Laughable "response" videos to this website on YouTube

[Admiral Mercury]

Because, since Q claims he's omnipotent, he must be omnipotent, and we all know Trek characters never exaggerate or are simply wrong and Q is totally not known to be a liar. Oh wait.

This is absurd. Firstly, I never claimed Q was omnipotent. In fact I said that it was impossible for anything to be truly omnipotent. Secondly, the fact that Q has told some lies in the past does not justify this sort of ultra skepticism where every single thing he's ever said or done must be completely scrutinized. It's only justified when either what he says is shown to be a lie directly or it conflicts with something else known to be true. Take the character of Garak from DS9 for example. Over the course of the show he's told several mutually exclusive stories about why he was exiled. Since the show never provides us with a concrete reason for his exile it's safe to assume that none of the stories are true. Towards the end of the series there's a particular Garak centric episode, I forget the title of it, where he cries his eyes out to Ezri about his guilt over helping the Federation in the war with the Dominion. Is he lying? Given that the episode never indicates that he is and what he says completely fits into his character as developed on the show, the smart bet is that he's telling the truth. Just because a character has lied in the past, or even that they're known for lying, is not any justification to take on this level of hyperskepticism. Now on to your pathetic attempt at a response.

So can the UFP even in Kirk's time. Casually and for the sake of historical research.

In TOS we only ever see Kirk and crew go back in time maybe a few hundred years. In the TNG episode "All Good Things..." Q takes Picard back in time at least 3 billion years to view the earliest stages of what would become life on earth. They're not at all in the same ballpark. Just because two things are in the same class doesn't mean they're anywhere near the same in any other respect. It's like the difference between flying to the moon and flying to the Andromeda galaxy.

So can modern medicine.

This is a non-answer and you know it.
"A star destroyer can travel through space."
"So can a modern rocket." Hurr, that's you.

When, exactly, did that happen? Other than a Q 'claiming' they could?

In the episode "All Good Things..." the Q Continuum is prepared to let the entire galaxy be destroyed just because they think humanity sucks. One could attempt to argue that it was actually Picard who nearly destroyed the galaxy, but since he was only able to do so because of the direct interference of Q, it was essentially Q. We actually can infer a lot about the Q from "All Good Things...". Like that a single galaxy isn't all that important to them, since they were willing to let one be destroyed just to prove a point. It also implies that they have a power greater than mere time travel, since the nature of the anomaly they created meant that you couldn't go backwards or forwards in time to prevent it from forming.

When, exactly, did that happen? Other than a Q 'claiming' it did?

There are nearly countless examples of the Q traveling galactic scale distances in perhaps a few seconds, or bringing objects and people from across the galaxy to a specific place in comparable time. Even if it's not literally able to travel anywhere in the universe instantly, it's still mindbogglingly fast.

As happened where, if you could be bothered? I can't even recall the Q ever claiming that.

As happened in "The Q and the Gray". It was a plot point that the weapons the Q were using to fight each other in the Continuum were causing stars to go supernova in the universe as an after effect. The Q themselves didn't care that this was happening, and it was clear that it was merely a side effect of the weapons and not what the weapons were actually designed to do.

Um-no.Q 'claimed' he could do that. But feel free to show evidence for the Q ever actually using that power.

This was said in the episode where Q had his powers removed. He says it not as a boast or an attempt to intimidate people. He says it as a lament of the power he lost. He had no reason to lie about it, and since we learn that he did really lose his power the sentiment was likely genuine.

Not seeing that within the scope of the feats the Q have actually been shown to be capable of.

No offense, but with your lack of knowledge about various things the Q had done, and your bizarre equivalencies it's not surprising that you didn't think the Q could win. Hopefully now you have a better understanding of just what they can do.

[WATCH-MAN]

Fact is that Q is very powerful. We don't know, where the limits of his powers are.

Which is a far cry from having no limits. Just because we haven't seen the limit of his powers doesn't mean that he has none, or that they must be orders of magnitude greater than what he had shown in the past.

