*** Stardestroyer.net is very very flawed ***

smokemare · Post by **smokemare** » 2003-01-31 07:31am

Please feel free to piss yourself laughing at Rabid Trekkie Envy's evaluation of Stardestroyer.net. Of course providing anything more than speculation and derogatory remarks is beyond him but....

*************
Envy
Station Member posted 01-31-2003 03:12 AM user search report post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ere....!!! less of it you!

well i would love to respond to all this material, but im at work... and im on UK time... as well so that doesnt help...

i reality though...

i see that there are a lot of people who seem to be just jumping into the whole

"BUT WE CAN SHOOT j00z0r WITH 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 MEGATONNES!!!"

the harsh reality is that www.stardestroyer.net is very very flawed... nice idea, but flawed

it assumes things without basis...

all of it claimed "conservative" figures are about as conservative as a... erm... um... not very conservative thing...

it in many cases claims things that are blatently just not true...

oh... and all of its mathmatical calculations are rounded up to the nearest thousand at every stage...

add all this up and you have a very impressive piece of propaganda...

good, and accurate looking, but false propaganda...

*************

Anyone wanting to smack Envy can do so here:-

http://boards.station.sony.com/ubb/star ... 50110.html

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-01-31 07:37am

I don't go around invading every board, if I did I would never get any sleep.

so, there's another silly kid, bfd

Personally, I clean up enough messes for teenage kids at work.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-31 07:46am

Ask him kindly to define how SD.Net is flawed or Stuff it

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-01-31 08:07am

it in many cases claims things that are blatently just not true...

Just ask him to point out examples.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2003-01-31 08:18am

smokemare wrote: Anyone wanting to smack Envy can do so here:-

http://boards.station.sony.com/ubb/star ... 50110.html

Uh, that would be like ordering a howitzer barrage on a dog that just growled at you. In other words, not just overkill... but überkill!

smokemare · Post by **smokemare** » 2003-01-31 08:35am

Uber kill rocks... Besides to me he's insulting the hard work Mike's put in to making Star Destroyer.net. So it's only fair that it's known. To me anyway...

He reckons he some sort of prefessor or something - I've seen no convincing evidence of it though...

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2003-01-31 08:43am

smokemare wrote:Uber kill rocks... Besides to me he's insulting the hard work Mike's put in to making Star Destroyer.net. So it's only fair that it's known. To me anyway...

He reckons he some sort of prefessor or something - I've seen no convincing evidence of it though...

I would be concerned if he lauded Mike's site to the skies. But to be slandered by an obvious retard is a badge of honor.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven · Post by **Rightous Fist Of Heaven** » 2003-01-31 10:10am

Mr Bean wrote:Ask him kindly to define how SD.Net is flawed or Stuff it

I allready did, and considering that the moron actually claimed that ST ships are immune to heat, i doubt he can bring anything even remotely serious to the table.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-31 10:15am

Mike's site lives and breathes criticism. Essentially, who cares? We look at what the critic writes, read what Mike wrote, and see if the criticism is valid. If it's not, we ignore the Trekkie kid and go about our merry way. If it is, Mike adjusts his site appropriately. I don't think Mike ever said he was unwilling to accept or consider valid criticism - it's just that there IS no valid criticism!

Cyborg Stan · Post by **Cyborg Stan** » 2003-01-31 10:39am

There are some interesting highlights in here though.

Gurubacca wrote:Soontir, if I put 1kilogram of iron in my microwave and turn it on for 2 minutes its vaporises my Kitchen and the iron, and my microwave doesn't use 7.6 megajoules, it uses about 3.

Gurubacca here has a magical microwave that violates Conservation of Energy. It also vaporizes the kitchen and the iron, which is interesting because I doubt you would be able to vaporize the iron even if he set his house on fire. He also uses it to heat cars, maybe for a light snack or something.

xxDarthVegaxx wrote:Reread my post. You'll find I didnt say that either. The production of a death star is equivalent to the production of 650 Star Destroyers. A far cry from your 30 million

'xxDarthVegaxx' proves to us that our system of geometry is utterly and completely wrong.

