60 billion trillion Petatons

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2005-06-01 10:04am

To me, this is funny:

wikipedia wrote:The AOTC:ICS and the debate

Technology-related debate took an important turn in 2002 due to the publication of Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross Sections, better known by its acronyms AOTC:ICS or EP2:ICS.

A minority of Pro-Trek debaters doubted the authenticity of AOTC:ICS, claiming that the information in it was invalid because it contradicted other canon sources. These took to questioning or even deriding the author's objectivity, scientific competence (a quality for which he had specifically been hired by Lucasfilm) and even his personal integrity.

After a "digestion period" most technical debates had turned to esoteria of little strategic importance, hopelessly mismatched scenarios (such as TIE Defenders vs Federation Ships), and educating newcomers before they were flamed to a crisp on many of the less moderated boards.

Today however it is clear that a Star Destroyer with 840,000 turbolaser turrets each yielding 60 billion trillion Petatons and cruising speed of over 230 trillion lightyears/second is more than a match for any Star Trek ship.

Link

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2005-06-01 10:06am

LMAO...now that's good comedy.

Reminds reading some whacky over the top comic and having the overlord of whatever screaming how he has the universe destroying cannon, and to throw people a bone the writer comes up with some really outlandsih number.

I guess revprez or whomever is angry at SD.net, Saxton or whatever is going apeshit on Wiki. Good for things that aren't controversial, but anything that sparks debates and someone losing, you get the most bizarre distortions.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2005-06-01 10:33am

Anonimous editor 193.198.140.210 added those, what a shocker.

Glimmervoid · Post by **Glimmervoid** » 2005-06-01 10:40am

Sir Sirius wrote:Anonimous editor 193.198.140.210 added those, what a shocker.

What I don’t get is why some one would vandalise the page to make starwars even stronger. I mean there is no point of a pro-wars person doing it because that page was already saying trek dose not stand a chance. And why would a treky make starwars stronger.

And I am yet to meet a mindless vandalising troll who new what a petaton was.

Lone_Prodigy · Post by **Lone_Prodigy** » 2005-06-01 10:51am

Probably a drunk pro-wars person did it.

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-06-01 10:56am

I don't get why anyone bothers with Wikipedia, really. I notice Iceberg put up something regarding that bit of vandalism there though.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2005-06-01 11:23am

Vympel wrote:I don't get why anyone bothers with Wikipedia, really. I notice Iceberg put up something regarding that bit of vandalism there though.

Because it is such an innocent dream, and for the most part it seems to work fairly well. After all, this piece of vandalism got vaped in hours, didn't it? More or less exactly as promised.

wilfulton · Post by **wilfulton** » 2005-06-02 12:12am

Glimmervoid wrote:
Sir Sirius wrote:Anonimous editor 193.198.140.210 added those, what a shocker.
What I don’t get is why some one would vandalise the page to make starwars even stronger. I mean there is no point of a pro-wars person doing it because that page was already saying trek dose not stand a chance. And why would a treky make starwars stronger.

And I am yet to meet a mindless vandalising troll who new what a petaton was.

Actually this is a tactic sometimes used to break rumors. If someone, say, starts a rumor about you, denial is almost certainly a sign of guilt, in the eyes of the rumormonger. So to defeat the same rumor, you would add something to it to make it seem totally absurd, and thus cause people to call obvious bullshit on it.

It may be a similar deal, not a superwank (with a side order of tendonitis) per se, but rather simply makes it seem incredulous for the sole purpose of discrediting it. Same with the cruising speed sufficient to cross the known universe 10,000 times in one second.