To merely play the powers of Q down, won't win you any credibility as these powers are known insofar as that there weren't any limits shown in them.

Do you understand what a no-limits argument is?

You have proven that you can read and write.

Now you should prove that you can understand what you read and write.

Do you understand this:

And before he was only considered as very powerful - but not omnipotent - e.g. in the TNG episode Hide and Q (Episode 1x10):

• • • • Geordi:
        Where are we?
        
        Data:
        Considering the power demonstrated by "Q" the last time ... Anywhere! Assuming this place even exists.
        
        • • [...]
        Q:
        Do you understand? I've given you the power of the "Q".
        
        • • [...]
        Picrd:
        Will, how the hell do I advise you what to do?!
        
        Riker:
        No one has ever offered to turn you into "God?"
        
        Picard:
        Don't joke with me! What the "Q" has offered you has got to be close to "immortality," Will. They're not lying about controlling space and time; we've seen it in what they can do. But...

Notice: close to "immortal" - not immortal - as real omnipotence would suggest.

It seems, that Starfleet does not really regard Q as omnipotent - but so powerful that he could be omnipotent as well.

And Quinn - a Q himself - admitts this in the YOY episode Death Wish (Episode 2x18):

• • • • Quinn:
        But you mustn't think of us as omnipotent, no matter what the Continuum would like you to believe. You and your ship seem incredibly powerful to lifeforms without your technical expertise. It's no different with us. We may appear omnipotent to you, but believe me, we're not.

Insofar I regard it as established that Q is not omnipotent - that this word is used as a hyperbole - because he is so powerfull - compared to the powers of the UfP - that he could be omnipotent as well.

If you really think that I'm arguing that Q is omnipotent, that his powers have no limits - and only then your reply to my post would make sense - you would prove that you aren't very good at understanding what you read.



P.S.:
I'm not interessted in arguing about the powers of Galactus. I do not know him and his powers. I was only disturbed about the lack of substantial arguments in the replies of some of you. Again: To merely play the powers of Q down, won't win you any credibility. To convince anyone you have to compare the powers of Q and Galactus and show that Q has no chance against Galactus - if this is what you want to argue. And you should have the same standards for both. I do not know the comics in which Galactus appeared. But is what you believe to know of him told as an objective fact (from an omniscient narrator) or is it only something Galactus or another guy has told someone - a story or a memory? What has Galactus really done? Do not tell it me - as I'm said: I'm not interessted in it. Use it to prove that Galactus is more powerful than Q.

[WATCH-MAN]

There are nearly countless examples of the Q traveling galactic scale distances in perhaps a few seconds, or bringing objects and people from across the galaxy to a specific place in comparable time.

And why haven't you provided not one single one?

[Boeing 757]

Fact is that Q is very powerful. We don't know, where the limits of his powers are.

Which is a far cry from having no limits. Just because we haven't seen the limit of his powers doesn't mean that he has none, or that they must be orders of magnitude greater than what he had shown in the past.

To merely play the powers of Q down, won't win you any credibility as these powers are known insofar as that there weren't any limits shown in them.

Do you understand what a no-limits argument is?

You have proven that you can read and write.

Now you should prove that you can understand what you read and write.

Do you understand this:

snip

Or maybe you are simply too incompetent at getting your line of thought across to others? I never said that you claimed the Q were omnipotent. However, it does seem to me as if you're insinuating that we can't critique Q's abilities since his limits were never shown in full. That I do contest, and it's a glaring no-limits fallacy.

P.S.:
I'm not interessted in arguing about the powers of Galactus. I do not know him and his powers. I was only disturbed about the lack of substantial arguments in the replies of some of you. Again: To merely play the powers of Q down, won't win you any credibility. To convince anyone you have to compare the powers of Q and Galactus and show that Q has no chance against Galactus - if this is what you want to argue. And you should have the same standards for both. I do not know the comics in which Galactus appeared. But is what you believe to know of him told as an objective fact (from an omniscient narrator) or is it only something Galactus or another guy has told someone - a story or a memory? What has Galactus really done? Do not tell it me - as I'm said: I'm not interessted in it. Use it to prove that Galactus is more powerful than Q.

