Adam Warlock making an ass out of himself

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-13 11:39pm

A Bothan spy just sent me some quoted text from SB.com.

Apparently, Adam Warlock is still trying to prove that from semantic "evidence" (cough cough), the VPK is a true planet-destroyer. He's not alone in that regard, but I just love the way he tries to argue the point. Look for his shameless butchery of the principle of parsimony, not to mention the part where he mentions "bayesian probabilistic rules"; I swear I almost fell off my chair laughing at that part.

Adam Warlock on SB.com wrote:... a butchering of the proper application of the laws of parsimony really.. an iterative process where one takes ALL possible theories along with all the evidences put them through a process of acceptance and rejection... and then reprocess the remaining ones until youre left with a theory or set of the theories that takes "everything" into account..

from ivanovas exchange, there is enough evidence there to state that the vpk did destroy planets by shattering them.. otherwise why would the planet be described as "not there anymore".. and more ever, why was there no mention of debris.. i mean if the planet was merely shattered wouldnt ivanova have mentioned the remains of a planet slowly moving around where the planet used to be..i.e the probe they sent wouldve detected nearby debris, perhaps via their properties i.e. gravity/mass...thus the scene with ivanova/lyta exchange coupled with the fact that a probe was sent to investigate what happened to the planet, conveys the idea that the planet was shattered to an extent that nothing significant(or detectable) remained of it.

taking bayesian probabilistic rules into account.. the mention of survivors and saying that they disprove the vpk shattering planets becomes silly.. i.e. from earlier scenes we know the vpk can shatter planets (to the extent that one quantifies a whole planet to be "not there anymore" after the attack)..so the probability of the vpk shattering a planet is equal to one (a certainity).

if later some evidence come up that states there were survivors from other such attacks, it doesnt mean the vpk incapable of shattering planetary bodies..as the earlier scene proves without a doubt that it can..so another theory must account for the why of the survivors (e.g. that
the vpk itself wasnt invovled attacking the refugee stations).. saying that the vpk cannot routinely shatter planets is adding more assumptions to the
theory of vpk capabilities and as such is overcomplicating the matter, as well as overcomplicating the matter with the how of the survivors ...

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-11-13 11:46pm

Gotta love those Bothan spies...so useful when it comes to tracking down trolls!

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-11-13 11:52pm

I like the way he contradicts himself by saying in one breath that the planet was shattered, and then saying that its GRAVITY wasn't there, anymore, because the probe didn't detect it. Even if the planet was vaporized, its gravity would still be about the same, because not a lot of its mass would be converted into energy (unless you're DarkStar, in which case you believe that a few dozen gigatons can shatter a planet using a reaction in which the mass of a planet is the reactant and "energy" is the product).

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2002-11-14 12:52am

Ironically you know this all stems from the fact that The Fivers on SB are arguing semantics over the VPK. At least one of the SB'ers has criticized Brian's "use" of pixel scaling from the show rather than take the word of the production staff (which he argued was "more canon" than what was onscreen..)

Its more than just attacking Mike's viewpoints on the planetkillers - they're attacking Babtech as well.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2002-11-14 01:01am

HEre's some more Adam Warlock fun:

--------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not what he said, and you know it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

its definetly what he said.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I noticed you were conspicuously quiet over there
when all of that was said. Now you're "laughing"
about it over here, from afar. You must be afraid
of him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

afraid of the guy..him with the incredible analysis skills and reasoning to say that the bonehead manuvuer released only around 2mt... shit man..

before that i have had some okay debates with him over there... i have not been at all hesistant to counter or argue against his points.. but i noticed that you havent been visiting much there (when i and other fivers were around) so you probably didnt notice...though i have noticed you calling him "lord", and falling at his feet..

after his analysis of the bonehead manuveur i just concluded that him and the rest of his fanboy ilk there are no longer worth wasting time on.. hence my departure there.

besides i have been busy with "second" msc to go through, and phd after,..hence why im no longer having prolonged debates with you..

