Species 8472 vs The Galactic Empire

Sovereign · Post by **Sovereign** » 2002-12-06 07:32pm

Let me tell you something, The STAR TREK: ENCYCLOPEDIA was written by Michael Okuda and Denise Okuda, They created the Technical information and had Gene Roddenberry give the Ok, same goes with The Galaxy Class TNG: TECHNICAL MANUAL, Written by Rick Sternbach (who also works with Trek ships and technology) and Michael Okuda once again. The truth is, the Only "Canon" Trek Info comes from books written by people who actually work on the show. This meens these books are TRUE CANON MATERIAL...

1. Star Trek Encyclopedia
2. TNG Technical Manual
3. DS9 Technical Manual
4. Star Trek Klingon Dictionary

I know the Klingon dictionary has nothing to do with this, but I thought I would tell you it was part of the only "Canon" Books.

Now then, these books were obviously written by some of Star Trek's creaters, and Star Destroyer.net was written by a Star Wars fan, (understandable), but from what I can tell from your people's definition of Canon info, this web site is considered NON-Canon. Although the big words and smart math calculations look impressive, The Star Wars creators never said so, and you all should realize this.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2002-12-06 07:41pm

No they are not, they may have been years ago, but since then Paramount has ruled them non-canon. Or they were never canon, I don't know, but they are not canon right now.

Secondly, THIS SIGHT USES CANON INFORMATION YOU PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A LIFEFORM! I does not create information and make up events that are then considered canon(thats what new books and movies do) It' analizes canon info.

YOUR SYNAPSES ARE DEFECTIVE! GET THE HELL OFF OUR BOARDS!

Sovereign · Post by **Sovereign** » 2002-12-06 07:57pm

YES THEY ARE, those four books were made after 1987, any book before then were non-canon. With TNG taking a new look at they way Star Trek was made, Gene Roddenberry authorized Canon reference, he even made and introduction to the TNG: Technical Manual! Also those books do look into TRUE EVENTS IN THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE! So if this guy can make SD.NET a "Canon" source by looking at movies and making calculations, then SO CAN THE REAL STAR TREK CREATORS THAT WRITE THE BOOKS THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-06 08:02pm

Sovereign wrote:Let me tell you something, The STAR TREK: ENCYCLOPEDIA was written by Michael Okuda and Denise Okuda, They created the Technical information and had Gene Roddenberry give the Ok, same goes with The Galaxy Class TNG: TECHNICAL MANUAL, Written by Rick Sternbach (who also works with Trek ships and technology) and Michael Okuda once again. The truth is, the Only "Canon" Trek Info comes from books written by people who actually work on the show. This meens these books are TRUE CANON MATERIAL...

1. Star Trek Encyclopedia
2. TNG Technical Manual
3. DS9 Technical Manual
4. Star Trek Klingon Dictionary

I know the Klingon dictionary has nothing to do with this, but I thought I would tell you it was part of the only "Canon" Books.

Now then, these books were obviously written by some of Star Trek's creaters, and Star Destroyer.net was written by a Star Wars fan, (understandable), but from what I can tell from your people's definition of Canon info, this web site is considered NON-Canon. Although the big words and smart math calculations look impressive, The Star Wars creators never said so, and you all should realize this.

You're a fucking moron. How many fucking times do we have to make canon policy clear to you you brain dead dumbfuck- only the shows are canon. This is Paramount's stated policy.

The calculations on SD.net are also canon- because they are derived from the films. Which are absolute SW canon. So... shut the fuck up and get off the board if you're gonna be a dumbass.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-06 08:11pm

Sovereign wrote:YES THEY ARE, those four books were made after 1987, any book before then were non-canon. With TNG taking a new look at they way Star Trek was made, Gene Roddenberry authorized Canon reference, he even made and introduction to the TNG: Technical Manual! Also those books do look into TRUE EVENTS IN THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE! So if this guy can make SD.NET a "Canon" source by looking at movies and making calculations, then SO CAN THE REAL STAR TREK CREATORS THAT WRITE THE BOOKS THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, is that why the writers of the books themselves called them 'speculation' and the TMs have no resemblance to the actual TV show then is it?

Dumbass.

Sovereign · Post by **Sovereign** » 2002-12-06 08:22pm

Well lets look at speculation...