What for? This thread isn't even about Q versus Galactus (at least prior to your thread derail). Go ahead and start a new thread if you earnestly want to compare them both.

[Admiral Mercury]

There are nearly countless examples of the Q traveling galactic scale distances in perhaps a few seconds, or bringing objects and people from across the galaxy to a specific place in comparable time.

And why haven't you provided not one single one?

It so obvious and self evident. To even have to give examples would be akin to someone demanding proof that Q can walk or speak. But since this board is always in hyperskeptic mode when it comes to anything Star Trek, I'll give you examples.

In the Voyager episode "Death Wish" Q transports William Riker from the alpha quadrant to the delta quadrant and back again. What's more, this episode shows that Q can travel at a moment's notice and doesn't need to extensively pre-plan what he does or where he goes. His intervention in that episode was due to the crew of Voyager freeing Quinn, not because he wanted to test or taunt the crew like he did in TNG. What we have is Q off somewhere doing whatever suddenly arriving in the Delta Quadrant to deal with Quinn.

In the DS9 episode "Q Less" it's revealed that Q had spent 2 years with Vash showing her amazing things all over the galaxy. Given the various list of things implied that they did and places they went to, it's unlikely that any significant amount of time was spent on transit.

And it's not like these are the only two examples that lead us to this conclusion. We only ever see Q travel in both space and time at incredibly fast speeds. Seconds at most. We know he's not confined to one small area of the galaxy either, since he's just as easily in the alpha quadrant (see every TNG Q episode) as the Delta quadrant (see every Voyager Q episode) and that he can travel at will to the Gamma quadrant (see every DS9 Q episode). All these things taken together makes for pretty convincing proof that Q can travel anywhere in the galaxy, either in space or in time, in about the time it takes for his teleporting special effect to animate.

[WATCH-MAN]

[...] I was only disturbed about the lack of substantial arguments in the replies of some of you. [...]

What for? This thread isn't even about Q versus Galactus (at least prior to your thread derail).

So?

Do you really want to claim that I was the one to derail that thread?

Let's see what happened prior to my post:

• • • • This isn't SW vs ST related, but I saw him claim recently that Q could take on Galactus and win easily.

        Because, since Q claims he's omnipotent, he must be omnipotent, and we all know Trek characters never exaggerate or are simply wrong and Q is totally not known to be a liar. Oh wait.

        Because, since Q claims he's omnipotent, he must be omnipotent, and we all know Trek characters never exaggerate or are simply wrong and Q is totally not known to be a liar. Oh wait.

        Come now, even if the Q aren't omnipotent in the classical sense of the word (really nothing can be), they're still an extremely powerful force in any universe. They can travel through time, they can bring back the dead, they can destroy galaxies at a whim, they can travel throughout the universe instantaneously, their weapons are so powerful that they wreak havoc in other universes, and the Q can alter the fundamental constants of the universe. Sorry, but Galactus is getting pwn'd in that battle.

        Because, since Q claims he's omnipotent, he must be omnipotent, and we all know Trek characters never exaggerate or are simply wrong and Q is totally not known to be a liar. Oh wait.

        Come now, even if the Q aren't omnipotent in the classical sense of the word (really nothing can be), they're still an extremely powerful force in any universe. They can travel through time,

        So can the UFP even in Kirk's time. Casually and for the sake of historical research.

        they can bring back the dead

        So can modern medicine.

        they can destroy galaxies at a whim,

        When, exactly, did that happen? Other than a Q 'claiming' they could?

        they can travel throughout the universe instantaneously,

        When, exactly, did that happen? Other than a Q 'claiming' it did?

        their weapons are so powerful that they wreak havoc in other universes

        As happened where, if you could be bothered? I can't even recall the Q ever claiming that.

        , and the Q can alter the fundamental constants of the universe.

        Um-no.Q 'claimed' he could do that. But feel free to show evidence for the Q ever actually using that power.

        Sorry, but Galactus is getting pwn'd in that battle.