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you just being cute-sy (amphiboly fallacy),
or are you actually suggesting that Shadow missiles
DO accelerate from ~15 km/sec. to thousands/sec.,
DO explode near the core, and DO "break it up" like
a bloomin' egg yolk?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

well the terms "breaking-up" can be applied to liquids as well as solids.
and that what erickson could mean is that the core, due to the disturbances generated by the missles, is becoming more spread over nearby molten layers...like mixing two liquids, previously separated,..
could also mean that molten parts are seeping..flowing through the gaps in the solid parts of partly.. gaps produced by the burrowing missles and their explosions.

about the shadow missles accelerating..
if its indicated on the show that they accelerated that much, through solid, and then molten parts of the planet.. then they did..

you and babtech are just trying to come up with some way to say that they couldnt have..remember this is scifi.. just because it looks totally impossible to be duplicated in the real world.. doesnt mean its impossible there.

saying that the acceleration is supported by erricson reading data directly from screen.. thus the missles did accelerate greatly in that small period of time prior to erickson saying "theyre nearly through the core"... anything else to suggest otherwise is speculation.

-------------

We should note that tehse are not the worst examples of his logic:

- He once argued to me that we could derive "multi gigaton" firepower estimates for Minbari beam weapons because of their glow.

- He once said to me that Minbari neutron beams would induce "spontaenous fission" in Imperial hulls.

<And I'm pretty sure this will get back to him.. I don't really care. Let him whine about me "sniping" behind his back.>

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-14 02:02am

What are Bayesian probabilistic rules? Or are they some pseudoscience/technobabble the guy made up?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-11-14 02:51am

Bayesian-whatever thing aside, does the Ivanova quote say that the VPK destroyed the planet or blew it up bit by bit?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-14 10:37pm

I'm sure Mr. Warlock wouldn't mind including his derivations based on "Bayesian probabilistic rules," as well as the process by which he quantified Ivanova's statements and other dialogue. Oh, and I'd also like to know which institution is responsible for supposedly granting him a doctorate -- yet another fanciful claim he likes to make.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-14 11:03pm

Durandal wrote:I'm sure Mr. Warlock wouldn't mind including his derivations based on "Bayesian probabilistic rules," as well as the process by which he quantified Ivanova's statements and other dialogue. Oh, and I'd also like to know which institution is responsible for supposedly granting him a doctorate -- yet another fanciful claim he likes to make.

Many years ago on Brian Young's now-defunct guestbook, he fraudulently put "P Eng" after his name. Of course, I'm sure he will disavow any knowledge of that now. I wish I'd saved some of those messages, to prove what a weaselly little shit he really is.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2002-11-14 11:20pm

Isn't this just further proof of already what we knew? Some of those rabid Fivers go to any lengths to "win" - even outright lies and misdirection, even to the point of their credentials if it will help their cause.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-11-15 12:06am

A Bothan spy just sent me some quoted text from SB.com.

Did many Bothans die to bring you this information?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-15 12:27am

The Dark wrote:What are Bayesian probabilistic rules? Or are they some pseudoscience/technobabble the guy made up?

No, Bayesian epistemology is real. It has to do with probability and logic. Though in this case I see no reason why it is even relevant. Looks like the guy pulled something out of a statistics class just to make himself sound good.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-11-15 12:29am

I've been going through some of the old B5 threads there lately. My favorite bit was an older one where Adam claimed that the shadows would win because they would just phase controlling pods into the ships. His proof? Shadows can phase, and that controlling pods work. What he refuses to acknowledge is that by his logic, the fact that my computer can burn CDs and that it can play DVDs means I can now burn DVDs. What he says about each quality is true, but that does not mean both are connected and usable. It is as bad as his trying to use the SbS asteroid bit to disprove ICS, when he (at best) ignored the fact that A) the ship had just come from a major battle and was the only survivor, and B) was covered in things that drain shields.

Frankly I love the bit Adarx is shoveling lately even more

1) He bases his 10 TT value for Vorlons off Game Mechanics which he has said are unreliable when I was trying to get values from them
2) The original calcs he bases the 10 TT value off are wrong because the numbers generated conflict with canon. It is established that the GOD cannon is the most powerful weapon of the YR. Yet going by BBs calcs for both, the high end calc for the excalibur is over 13.5 x the calculated strength of the GOD beam. Incidently if you use the smaller value, it works out ok.
3) He is caliming that a single VD would kill an ISD even though his uber 10TT are well below the threshold of an Acclamator.
4) He claims 200 GT is the max for HTLs and ignores everyone who points out differently, repeating it is the stated value in a method similar to DS's wall of ignorance.
5) He brings up BB's value for Shadow guns (ignoreing the flaws pointed out) even though he knows damn well that those calcs by their very definition are wrong. It's a Molecular Slicer, and he knows how it works. It could have the output of my microwave and still do that much damage.
6) Goes off about babtech even though a comment in the last thread indicates he either glossed over it or is going off heresay (Given that the Vorlon section isn't officially up, I'd bet the latter)

