ST vs. SW

[lord Martiya]

Q in the end of his jokes always said the truth. Q isn't Mudd!

[OmegaGuy]

So whenever there's dialogue that says something happened, it's considered false by default unless there's direct confirmation it happened?

[General Zod]

So whenever there's dialogue that says something happened, it's considered false by default unless there's direct confirmation it happened?

Try using some intelligence here. Dialog is not infallible and there are numerous instances of characters either being wrong or not knowing what the fuck they're talking about even though dialog says otherwise. This is one of those things where reasoning is required to piece together the contradictions between dialog and on screen visual evidence.

[OmegaGuy]

I'm not saying it's right all the time (it's obviously not), but does that really mean it should be considered false as default?

[General Zod]

I'm not saying it's right all the time (it's obviously not), but does that really mean it should be considered false as default?

When a character is known as a liar, charlatan and general trickster, anything they say or otherwise claim should be taken with a grain of salt at best.

[OmegaGuy]

So if Q was known to be honest, anything he said would be accepted?

[Ghost Rider]

So if Q was known to be honest, anything he said would be accepted?

Okay dumbfuck, since apparently logic is too hard for you to grasp here's a simple example.

Yoda talks about what the Force can do. We accept because he has PROVEN to us he has a level of ability above an average laymen.

Han Solo talks about the Force can do. We tend not to accept because he has not shown us he has any knowledge other then fourth hand stories.

Do you grasp it, now? When the person has proven some form of knowledge behind it, you tend to accept it until proven otherwise. When they don't have any knowledge other then anecdotal, you tend not to.

As for Q, what exactly has he PROVEN he has any sort of expertise in?

[General Zod]

So if Q was known to be honest, anything he said would be accepted?

I don't suppose it would be too much to ask you to stop thinking in black and white terminology here? If a character is a legitimate expert in their field then what they claim can be considered true enough, unless on screen facts dictate otherwise. If a character is honest but otherwise doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about, then there's still no reason to take their claims seriously or true. For fuck's sake could you at least learn some basics about scene analysis before barging into a thread?

[The Dark]

So if Q was known to be honest, anything he said would be accepted?

Unless it was contradicted by other sources (visuals, known history, other persons), dialog by a known honest person would be more likely to be considered probably valid. The honest person could still mistaken or have been lied to by somebody else, but their belief (and dialogue is a belief) would be more reliable than the proclaimed belief of an entity known to be dishonest and to have a bizarre view of reality.

To use a similar situation from Star Wars, OT Kenobi has to have some of what he says taken with caution - he puts spin on events to influence Luke ("Vader killed your father"). It's to a lesser extent than Q, but it still means anything Kenobi says should be backed up by another source if possible (all dialog should, but certain characters more than others).

[OmegaGuy]

Well since he was referring to his abilities, I would think he would be an expert, since he has a lot of experience with them.

[Ghost Rider]

Well since he was referring to his abilities, I would think he would be an expert, since he has a lot of experience with them.

And has he PROVEN all of this to be consistently TRUE?

Jesus fucking Christ you idiot, we've seen him lie about the length and breadth of his power, thus bringing to question of his statement.

[General Zod]

Well since he was referring to his abilities, I would think he would be an expert, since he has a lot of experience with them.

Because the Q have never been known to lie or bluff about their abilities before.

[OmegaGuy]

I guess you're right, he said he was omnipotent and could do anything, but then that was disproved.

[lord Martiya]

Londo Mollari called it 'public relations'... By the way, I don't trust Q when he said he's omnipotent and omniscent, but when he said that he'll do a thing, he did it, and when he said the truth and was disputed he immediatly proved his argument, possibly in shocking and dangerous manner (as in Q Who). Yes, Q is a liar and isn't exactly the best possible friend, but I trusth more Q than Guinan...

[General Zod]

Londo Mollari called it 'public relations'... By the way, I don't trust Q when he said he's omnipotent and omniscent, but when he said that he'll do a thing, he did it, and when he said the truth and was disputed he immediatly proved his argument, possibly in shocking and dangerous manner (as in Q Who). Yes, Q is a liar and isn't exactly the best possible friend, but I trusth more Q than Guinan...

All of Qs tricks are easily repeatable with highly scaled up technology. The fact that Q powers can be stripped away, blocked, and Q can even be killed by other Q makes their claims at omnipotence and omniscience dubious at best.

[lord Martiya]

I didn't remember to said Q omnipotent, but I remember to said that I don't trust him when he claim omnipotence and omniscience and that I prefer he as friend than Guinan, not plus, not minus.

[Batman]

No offense, lord Martiya, but I think the general populace would appreciate it if you worked on your english language skills.
And I think the General's point was that nothing Q has done can't be done with AQ technology improved by a few orders of magnitude.
In fact, the TNG episode 'Devil's Due' was about exactly that-using advanced technology to make people believe you have divine powers.

[Peptuck]

Believe me, he's hopeless. Every insult you use is turned on you to show that the Warsies are "pathetic flamers like Jared Servo". The only reason I'm still participating in that thread is because I think he's funny.

Well, I just signed on, so I'll see if I can help.

I'm guessing you must be "TheInquisition"

Heh, that's actually me. (first post at Stardestroyer.net holy crap I'm nervous around all these smart people) Account just got activated. *waves nervously* Lurked here for ages, though.

I would help out with the evisceration of Evil Shadow going on in this thread, but it looks like that's been taken care of already

[lord Martiya]

No offense, lord Martiya, but I think the general populace would appreciate it if you worked on your english language skills.