SD.NET looks at a 40 m asteroid and creates calculations for its destruction, but does anyone know for a fact that is was 40 m? No you dont, you only make a guess and speculate.

SD.NET also looks at the destruction of Alderaan, but do you know how big Alderaan really is? No you dont, because it is (in Star Trek terms) an "M" Class Planet, you speculate that it is about the same size as the Planet Earth. But with out exact size, speculation is all you have. So how can you call me a dumbass, dumbass?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-12-06 08:43pm

SD.NET looks at a 40 m asteroid and creates calculations for its destruction, but does anyone know for a fact that is was 40 m? No you dont, you only make a guess and speculate.

Noo you can measure and calcuate, Say Tell me, If I said my mouse was six and a quater inchs long would that be a guess? Maybe, What if I used a Ruler to find it? Would that still be a guess?

SD.NET also looks at the destruction of Alderaan, but do you know how big Alderaan really is? No you dont, because it is (in Star Trek terms) an "M" Class Planet, you speculate that it is about the same size as the Planet Earth. But with out exact size, speculation is all you have.

It must be Earth LIKE to support Humans and the model was based on according to the Production guys in one of the old interviews on Space Photographs of EARTH(I can't remeber if that one made it on behind the magic CD-Rom or not...)

Take Earth, Monkey with the land-topgraphy and VIOLA! You get Alderran meaning its the same size and shape as Earth as it was BASED off the Earth which demintions are KNOW

Oh and Dumbass THATS how you get figures, And BTW you CAN'T get exact Figures for ANYTHING, Heisnburg Uncertanity Principle, However its only going to make .00000000000000000000000000000001 diffrence so mostly we ignore that

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2002-12-06 08:45pm

Sovereign wrote:Well lets look at speculation...

SD.NET looks at a 40 m asteroid and creates calculations for its destruction, but does anyone know for a fact that is was 40 m? No you dont, you only make a guess and speculate.

It's scaled to the ISD, again, calculations are NOT canon informations, the calcs on the asteroid distruction put MTLs at about 3 Gigaton to higher ratings, ICS gave us the offical figure of 200 gigatons on old weaponry.

SD.NET also looks at the destruction of Alderaan, but do you know how big Alderaan really is? No you dont, because it is (in Star Trek terms) an "M" Class Planet, you speculate that it is about the same size as the Planet Earth.
The 1E38 J(I think) is the calcs to distroy a earth sized planet, it's the calc for minimum power of the DS, since it had the power to destroy planets. Again it's not a canon figure, it's a calculation using canon evidence. It's the minimum about of energy needed to distroy a earth-sized planet, now unless you have proof that SW planets are are around half the size on earth, it's accurate enough. But ofcourse you don't.

But with out exact size, speculation is all you have. So how can you call me a dumbass, dumbass?

How can you spell, and yet be sooooooooooo stupid. You've lost, accept it.

Sovereign · Post by **Sovereign** » 2002-12-06 08:45pm

Joule

\Joule\ (j[=oo]l), n. [From the distinguished English physicist, James P. Joule.] (Physics.) A unit of work which is equal to 10^{7} units of work in the C. G. S. system of units (ergs), and is practically equivalent to the energy expended in one second by an electric current of one ampere in a resistance of one ohm. One joule is approximately equal to 0.738 foot pounds.

Watt

\Watt\, n. [From the distinguished mechanician and scientist, James Watt.] (Physics) A unit of power or activity equal to 10^{7} C.G.S. units of power, or to work done at the rate of one joule a second. An English horse power is approximately equal to 746 watts.

VF5SS · Post by **VF5SS** » 2002-12-06 08:47pm

The size of the asteroid was determined using the known sizes of an ISD. You do know that there are methods and programs that can set the scale in a picture right? Dude, this is high school stuff! Do you even know what scale is?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-12-06 08:51pm

Sovereign wrote: Joule
snip
Watt
snip

Joule: IS unit of energy = J
Watt: IS unit of power = J/s

I don't even want to try to understand what you meant with your post. Just don't teach me physics. You'd regret it.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-12-06 08:55pm

It's scaled to the ISD, again, calculations are NOT canon informations, the calcs on the asteroid distruction put MTLs at about 3 Gigaton to higher ratings, ICS gave us the offical figure of 200 gigatons on old weaponry.

