan's personality; he was sure they wouldn't fire, but once they put his station in danger he was prepared to totally destroy them. I think that splitting their fire the way they did left them basically defenseless.

and I'm not arguing anything more than that, there isn't enough of a disparity between the Narns and the Centauri for the Centauri to get away with making errors like that unless the Shadows cover their butts. That would not have been a minor incident with Earthgov, and we haven't even TOUCHED the fact that the rest of the League had representatives on board, can you imagine if they killed a Vorlon?

[Themightytom]

An interesting tidbit on the "Earthforce vs Centauri" topic, while it wasn't the best B5 related thing ever, 'The Lost Tales' did show a hypothetical engagment between the Centauri and the post ISA founding Earth Alliance, which was much better then anythign during the series timeline.

The EA forces got totaled and the Centauri turned Earth into Narn Homeworld 2.0.

Stepping on New York doesn't mean Earth was Narn 2.0, we have no idea what EA's capabilities were, nor where they were deployed. They could have been anywhere from Battle of the Line 2, to Attack of the Drakh 2, with the former being everything they had left, and the latter being, "We thought you were kidding!". I will rewatch that as soon as I can find it since it's off netflix now, because it would be interesting to see how Earth did on it's own, apparently the ISA was taking a nap.

[NecronLord]

I'm honestly bemused by how anyone can think the EA can take the Centauri, even at the end of the series, when Earth has actually advanced relative to the other species via the ISA... well... here's the bits of Emperor Vintari's Future War that Galen shows.




I mean seriously.

That said, I don't think Galen would actually say it was 'destruction on a level never seen before' unless Earth got the shit kicked out of it, possibly even exterminated (the Minbari certainly seemed to think they could exterminate a species from space) completely.

[Connor MacLeod]

The Centauri could have fired with an aim towards disabling B5's defenses without destroying it. The White Stars in Season 4 demonstrate it is quite possible to do this (albeit not without some risk, since starships are not inert objects.) If they were going for disabling fire they would probably be at a disadvantage when Sheridan decides to go all out to destroy them. The Centauri and EA are both playing chicken in this sense, although its more of Sheridan vs Centauri.... EA has to go along with them so as not to appear weak to the Intergalactic Community. But at the same time they don't want to fight or destroy either side because that would mean war. Yet an error happens, and someone does get destroyed. It's kind of tragic in that light.

Anyhow, since B5 really doesn't have magic shields or the super-thick armour and slugging matches of most sci fi, it really doesn't have to 'fight' the same ways (EG the person with the biggest guns or biggest ships or toughest does not always win in B5.) The Shadows best epitomise this, I think. Their ships are certainly not the biggest, they are not dramatically tougher than the YR, and they don't carry as many guns (and probably don't have vastly more firepower either.) But the manner in which they fight makes them essentially unbeatable without having the ability to go toe to toe.

I'm reminded particularily of Severed Dreams - if their defenses are down a direct hit can be a killing one, but the defenses are what make fighting hard. Its a bit like a duel - you avoid or deflect attacks as best as you can, but the first hit that gets through those defenses will do damage. And in some cases, it may be a crippling, or killing hit, which is what makes the Minbari (or the Shadows) particularily fearsome.

It's true of the centauri as well. We've seen the Narns catch them by surprise and destroy Centauri ships, and yet they do not do so effortlessly (The Narn ship takes crippling damage in the process.) Whereas in straight up fights the Centauri generally mop the floor with the Narns (Vorchan vs G'Quan) as well as the League. Hell we've seen the Centauri blow up the NArn, and it took a single Vorchan to do that, which says alot about their abilities. That the Narn and Centauri (or Centauir and EA) may be considered equal is not neccesarily because one side or the other has more powerful ships, or better technology. It may have as much to do with the size fo fleets, the kinds of weapons and ships they use, and the way they fight as much as raw firepower or toughness. Hell, the whole Vorlon/Shadow vs Army of Light conflict should prove that, nevermind what comes before or after.