I'm doing it, fot what little I can do: I'm an Italian with little experience in English writing and speaking. I hope you (all you) will help me pointing my errors.

And I think the General's point was that nothing Q has done can't be done with AQ technology improved by a few orders of magnitude.
In fact, the TNG episode 'Devil's Due' was about exactly that-using advanced technology to make people believe you have divine powers.

I know the episode and I know that I can make an ancient Roman believe I'm the God of Fire with a cigarette-lighter, and I said that I cannot trust the Q omnipotence.

[Junghalli]

The first Death Star was a perfect sphere 160 kilometers in diameter. From this you can derive its volume and scale down to get a rough estimate of the power an Imperial-class Star Destroyer ought to be capable of producing.

Sorry for butting in a bit late but I think one should be wary about using that argument. The Death Star could easily incorporate technology that doesn't scale down very well to something the size of a normal ship. It's a bit of an unjustified assumption to think you can scale down linearly from the superlaser to a normal antiship weapon.

I'm just pointing out, as far as proving the power level of SW weapons goes that's not the greatest argument.

[DogsOfWar]

I agree, especially since firing planet-destroying blasts requires a build-up of energy which wouldn't occur in an ISD.

[Darth Wong]

The first Death Star was a perfect sphere 160 kilometers in diameter. From this you can derive its volume and scale down to get a rough estimate of the power an Imperial-class Star Destroyer ought to be capable of producing.

Sorry for butting in a bit late but I think one should be wary about using that argument. The Death Star could easily incorporate technology that doesn't scale down very well to something the size of a normal ship. It's a bit of an unjustified assumption to think you can scale down linearly from the superlaser to a normal antiship weapon.

The SD is not guaranteed to have the power of a scaled-down DS. However, the existence of such dense power generation technology does neatly refute the common Trekkie argument that the Empire possesses no such thing. Given that fact, the common Trekkie assumption that the Empire couldn't possibly pack that much power into an SD, or that gigaton figures are "far above what we see in canon" is clearly bullshit.

[Peptuck]

The first Death Star was a perfect sphere 160 kilometers in diameter. From this you can derive its volume and scale down to get a rough estimate of the power an Imperial-class Star Destroyer ought to be capable of producing.

Sorry for butting in a bit late but I think one should be wary about using that argument. The Death Star could easily incorporate technology that doesn't scale down very well to something the size of a normal ship. It's a bit of an unjustified assumption to think you can scale down linearly from the superlaser to a normal antiship weapon.

The SD is not guaranteed to have the power of a scaled-down DS. However, the existence of such dense power generation technology does neatly refute the common Trekkie argument that the Empire possesses no such thing. Given that fact, the common Trekkie assumption that the Empire couldn't possibly pack that much power into an SD, or that gigaton figures are "far above what we see in canon" is clearly bullshit.

Indeed. I actually encountered a Trekkie who was arguing that the Empire's power generation couldn't possibly match the Federation's because they used "fusion" power, whereas the Feds use M/AM reactors. They convientently left out how you were possibly going to generate more power than the sun with a fusion power generator enclosed in 160km wide space station.

[timewarp]

Sorry for butting in a bit late but I think one should be wary about using that argument. The Death Star could easily incorporate technology that doesn't scale down very well to something the size of a normal ship. It's a bit of an unjustified assumption to think you can scale down linearly from the superlaser to a normal antiship weapon.

The SD is not guaranteed to have the power of a scaled-down DS. However, the existence of such dense power generation technology does neatly refute the common Trekkie argument that the Empire possesses no such thing. Given that fact, the common Trekkie assumption that the Empire couldn't possibly pack that much power into an SD, or that gigaton figures are "far above what we see in canon" is clearly bullshit.

Indeed. I actually encountered a Trekkie who was arguing that the Empire's power generation couldn't possibly match the Federation's because they used "fusion" power, whereas the Feds use M/AM reactors. They convientently left out how you were possibly going to generate more power than the sun with a fusion power generator enclosed in 160km wide space station.

Of course they did. Trektards tend to try and use the scientific method backwards (probably due to them having their heads up their asses, thereby having a different outlook on things), by attemting to use existing theories in conjunction with assumed variables, to deftly refute observation.

[Peptuck]

The SD is not guaranteed to have the power of a scaled-down DS. However, the existence of such dense power generation technology does neatly refute the common Trekkie argument that the Empire possesses no such thing. Given that fact, the common Trekkie assumption that the Empire couldn't possibly pack that much power into an SD, or that gigaton figures are "far above what we see in canon" is clearly bullshit.

Indeed. I actually encountered a Trekkie who was arguing that the Empire's power generation couldn't possibly match the Federation's because they used "fusion" power, whereas the Feds use M/AM reactors. They convientently left out how you were possibly going to generate more power than the sun with a fusion power generator enclosed in 160km wide space station.

Of course they did. Trektards tend to try and use the scientific method backwards (probably due to them having their heads up their asses, thereby having a different outlook on things), by attemting to use existing theories in conjunction with assumed variables, to deftly refute observation.

Its particularly amusing when they try to turn said observations against you. Another Trekkie I had an argument with said that turbolasers couldn't have gigaton yields because R2 got hit in TPM during the escape from Naboo. As if that refutes the destruction of the asteroids in ESB, especially when we know that Star Wars vessels have a wider range of weaponry than just turbolasers, and have rapid fire anti-fighter laser cannons for small ships just like Amidala's.