        Not seeing that within the scope of the feats the Q have actually been shown to be capable of.

        Thanks for replying back to him, Batman. I for one tend to think that Q's powers are greatly exaggerated.

Five posts about Galactus respective the power of Q. And you started it when you claimed that you »saw him claim recently that Q could take on Galactus and win easily«. The only »argument« - if you could call it such - was that »Q only claimed to be omnipotent but has shown nothing to prove it.«

Or maybe you are simply too incompetent at getting your line of thought across to others?

Maybe.

I wrote:

• • • • And before he was only considered as very powerful - but not omnipotent - e.g. in the TNG episode Hide and Q (Episode 1x10):
        

        • • • • Geordi:
                Where are we?
                
                Data:
                Considering the power demonstrated by "Q" the last time ... Anywhere! Assuming this place even exists.
                
                • • [...]
                Q:
                Do you understand? I've given you the power of the "Q".
                
                • • [...]
                Picrd:
                Will, how the hell do I advise you what to do?!
                
                Riker:
                No one has ever offered to turn you into "God?"
                
                Picard:
                Don't joke with me! What the "Q" has offered you has got to be close to "immortality," Will. They're not lying about controlling space and time; we've seen it in what they can do. But...

        Notice: close to "immortal" - not immortal - as real omnipotence would suggest.
        
        It seems, that Starfleet does not really regard Q as omnipotent - but so powerful that he could be omnipotent as well.
        
        And Quinn - a Q himself - admitts this in the YOY episode Death Wish (Episode 2x18):
        

        • • • • Quinn:
                But you mustn't think of us as omnipotent, no matter what the Continuum would like you to believe. You and your ship seem incredibly powerful to lifeforms without your technical expertise. It's no different with us. We may appear omnipotent to you, but believe me, we're not.

        Insofar I regard it as established that Q is not omnipotent - that this word is used as a hyperbole - because he is so powerfull - compared to the powers of the UfP - that he could be omnipotent as well.

Hm?

• • • • ... And before he was only considered as very powerful - but not omnipotent ...
        ... Starfleet does not really regard Q as omnipotent ...
        ... close to "immortal" - not immortal - as real omnipotence would suggest ...
        ... I regard it as established that Q is not omnipotent ...

Seems pretty clear to me. As I have speculated already: Maybe you are the one who has problem with understanding what you are reading.

Another example:

Go ahead and start a new thread if you earnestly want to compare them both.

I wrote:

• • • • I'm not interessted in arguing about the powers of Galactus. I do not know him and his powers.

I wonder what has given you the impression that I really want to compare Galactus and Q when I explicitly stated that I'm not interessted in such a debatte. I wonder if you really read what others have written or if you are only skimming through the posts - not really understanding what you are reading.

I never said that you claimed the Q were omnipotent.

And why did you wrote in response to my post:

• • • • Fact is that Q is very powerful. We don't know, where the limits of his powers are.

        Which is a far cry from having no limits. Just because we haven't seen the limit of his powers doesn't mean that he has none, or that they must be orders of magnitude greater than what he had shown in the past.

Where does this come from - if you haven't assumed that I'm the opinion that the powers of Q have no limits?

• • • • To merely play the powers of Q down, won't win you any credibility as these powers are known insofar as that there weren't any limits shown in them.

        Do you understand what a no-limits argument is?

Again: Where does this come from - if you haven't assumed that I'm the opinion that the powers of Q have no limits?

What are you trying to argue here - if not that the powers of Q have limits? And if this is what you are arguing: Why are you arguing it if you do not think that I'm the opinion that his powers have no limits? Where is your point?

However, it does seem to me as if you're insinuating that we can't critique Q's abilities since his limits were never shown in full.

See: You are incapable of understanding what you have read.
I have never insinuated that you can't critique Q's abilities.

I wrote:

• • • • To merely play the powers of Q down, won't win you any credibility as these powers are known insofar as that there weren't any limits shown in them.

and

• • • • Again: To merely play the powers of Q down, won't win you any credibility. To convince anyone you have to compare the powers of Q and Galactus and show that Q has no chance against Galactus - if this is what you want to argue.

