Fresh Meat.

The_starwarz_dude · Post by **The_starwarz_dude** » 2003-01-13 10:06pm

I would like to direct your attention to here: http://www.tauniverse.com/forum/showthr ... adid=19183

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-13 10:21pm

Most of the pro-trek people there simply ignored what you posted about SW. Why would they treat our posts any differetnly?

*poke da noob*

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-13 10:37pm

POKE

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-13 11:06pm

Add to that, the fact that everything in SW is much bigger because it's less modern.

That's a typical quote from those idiots. With that kind of "logic" (gee, does "false analogy" ring a bell?), you're dealing with sub-human intelligence levels at best.

The_starwarz_dude · Post by **The_starwarz_dude** » 2003-01-13 11:07pm

Help Help!!!, Im being repres.... poked!

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-01-13 11:09pm

How is that honestly logical?

I mean seriously do people truly assume that because something is bigger...it's more primitive?!

By that logic...the cars in the '40s wre the size of small houses and needs hundreds of gallons of gas to run for an hour.

Jeez people are morons when they want to be.

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-01-13 11:11pm

the sear amount of ships the Federation can produce would overwhelm anything that the Empire could send out and that's not even menioning the Romulan's and Klingon's, and we all know the Rebel's defeat the Empire

Grrrrrrrr....you....fucking....MORON!

The_starwarz_dude · Post by **The_starwarz_dude** » 2003-01-13 11:16pm

Thier lucky I live many miles away...
oh yes... very lucky indeed.

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-01-13 11:22pm

The_starwarz_dude wrote:Thier lucky I live many miles away...
oh yes... very lucky indeed.

Last I checked, you didn't post that.

The guy who did is a freaking IDIOT!

Galaxy · Post by **Galaxy** » 2003-01-13 11:24pm

Bigger ships mean bigger industry. I wouldn't say it indicates tech level.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-13 11:28pm

Galaxy wrote:Bigger ships mean bigger industry. I wouldn't say it indicates tech level.

It only indicates technology levels IF the ships maintain parity of function. In other words, if a 100m long ship has the same abilities as a 500m ship, the 100m ship is almost certainly more advanced. However, in the case of SW vs. ST, we do NOT have parity of function. In fact, we don't even have parity of design goal. The GCS is slower and less powerful than a Star Destroyer (which is vastly larger). A GCS isn't even designed for combat the way an ISD is. It is merely designed for exploration, and combat fulfills a secondary role. With the ISD, any exploration is strictly accidental. The ship is built for firepower.

Incidentally, note that being larger can mean being more advanced in some cases. Structural engineering, in particular, must be VASTLY more developed in order to quadruple the size of a structure. This is because structures grow weaker as they grow in scale. Note additionally that two structures, one the size of a house and one the size of the Empire State Building will almost NEVER maintain parity of function, simply because the ESB is larger and accomodates more interior space. Thus, both comparisons cannot exist simultaneously.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-01-13 11:28pm

Que?

Size actually matters given the engineering involved...

Also it matters what is also inside...compare the Death Star to anything the Federation has built in terms of sheer amount of material and engineering design.

Size can mean a great deal in terms of power of that civilization.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-13 11:43pm

According to their "logic", my house represents greater construction technology than the Sears Tower, because it's smaller.

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2003-01-14 12:40am

Or, according to that same logic, John Paul Jones's Bonhomme Richard was more advanced than William F. Halsey's Missouri (BB-63). Or the USS Constitution is far, far more advanced than the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76).

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-01-14 10:32am

Department of the Imperial Army
Imperial Detachment N4318T
Coruscant

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
Subject: Welcome

Newbie:

Welcome to StarDestroyer.net. You have volunteered service within the Galactic Empire, and your conduct on this board will be IAW standards set forth by the moderators and owner of said board. Breach of those terms will result in your immediate arrest, interrogation, and subsequent execution. Let me take this opportunity to welcome you to Imperial service.

Serve the Empire!