RunAmok wrote:Without getting into the Star Wars vs Star Trek argument (because I REALY don't care) I just wanted to put in my two cents on the power of a Star Destroyers weapons. The most recent fan bible that everyone is quoting states that the turbo lasers on a troop transports/star destroyers are 400 gigaton weapons. Now there are two ways to look at this. Either (a) they hit with a force of 400 billion tons, or (b) they have a yield equal two 400 billion tons of TNT. The latter is the method uesd to rate atomic bombs that we are all so familiar with. This also seems to be the measurement that the author is using for his weapon. Of course a ton of TNT exerts tens of thousands of tons of force when detonated. If you don't believe me drop a pound of TNT on your foot. Then stand on it and set it off. Which do you think will hurt more? OK, so if we go with a 400 gigaton yield we must assume that a turbo laser can exert a force of over a quadrillion tons of force on a given target.

The numbers magically go up from 200 gigatons (the actual figure given)... to 400 gigatons at start..... to twice that.... back to 400 gigatons to over a quadrillion.... huh?

I note that he ADMITS that the Saxton is probably using tonnage as a way to energy rather than force, but after using a stupid analogy he goes out of his way to discredit the use that he thinks Saxton is not using in the first place. He then concludes that Saxton simply pulled the numbers from thin air.

SanguinousRex wrote:When you debate, you debate from a neutral standpoint because otherwise you end up looking like some annoying prick who can only see one side of the arguement. You not only can't, you further prove my point by swearing at me. Good job.

You can only debate if you don't have the balls to swear and you must also subscribe to the Golden Mean Fallacy.

RunAmok wrote:Yes I know that Joules can be translated into either heat or mechanical energy, hence my statement that If the measurement was in Joules I would concede the point. That is because Joules is a unit of work. Gigatons is only a unit of force. Just as degrees Celsius is only a measure of heat. The number I'm disputing is 400 Gigatons.

More ignorance! When the US dropped nukes on Japan that were only a few kilotons, I guessed they could've forgone the Manhattan project completely and simply used lead.

SqueegeeoftheJedi wrote: posted 01-23-2003 01:00 PM
posted 01-23-2003 01:03 PM
posted 01-23-2003 01:10 PM
posted 01-23-2003 01:14 PM
posted 01-23-2003 01:25 PM
posted 01-23-2003 01:30 PM
posted 01-23-2003 01:47 PM

Here SqueegeeoftheJedi spends almost an hour having a long, intimate conversation with himself. Sadly enougn, once you get past the grammar it's more intelligent than most the exchange.

Zuluknight wrote:Startrek is the most, powerful name known to man. The Enterprise-E carries a load of quantum torpedoes that can destroy a borg ship(which by the way is the strongest ship in the galaxy) If a few torpedos could do that to a borg ship, what do you think they could do to a Start Destroyer with no shields hmmmm????

Given that he doesn't seem to implying that the E-E is easily beaten by the cube or the E-E is targeting a weak point in the 'Cube.... (An X-Wing can destroy the DS1, but anyone mentioning it would put it more on a design flaw of the DS than saying an X-wing simply lobs a few proton torpedoes at it.) is he saying that the 'strongest ship in the galaxy' is easily beaten by another ship in the same galaxy?

Also, he seems to think that Star Destroyers have no shields.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-01-31 11:08am

Eh...so there are stupid kids screaming about thing they have no clue of.

And what's new?

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-01-31 01:35pm

We're doing the best we can but alas they are too stupid.

And Envy is one of the hugest retard and biatch

there are certain things that i will not use in a debate of this nature from the ST field of "canon" (hate that term) material...

My head hurts.

Cyaround,
Jason

Darth Balls · Post by **Darth Balls** » 2003-01-31 02:48pm

Cyborg Stan, you took my quote out of context. (me=xxDarthVegaxx)
I was comparing production times. Not size or volume.

Cyborg Stan · Post by **Cyborg Stan** » 2003-01-31 04:30pm

Darth Balls wrote:Cyborg Stan, you took my quote out of context. (me=xxDarthVegaxx)
I was comparing production times. Not size or volume.

Yarg. Sorry about that. The 30 million figure was more or less from volume ratios and the 650 figure comes from average build time ratio. I wasn't paying attention to your post that was just above it. I more or less made the same mistake you were criticizing the other guy for.