Those are Lights or Medium's depending on the Model you use, The Avenger itself indicates those are Mediums, while the Offical ICS lacks any armorment there, However MEDIUMS are labled as being BIGGER than the mediums on the Avenger, so what size they are is unknow though up till now it was assumed they where mediums, so either they where Lights or Medium's at Low Power

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-12-06 09:02pm

Sovereign take my advice and stop posting, and go back to school. You need a better understanding of basic concepts to stop yourself from being this huge of an ass.

Sovereign · Post by **Sovereign** » 2002-12-06 09:20pm

'You're going to find that many of the truths that we cling to depend greatly on our point of view' - Obi-Wan Kenobi

I Agree...

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2002-12-06 09:22pm

Would you like the direct stated power of the DS beam? You won't like it. You'll cry. You'll whine it's not admissable.

Oh, why not.

WEG Death Star Technical Manual.

'Capable of VAPORIZING(Emphasis mine) any planet in the Empire which is unshielded'.

To vaporize an Earth size planet takes 1e42J. I won't make you cry by calcing it for Yavin or Coruscant.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-12-06 09:25pm

Sovereign wrote:
'You're going to find that many of the truths that we cling to depend greatly on our point of view' - Obi-Wan Kenobi
I Agree...

And that makes you a moron. That speech does NOT apply to hard facts and simple science. Calculus is not a point of view. You know it or not.

Sovereign · Post by **Sovereign** » 2002-12-06 09:30pm

WEG Death Star Technical Manual.

So Star Wars Technical Manuals are canon, Star Trek Technicals are not? Sounds hypocritical to me. I know Star Wars books are considered Canon, but when I state facts from Star Wars Technical Manuals I own, you say "Your a dumbass, that is not canon" Why Not?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2002-12-06 09:31pm

Sovereign wrote:
WEG Death Star Technical Manual.
So Star Wars Technical Manuals are canon, Star Trek Technicals are not? Sounds hypocritical to me. I know Star Wars books are considered Canon, but when I state facts from Star Wars Technical Manuals I own, you say "Your a dumbass, that is not canon" Why Not?

Because that's what Paramount said. It's not our fault, we aren't Paramount. You can cry hypocrisy, but it means nothing.

Sovereign · Post by **Sovereign** » 2002-12-06 09:32pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:
Sovereign wrote:
'You're going to find that many of the truths that we cling to depend greatly on our point of view' - Obi-Wan Kenobi
I Agree...
And that makes you a moron. That speech does NOT apply to hard facts and simple science. Calculus is not a point of view. You know it or not.

Truths, Hard Facts,

WHAT THE FUCK EVER!

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2002-12-06 09:33pm

Sovereign wrote:
Colonel Olrik wrote:
Sovereign wrote: I Agree...
And that makes you a moron. That speech does NOT apply to hard facts and simple science. Calculus is not a point of view. You know it or not.
Truths, Hard Facts,

WHAT THE FUCK EVER!

What a mature, logical reply.

Concession accepted.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2002-12-06 09:58pm

Dipshit, LucasFilm(or is it a different corp. of Lucas?) states canon policy for Star Wars. Paramount states canon policy for Star Trek.

LucasFilm says Movies are canon first, then Novelizations, then Radio Dramas, after that most books are consider offical meaning they are canon unless something higher up on the canon ladder contradicts it.

Paramount is lazier, they just say the TV shows and Movies are canon.

Face the facts you inbred preteen.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2002-12-06 09:59pm

Oh and someone please correct me if I mixed something up with the canon policies for Wars.

And Sov, I mean someone that knows what they are talking about.

Darth Balls · Post by **Darth Balls** » 2002-12-06 10:30pm

sovereign, right now it's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about. Please, just go away before we degrade our opinions of your intelligence level from that of a preteen to the equivalent of a retarded chimp.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-12-06 10:44pm

Sovereign wrote:
WEG Death Star Technical Manual.
So Star Wars Technical Manuals are canon, Star Trek Technicals are not? Sounds hypocritical to me. I know Star Wars books are considered Canon, but when I state facts from Star Wars Technical Manuals I own, you say "Your a dumbass, that is not canon" Why Not?

Because Paramount said so you ignorant fuck.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-12-06 10:46pm

Sovrereign wrote:
Crown's sig wrote:'You're going to find that many of the truths that we cling to depend greatly on our point of view' - Obi-Wan Kenobi
I Agree...

You clearly have an ass where your brain should be.

Mike - When can we get some WTF emoticons?