GREY SIX
CPT, IMI
Commanding

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-01-14 11:00pm

Wong you crack me up.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2003-01-15 12:16am

Darth Wong wrote:According to their "logic", my house represents greater construction technology than the Sears Tower, because it's smaller.

As Far As Efficiency goes your house does have something on the Sears Tower. But this Advantage it only due the smaller pipes and smaller area heating and duct works have to service. In anything else the Sears Tower has the house beat. I've been inside the Tower and it could easily have had more office space than almost both Twin Towers of the former World Trade Center. The Sears Tower is really 6 smaller buildings built togather. Chicago has higher building codes exspecially involving fires.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-15 08:48am

Darth Wong wrote:
Add to that, the fact that everything in SW is much bigger because it's less modern.
That's a typical quote from those idiots. With that kind of "logic" (gee, does "false analogy" ring a bell?), you're dealing with sub-human intelligence levels at best.

I always enjoyed that, it's like saying the Dyson sphere was made by neanderthals because it's soooo much bigger than a "high-tech" Earth.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-01-15 11:53am

Publius wrote:Or, according to that same logic, John Paul Jones's Bonhomme Richard was more advanced than William F. Halsey's Missouri (BB-63). Or the USS Constitution is far, far more advanced than the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76).

Or a federation shuttle is more advanced that the Boobyprize.

FettKyle · Post by **FettKyle** » 2003-01-15 02:35pm

Those Trektards better open there Eyes so I can slice them with a Katana I would just love to kill them. you know what Stalin said no person no problem.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-01-15 04:00pm

Kragen is a dumbass.
He claims he knows science but puts that vapourized is a ST term?

Vapourized is in a fucken chemistry book for crying out loud......ROFL

Cyaround,
Jason

Sr.mal · Post by **Sr.mal** » 2003-01-15 04:21pm

OMG rofl these people are some of the dumbest trektards around

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-01-15 04:45pm

FettKyle wrote:Those Trektards better open there Eyes so I can slice them with a Katana I would just love to kill them. you know what Stalin said no person no problem.

Here's a little word of advice, kid.

We don't appreciate death threats. Particularly one's made by newbies/wannabes trying to "be one of the boys"...

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-15 06:26pm

More idiots from the BBS at the beginning of this thread:

In an attempt to refute Mike's essay on why physical impacts can be more harmful than energy weapons...

Kragen wrote:For anyone about to mention anything about the explanation on sd.net - dont bother - ive read it and that is a LOAD of BS about the shileds not being able to cope with large forces due to structural housings etc.. etc.. etc... If the shiled converts ALL energy into heat energy then there is no remaining force and so structural supports dont come into it.

once you get onto the more advanced stuf you will see that matter and energy are interchangeable and so also are kinetic energy (in the form of movement of a object) and kinetic energy (as in heat). If all movement energy is converted to heat energy then there is no movement, with no movement there is no accellaration (or decllaration if your being picky - but the two are exactlay the same thing). With no accellaration there is no force.

But for the crowning stupidity:

asteroids that are moving are firstly called comets

Enjoy tearing him apart.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-15 06:32pm

Ghost Rider wrote:Que?

Size actually matters given the engineering involved...

Also it matters what is also inside...compare the Death Star to anything the Federation has built in terms of sheer amount of material and engineering design.

Size can mean a great deal in terms of power of that civilization.

If I could build a baseball-sized object with the armor strength, shielding, and firepower of the DS, that would be a more advanced design (by far). If I could build a ship with the firepower of a Star Destroyer, but it was the size of a planet, it would be less advanced. That is what I mean by "parity of function." It is rare that two ships have such excellent comparisons in sci-fi, because warships in most universes are designed to fulfill a wide variety of conflicting goals. For instance, Star Destroyers must carry starfighters, troops, weapons, and shields, and they must also maintain a modicum of mobility. If another ship was more heavily armed, but lacked the starfighters and mobility, would it be more advanced? Maybe. It depends on what is needed for the job.