Hey Sovereign, you lying sack of shit ...

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2002-12-26 11:28am

One functioning brain cell to make himself amusing.

Seriously the little whiny dick went on and on about how the Borg would truimph because well they're the Borg, then 8472 which beat the Borg down and are obviously superior just because and now this.

I mean I have met morons at comic cons who stand by the whole Laser are ineffective thought that are cowed by logic faster than this Trektard.

Dark Primus · Post by **Dark Primus** » 2002-12-26 11:57am

LOL.

Now if the mountain was 6 km tall, what kind of firepower would it require to level it to the ground?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2002-12-26 10:01pm

That "mountain" can't be more than a few tens of metres high if the spacing between the beams is anything to judge by.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2002-12-26 11:44pm

I like how he seems strangely silent.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2002-12-26 11:53pm

Connor MacLeod wrote:I like how he seems strangely silent.

I don't, I want him to act like a man and come in here and conceed. People like him give Pro-ST people a bad name.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2002-12-26 11:56pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Connor MacLeod wrote:I like how he seems strangely silent.
I don't, I want him to act like a man and come in here and conceed. People like him give Pro-ST people a bad name.

I thought Darkstar did that.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-12-26 11:59pm

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Connor MacLeod wrote:I like how he seems strangely silent.
I don't, I want him to act like a man and come in here and conceed. People like him give Pro-ST people a bad name.
I thought Darkstar did that.

No, Darkstar gives humans a bad name.

ViciousMink · Post by **ViciousMink** » 2002-12-27 12:14am

At the risk of opening myself up to a flame, please correct me if I'm wrong, but if that is an airless moon, then it's possible it only LOOKS small. many of the features on the lunar surface appeared exaggerated or minimalized when photographed; there's nothing to measure it by.

Though I will readilly admit the evidence of the apparent beam diameter, and the general lack of beam dispersion over range from what we've seen, is pretty damning.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2002-12-27 12:46am

well actually dialogue over visuals does make sense, if the speaker is competent

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-27 12:58am

ViciousMink wrote:At the risk of opening myself up to a flame, please correct me if I'm wrong, but if that is an airless moon, then it's possible it only LOOKS small. many of the features on the lunar surface appeared exaggerated or minimalized when photographed; there's nothing to measure it by.

Though I will readilly admit the evidence of the apparent beam diameter, and the general lack of beam dispersion over range from what we've seen, is pretty damning.

It's not just the beam diameter. It's also the distance between the beams.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2002-12-27 01:06am

Darth Wong wrote:
ViciousMink wrote:At the risk of opening myself up to a flame, please correct me if I'm wrong, but if that is an airless moon, then it's possible it only LOOKS small. many of the features on the lunar surface appeared exaggerated or minimalized when photographed; there's nothing to measure it by.

Though I will readilly admit the evidence of the apparent beam diameter, and the general lack of beam dispersion over range from what we've seen, is pretty damning.
It's not just the beam diameter. It's also the distance between the beams.

And the stated yield of the beam weapons themselves, even in overcharging mode

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2002-12-27 01:07am

For that matter, does anyone remember how LONG the beams fired on the mountain before it was blasted apart?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-12-27 01:13am

Darth Wong wrote:It's not just the beam diameter. It's also the distance between the beams.

But couldn't that be changed depending on the angle apart the beams were aimed at from each other?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-27 01:19am

Ender wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:It's not just the beam diameter. It's also the distance between the beams.
But couldn't that be changed depending on the angle apart the beams were aimed at from each other?

That would have to be a pretty big angle to spread the beams out from 10 metres apart to 2 km apart.

Joe Momma · Post by **Joe Momma** » 2002-12-27 03:46am

Darth Wong wrote:That would have to be a pretty big angle to spread the beams out from 10 metres apart to 2 km apart.

That large an angle would be fairly noticeable, would it not? The beams in the second screencap still looked pretty much parallel to one another (though I'm just eyeballing them instead of using any measurement tool, so I could easily be wrong).

Also, if the beams themselves had spread to the size necessary to explain the "discrepancy" that would allow the mountain to be 6 km tall, they'd have intermingled unless they were fired at a pretty wide angle as well, wouldn't they?