He has shown that he knows better then all of this in the past, which leads me to conclude he is being deliberatly deceptive. If he really likes game calcs that much, I'd be happy to show him the power of WEG. You get some really nice values from the Eclipse gun scaled down.

Any incidently, I don't consider this talking behind their backs. You know this thread will be circulated at SB, probably by Shinova, and that they will all see it. So let me give a big howdy to both of the sad sacks right now.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-11-15 12:46am

Ender wrote: Any incidently, I don't consider this talking behind their backs. You know this thread will be circulated at SB, probably by Shinova, and that they will all see it. So let me give a big howdy to both of the sad sacks right now.

Digging up that old topic over there would make me look like an idiot, so I won't do this particular bit of inter-board circulating.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-11-15 01:24am

Part of my problem with accepting VPK planet-shattering claims is that it is inconsistent with the rest of technology shown in the show, including the SPK and other FO technology. Clearly the SPK was VASTLY inferior to a true PKer weapon, and clearly there is absolutely no way that the Shadows could stand up to a VPK that had the abilities that many rabid-Fivers attribute to the VPK.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2002-11-15 01:29am

Its people like Adam Warlock and outofstep that make the REAL fivers look bad. Folks like Phalanx are the real fivers. He has my respect because he actually DEBATES, yet will actually LISTEN. (This is why I get along so well with Connor!

)

johnmarkley · Post by **johnmarkley** » 2002-11-15 01:42am

Ender wrote: 3) He is caliming that a single VD would kill an ISD .

Insert your own joke here.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-15 02:31am

johnmarkley wrote:
Ender wrote: 3) He is caliming that a single VD would kill an ISD .
Insert your own joke here.

You have a low and demented sense of humor...I like that

. I didn't even think about the alternate meaning of that acronym until you posted that.

At least the ISD's aren't shaped like a certain Mon Calamari ship...

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2002-11-15 07:08am

Vertigo1 wrote:Its people like Adam Warlock and outofstep that make the REAL fivers look bad. Folks like Phalanx are the real fivers. He has my respect because he actually DEBATES, yet will actually LISTEN. (This is why I get along so well with Connor! )

Since when are you a Fiver?

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2002-11-15 07:19am

Master of Ossus wrote:Part of my problem with accepting VPK planet-shattering claims is that it is inconsistent with the rest of technology shown in the show, including the SPK and other FO technology. Clearly the SPK was VASTLY inferior to a true PKer weapon, and clearly there is absolutely no way that the Shadows could stand up to a VPK that had the abilities that many rabid-Fivers attribute to the VPK.

Its not so much the fact that First Ones can destoy planets (which at least in secondhand literature can be allowed and does not directly contradict canon) so much as some of the bizarere logical tactics they employ. The worst examples are outright liars and employ any method (fancing-sounding technical terms, etc.)

The worst offenses have to be where they claim the "rapid" SPK production rates on non-quantitiatve evidence and ambiguous evidence (ambiguous because it relies heavily on the knowlege of a person not knowledgeable about Shadowtech or one particularily alert to his surroundings), teh whole "creating matter from pure energy" fallacy, the outright lies created about the Triad, the "holding back" shield they use to validate indefinite upper limits (they don't want any placed on the First Ones).

Recently its been an interesting debate because we have elements in the Fiver camp telling us taht Visuals should not be considerred a completely reliable source of information (basically they're done by artists, plagued with errors, and/or conflicts exist between visuals and dialogue.).

There is of course that "DEbris field not moving at escape velocity or faster" being given as proof of a planets destruction too...

