Moderator: Vympel
Ah, I see what you're trying to do, now . . . that's why you lied. You had to make up some lies and bullshit about the clear scene of warp flight without warp stars in order to make it appear "disputed", and thus hope to weaken my position.
Tactically entertaining, Wayne, but very dishonest of you.
DS may I just say ROTFLMGDMFAO. I know you won't get why its funny but I bet everyone else will. As usual!Setesh wrote:Darkstar subspaced:
Ah, I see what you're trying to do, now . . . that's why you lied. You had to make up some lies and bullshit about the clear scene of warp flight without warp stars in order to make it appear "disputed", and thus hope to weaken my position.
Tactically entertaining, Wayne, but very dishonest of you.
Is that what happened with TOWNMNBS.TheDarkling wrote: Spanky The Dolphin: I dont know if I should say "Be careful what you wish for" or maybe "Speak the devils name and he shall appear"
TheDarkling wrote:During the sep there are warp stars its during the turn that the warp stars arent present, Im not being picky but it would take another 5 pages of pointless word play to put it right if I dont put it right now.Enterprise seperates=no warp stars
That is contrary to the canon representation of warp speeds. Does it make scientific sense? No, but that is the canon fact, and it's no worse than FTL travel to begin with.Spanky The Dolphin wrote:The saucer's observed speed seems to match that of a regular vessel traveling under impulse. If it was truely still traveling at warp, then it should have been darting away, barely seen.
Oooh, now there is an honorable debate tactic. Take part in the thread which you know is taking up all of DarkStar's time (because he said so, repeatedly), and declare victory in other threads that he can't attend to.Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Hmm... Shall I accept this silence as an admition of defeat, DarkStar?
It has been answered, fool.Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:DARKSTAR ANSWER MY POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Enterprise cruising at warp=warp stars
Enterprise seperates=no warp stars
Enterprise starts again=warp stars
I want a reply, not your pathetic "it's been answered" or your lies about evidence posted MULTIPLE times.
Did you all get that? Darkstars response is [translated from Dumbese]'It would prove me wrong so I ignore is by sayning that despite the fact this visual would be possible and make sense if neither object is at warp, they must still be at warp despite the fact the saucer should be long gone, a fact supported by vessels going at high warp vastly out running vessels going slower. It must be 'canon' that warp visuals will look like this because I can't be possibly be wrong so reality must alter to fit my theory not the other way around' [end translation]DarkStar wrote:That is contrary to the canon representation of warp speeds. Does it make scientific sense? No, but that is the canon fact, and it's no worse than FTL travel to begin with.Spanky The Dolphin wrote:The saucer's observed speed seems to match that of a regular vessel traveling under impulse. If it was truely still traveling at warp, then it should have been darting away, barely seen.
DarkStar wrote:It has been answered, fool.Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:DARKSTAR ANSWER MY POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Enterprise cruising at warp=warp stars
Enterprise seperates=no warp stars
Enterprise starts again=warp stars
I want a reply, not your pathetic "it's been answered" or your lies about evidence posted MULTIPLE times.
Your argument is:
warp stars = warp
no warp stars = no warp
That argument is a logical fallacy, and is disproven by counterexamples.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!! WRONG ANSWER!!DarkStar wrote:That is contrary to the canon representation of warp speeds. Does it make scientific sense? No, but that is the canon fact, and it's no worse than FTL travel to begin with.Spanky The Dolphin wrote:The saucer's observed speed seems to match that of a regular vessel traveling under impulse. If it was truely still traveling at warp, then it should have been darting away, barely seen.
digging up this thread, why? Wow. Okay, so what's the problem?Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote: I accept there can be warp without warp stars.
Well, wait . . . when do you think there can be warp without warp stars? Stationary observation points? If so, then I think that means we should be in agreement.However
If there's warp stars right before the ship parts turn, no warp stars when it turns, and warp stars when they're done turning WTF DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS?!
Again, you subscribe to Poe's logical fallacy, erroneous both on those grounds and on the counterexamples repeatedly provided:Spanky The Dolphin wrote: The fact that the Saucer does not appear to be traveling at warp speed is, in my opinion, pretty good evidence that the Engineering section is not traveling at warp.
Actually, I haven't even brought that up, given that the last time I used opening credits as a part of an argument (whether starships can go to warp within a system . . . see the last few seconds of Voyager's credits), I ended up in a thicket, with Warsies saying that nothing can be argued based on credits. I hoped to avoid similar Warsie shenanigans this time around.Didn't somebody mention that the opening credits of TNG are one of the only depictions of a ship traveling at warp from a stationary point of view? You know, when the E-D whooshes by the camera really fast between the title cards?
Indeed. It was Kylie Minogue, who, if the aussies had the sense of renouncing the british crown, would make a lovely Queen Kylie I of Australia.seanrobertson wrote:In response to Spanky:
The chick who portrayed Cammy in that horrible Street Fighter movie
was such a babe.