Either way, wouldn't an angle large enough to accomodate the 6 KM figure be noticeable even without detailed measurements?

-- Joe Momma

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2002-12-27 04:20pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Even smaller then I remembered it would seem.

I still want him to refute my destruction of his little "a high number in the name must mean it's more powerful" claim.

So by his logic a Messershmitt 262 is more powerful than an F-15.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-12-27 11:30pm

Joe Momma wrote:The beams in the second screencap still looked pretty much parallel to one another (though I'm just eyeballing them instead of using any measurement tool, so I could easily be wrong).

I extended the line beams across the frame and the beams are quite clearly converging on the target. The Enterprise could not, therefore, have fired the beams at a divergent angle.

Joe Momma · Post by **Joe Momma** » 2002-12-27 11:59pm

Enlightenment wrote:
Joe Momma wrote:The beams in the second screencap still looked pretty much parallel to one another (though I'm just eyeballing them instead of using any measurement tool, so I could easily be wrong).
I extended the line beams across the frame and the beams are quite clearly converging on the target.

And once again, we see why it's important to have objective measurements!

Thanks for the info.

Enlightenment wrote:The Enterprise could not, therefore, have fired the beams at a divergent angle.

So, if anything it's even smaller than the original estimates based on roughly parallel beams. This just keeps getting better and better.

-- Joe Momma

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-12-28 05:20pm

Ender wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:It's not just the beam diameter. It's also the distance between the beams.
But couldn't that be changed depending on the angle apart the beams were aimed at from each other?

You would be able to see it, if it were such a huge factor. As it were, the beams appear to be converging on the mountain. If anything, the beams appear to have become narrower as they moved towards the target mountain.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-12-28 06:47pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:
Ender wrote:You're wasting your time. His usual MO is to post some stuff, not bother to back it up, and reappear a few weaks later with more shit.

Though he did break the cycle this time in that he didn't post a bunch of pics showing random things and claiming that was a valid argument.
Somebody remember to bump this thread the next time this little fucktard shows up.

He'll never look at it. I started a VI nomination thread a few weeks ago and he never looked at it. He's got his head so far up his ass he's going to turn inside out any day now.

I personally think that his title should reflect his 'internal' view of himself.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-12-28 10:19pm

Setzer wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Even smaller then I remembered it would seem.

I still want him to refute my destruction of his little "a high number in the name must mean it's more powerful" claim.
So by his logic a Messershmitt 262 is more powerful than an F-15.

Basically. Though he also took account of age, as if that matters. The F-20 and HAWK 200 are both newer and higher numbered then the Eagle. Eagle rapes both in combat though.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2002-12-28 10:22pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Setzer wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Even smaller then I remembered it would seem.

I still want him to refute my destruction of his little "a high number in the name must mean it's more powerful" claim.
So by his logic a Messershmitt 262 is more powerful than an F-15.
Basically. Though he also took account of age, as if that matters. The F-20 and HAWK 200 are both newer and higher numbered then the Eagle. Eagle rapes both in combat though.

[SovMode] Well the Eagle would easily take the F-20, but WTF are you thinking about the Hawk 200, Eagle beats Hawk stoopid.[/SovMode]

Galaxy · Post by **Galaxy** » 2003-01-01 04:02am

That would have to be a pretty big angle to spread the beams out from 10 metres apart to 2 km apart.

No it wouldn't. Not if Enterprise was shooting at a great distance.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-01 04:09am

Galaxy wrote:
That would have to be a pretty big angle to spread the beams out from 10 metres apart to 2 km apart.
No it wouldn't. Not if Enterprise was shooting at a great distance.

And how far away do you think this ship was, hmm? And the beams themselves widened over this great distance by exactly the same amount as the spread widened? What a fortunate coincidence! How do they expect to hit anything with weapons that spread to 2 km apart, when they explicitly targeted a single point?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-01-01 11:52am

Galaxy wrote:
That would have to be a pretty big angle to spread the beams out from 10 metres apart to 2 km apart.
No it wouldn't. Not if Enterprise was shooting at a great distance.

Hey, check it out.

See, they are converging.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Hey Sovereign, you lying sack of shit ...

Making a mountain out of a molehill —literally