This is why I got tired of dealing with the SB Fivers. Inevitably, few will debate you fairly. The majority get repetitive and irrational when you refuse to take their speculation and unsubstnatiated claims as fact, and then attempt to wear away at you with massed attacks and attrition.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2002-11-15 07:29am

Ender wrote:I've been going through some of the old B5 threads there lately. My favorite bit was an older one where Adam claimed that the shadows would win because they would just phase controlling pods into the ships. His proof? Shadows can phase, and that controlling pods work. What he refuses to acknowledge is that by his logic, the fact that my computer can burn CDs and that it can play DVDs means I can now burn DVDs. What he says about each quality is true, but that does not mean both are connected and usable. It is as bad as his trying to use the SbS asteroid bit to disprove ICS, when he (at best) ignored the fact that A) the ship had just come from a major battle and was the only survivor, and B) was covered in things that drain shields.

Frankly I love the bit Adarx is shoveling lately even more

1) He bases his 10 TT value for Vorlons off Game Mechanics which he has said are unreliable when I was trying to get values from them
2) The original calcs he bases the 10 TT value off are wrong because the numbers generated conflict with canon. It is established that the GOD cannon is the most powerful weapon of the YR. Yet going by BBs calcs for both, the high end calc for the excalibur is over 13.5 x the calculated strength of the GOD beam. Incidently if you use the smaller value, it works out ok.
3) He is caliming that a single VD would kill an ISD even though his uber 10TT are well below the threshold of an Acclamator.
4) He claims 200 GT is the max for HTLs and ignores everyone who points out differently, repeating it is the stated value in a method similar to DS's wall of ignorance.
5) He brings up BB's value for Shadow guns (ignoreing the flaws pointed out) even though he knows damn well that those calcs by their very definition are wrong. It's a Molecular Slicer, and he knows how it works. It could have the output of my microwave and still do that much damage.
6) Goes off about babtech even though a comment in the last thread indicates he either glossed over it or is going off heresay (Given that the Vorlon section isn't officially up, I'd bet the latter)

He has shown that he knows better then all of this in the past, which leads me to conclude he is being deliberatly deceptive. If he really likes game calcs that much, I'd be happy to show him the power of WEG. You get some really nice values from the Eclipse gun scaled down.

Adarx is a moron (and no, I dont really care if he considers it a personal attack. I doubt anyone on SB can actually consider him anything BUT an embarassment to those Fivers who actually make an attempt at objective analysis. Hell, most of the ones I dislike are orders of magnitude better than Adarx.) He's not only lied outright (check any thread involving the First Ones vs the Culture, or the TRiad specifically.)

I daresay my comparing him to Darkstar was perhaps too kind.

Any incidently, I don't consider this talking behind their backs. You know this thread will be circulated at SB, probably by Shinova, and that they will all see it. So let me give a big howdy to both of the sad sacks right now.

Pfft. Like I care. I've debated Warlock enough to know he's an arrogant prick who tries to come off as more of an intellectual than he really is - when in fact he relies on big fancy words and overinflated essays to confuse the opposition and obfuscate the point (if he ever has one - if he ever does, its usually mostly speculative or distorted evidence anyhow.)
I actually hope Warlock hears about this. More ammo is always appreciated.

Adarx is simply proof that Genital warts can in fact gain access ot the internet. Anyone who has the patience to actually debate him must obviously be a saint and should be considered a canidate for sainthood.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2002-11-15 07:32am

Darth Wong wrote:
Durandal wrote:I'm sure Mr. Warlock wouldn't mind including his derivations based on "Bayesian probabilistic rules," as well as the process by which he quantified Ivanova's statements and other dialogue. Oh, and I'd also like to know which institution is responsible for supposedly granting him a doctorate -- yet another fanciful claim he likes to make.
Many years ago on Brian Young's now-defunct guestbook, he fraudulently put "P Eng" after his name. Of course, I'm sure he will disavow any knowledge of that now. I wish I'd saved some of those messages, to prove what a weaselly little shit he really is.

I actually have some of his BS from SB archived, including the "green beam" calcs and a couple others. I could post those for people's amusement while we're heckling him.