Darth Balls · Post by **Darth Balls** » 2003-01-31 05:16pm

Alright that's cool. Mistakes happen. Just glad to get it cleared up

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-01-31 05:31pm

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:Ask him kindly to define how SD.Net is flawed or Stuff it
I allready did, and considering that the moron actually claimed that ST ships are immune to heat, i doubt he can bring anything even remotely serious to the table.

Immune to heat?!?! WTF??

Where'd he pull that from?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-31 05:50pm

Darth Yoshi wrote:
Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:Ask him kindly to define how SD.Net is flawed or Stuff it
I allready did, and considering that the moron actually claimed that ST ships are immune to heat, i doubt he can bring anything even remotely serious to the table.
Immune to heat?!?! WTF?? Where'd he pull that from?

Just goees to show you that a desperate Trekkie will do ANYTHING to win a debate, including make shit up out of thin air, just like certain entries on Mike's hatemail page.

Its amazing considering how preachy ST is about morality (even though that morality is pretty screwd up at times) that its fans still see no problem with lying to win their case. I guess thats yet another commonality between Trekkies and Creationists.

Butterbean569 · Post by **Butterbean569** » 2003-01-31 06:14pm

I've been arguing with these same few guys on the SWG forum for a few months...it's actually quite fun at times because I make them look like retards

There are a few of us that "defend" SW... tons o fun

Darth Balls · Post by **Darth Balls** » 2003-01-31 06:22pm

yeah i believe it was like mid november we started on these guys? i havent done much lately though cause i've been busy

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-31 07:11pm

Let the stupid people come to us.

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2003-01-31 08:07pm

stupidity like Envy's can only be cured with Napalm!

Rightous Fist Of Heaven · Post by **Rightous Fist Of Heaven** » 2003-01-31 08:26pm

Darth Yoshi wrote:
Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:Ask him kindly to define how SD.Net is flawed or Stuff it
I allready did, and considering that the moron actually claimed that ST ships are immune to heat, i doubt he can bring anything even remotely serious to the table.
Immune to heat?!?! WTF?? Where'd he pull that from?

Out of his ass, what did you think? Well basically he based that claim on the fact that the E-D could sit in a stars corona with its metaphasic shielding and since TLs cause their damage by heat, ST ships would be immune to them

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-31 09:31pm

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:Out of his ass, what did you think? Well basically he based that claim on the fact that the E-D could sit in a stars corona with its metaphasic shielding and since TLs cause their damage by heat, ST ships would be immune to them

I guess the fact that the metaphasic shields were only good for a limited amount of time was totally lost on him?

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-01-31 09:39pm

smokemare wrote: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ere....!!! less of it you!

well i would love to respond to all this material, but im at work... and im on UK time... as well so that doesnt help...

i reality though...

i see that there are a lot of people who seem to be just jumping into the whole

"BUT WE CAN SHOOT j00z0r WITH 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 MEGATONNES!!!"

the harsh reality is that www.stardestroyer.net is very very flawed... nice idea, but flawed

it assumes things without basis...

all of it claimed "conservative" figures are about as conservative as a... erm... um... not very conservative thing...

it in many cases claims things that are blatently just not true...

oh... and all of its mathmatical calculations are rounded up to the nearest thousand at every stage...

add all this up and you have a very impressive piece of propaganda...

good, and accurate looking, but false propaganda...

*************

Good god, I can barely read this shit.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2003-01-31 10:10pm

There's a reason why I stick exclusively to the Dev Boards only. At least there is SOME semblence of intelligence there.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

* Stardestroyer.net is very very flawed *

* Stardestroyer.net is very very flawed *

Re: * Stardestroyer.net is very very flawed *

Re: * Stardestroyer.net is very very flawed *

*** Stardestroyer.net is very very flawed ***

*** Stardestroyer.net is very very flawed ***

Re: *** Stardestroyer.net is very very flawed ***

Re: *** Stardestroyer.net is very very flawed ***

* Stardestroyer.net is very very flawed *

* Stardestroyer.net is very very flawed *

Re: * Stardestroyer.net is very very flawed *

Re: * Stardestroyer.net is very very flawed *