BTW has anyone yet put the "bayesian probabilistic rules" bit into a search engine and see what came up? When I did it on google, I came up with alot of shit on Artificial intelligence... I'm frankly at a loss to see what this has to do with blowing up planets

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2002-11-15 11:34am

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Durandal wrote:I'm sure Mr. Warlock wouldn't mind including his derivations based on "Bayesian probabilistic rules," as well as the process by which he quantified Ivanova's statements and other dialogue. Oh, and I'd also like to know which institution is responsible for supposedly granting him a doctorate -- yet another fanciful claim he likes to make.
Many years ago on Brian Young's now-defunct guestbook, he fraudulently put "P Eng" after his name. Of course, I'm sure he will disavow any knowledge of that now. I wish I'd saved some of those messages, to prove what a weaselly little shit he really is.
I actually have some of his BS from SB archived, including the "green beam" calcs and a couple others. I could post those for people's amusement while we're heckling him.

BTW has anyone yet put the "bayesian probabilistic rules" bit into a search engine and see what came up? When I did it on google, I came up with alot of shit on Artificial intelligence... I'm frankly at a loss to see what this has to do with blowing up planets

Bayesan probability rules are a simple set of rules (Duh!) used in Probability and Statistics, that define the probability of an event, given another conditional event, in the same space of results. It's very simple and a great tool. In artificial inteligence it's used, for example, in pattern recognition, for classification purposes.

He took that "bayesian probabilistic rules" out of his ass (where his brain must be!), and stick it in the post to sound good.

Poor Bayes must be going ballistic in his tomb!

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-11-15 11:49am

Connor MacLeod wrote:I actually have some of his BS from SB archived, including the "green beam" calcs and a couple others. I could post those for people's amusement while we're heckling him.

I'd like to see those.

On the VPK issue: I believe the idea is that the VPK was suppossed to blow it to pieces. The problem I have is that one of the points is that While the Vorlons are ahead in most areas, in weapons the Shadows are suppossed to be far stronger. And yet the SPK cannot blow apart a world. Strikes me as a large contradiction.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-11-15 04:35pm

Some additions with regards to Warlock speaking on SB:

I do, and I remember that debate anyways. Your entire argument rests on your assertion that it is like a wormhole, which it cannot be based on the visual contradiction.
i suggest you look at it more carefully.

the calculations i made were ""ENTIRELY"" based on what was observed on the show.. not on what i was trying to assert with regards to the nature of jump points..

nevertheless my liking them to wormholes is for the purposes of a phenomenological comparison for which we can get something quantifiable, and is valid for the fact that both phenomena are space warps that can allow travel from one place in the universe to another, (or from one universe to another)..

anyway.. lv 5 QM and data analysis to coursework to do.

And:

Name some of them for us. As you said, I wasn't there, so I can't verify your claim. Do you think he'd agree
that it was an "okay debate"?

why?.. dont you know how to use the search option there..
you know just type in my user name, and press search..

Name some of them for us. As you said, I wasn't there, so I can't verify your claim. Do you think he'd agree
that it was an "okay debate"?
okay as in civil..
though i conclude that he doesnt know enough about b5 and should just stick to what he knows .i.e. st vs wars..

he should damn do his research first before jumping to conclusions from events he hasnt even closely looked at let alone seen.. (i.e. bonehead manuver in matters of honour, whitestar speed from messages from earth.)

good example being about b5 interstallar communications.. he made comments about them not being good.. not knowing that b5 races employ tachyons and ansibles...as jms states...
..

Riiiiight <winks>. Tough audience, you are...disagree
with you once, and BAM!, you're outta there.

disagreements is okay..but this is moronic on his part.. he doesnt bother looking up the episode and doing research, perhaps on relevant other episodes.. and he already made his conclusion.. so i say fuck it.. if this guy is suppose to be the most intelligent person there.. the place is a waste of space... i did expect better than that from them.

Then again, I've heard the "it's a lost cause" (wall
of ignorance) claim before, usually coming from someone
who'd rather ridicule than talk specifics.
call it what you like..
i just prefer not to waste time anymore.

and as for this piece of tripe

And (here's the fun part) the energy requirement of this process is zero, since the final energy state of the planet is the same as its initial state.
the energy requirement for this process is zero..?
for christs sakes.. even if the energy were to be mysteriously returned backed to the weapon that fired it (fucking absurd).. you would still need that amount of energy to perform the devastation in the first place..even if the planet returned back to its original state..

so yes there is an energy requirement.. and it is not zero.

my hats off to you for showing this..