I can't understand how you can conclude from this that I think you aren't allowed to critique Q's abilities. But as I already noted: You have problems with understanding what you have read.

That I do contest,...

If that were what I have said, you were right in doing so.
But as this is not what I have argued, your contestation is pointless

... and it's a glaring no-limits fallacy.

Do you have the slightes clue what a no-limits fallacy is?

»Can't critique Q's abilities since his limits were never shown in full« has nothing to do with a no-limits fallacy - unless you are again assuming that I'm the opinion that the powers of Q have no limits.

It is interessting how you can contratict your own statement in one sentence already two sentences later:

• • • • I never said that you claimed the Q were omnipotent. However, it does seem to me as if you're insinuating that we can't critique Q's abilities since his limits were never shown in full. That I do contest, and it's a glaring no-limits fallacy.

It seems that you are even incapable to understand what you are writting yourself.

[Batman]

Because, since Q claims he's omnipotent, he must be omnipotent, and we all know Trek characters never exaggerate or are simply wrong and Q is totally not known to be a liar. Oh wait.

This is absurd. Firstly, I never claimed Q was omnipotent.

And I never claimed you did. If you had been paying attention, you'd remember that was in response to something essentially happening off board and you hadn't even posted in this thread at that point so this couldn't have been in response to you.

In fact I said that it was impossible for anything to be truly omnipotent.

Yeah. In your response to my post containing that statement. Excuse me for not knowing ahead of time what you're going to post next.

Secondly, the fact that Q has told some lies in the past does not justify this sort of ultra skepticism where every single thing he's ever said or done must be completely scrutinized.

Call me silly but when a known and if not pathological than at least habitual liar makes boasts about capabilities never actually observed then yes, I consider a seriously sized dose of scepticism perfectly appropriate.

So can the UFP even in Kirk's time. Casually and for the sake of historical research.

In TOS we only ever see Kirk and crew go back in time maybe a few hundred years. In the TNG episode "All Good Things..." Q takes Picard back in time at least 3 billion years to view the earliest stages of what would become life on earth. They're not at all in the same ballpark. Just because two things are in the same class doesn't mean they're anywhere near the same in any other respect. It's like the difference between flying to the moon and flying to the Andromeda galaxy.

Oh. So you're an expert on time travel mechanics now. Prove that going back 3 billion years is more difficult than a couple hundred. And incidentally, it isn't. The difference between going back 300 years vs 3 billion is 1E7. The difference between going to the moon and going to the Andromeda galaxy is around the order of 4.5E13.

So can modern medicine.

This is a non-answer and you know it.
"A star destroyer can travel through space."
"So can a modern rocket." Hurr, that's you.

Yes, that's me, and I'll continue doing so as long as you continue using unqualified examples like that, because I'm right. 'They can bring back the dead under circumstances XYZ where even Federation medicine is powerless, the body is totally destroyed, the death happened 9 gazillion years ago' etc etc would have been one thing. What you actually did say (well, write, this being a textual medium) was simply 'they can bring back the dead' with no mention of the circumstances. Guess what-so can modern medicine.

When, exactly, did that happen? Other than a Q 'claiming' they could?

In the episode "All Good Things..." the Q Continuum is prepared to let the entire galaxy be destroyed just because they think humanity sucks. One could attempt to argue that it was actually Picard who nearly destroyed the galaxy, but since he was only able to do so because of the direct interference of Q, it was essentially Q. We actually can infer a lot about the Q from "All Good Things...". Like that a single galaxy isn't all that important to them, since they were willing to let one be destroyed just to prove a point. It also implies that they have a power greater than mere time travel, since the nature of the anomaly they created meant that you couldn't go backwards or forwards in time to prevent it from forming.

Um-where, exactly was it ever said that the Q were in any way shape or form responsible for that? The damned anomaly undeniably happened, but at no point was it intimated that the Q actually created it, they merely decided not to stop it (which presupposes they could do so to begin with).

When, exactly, did that happen? Other than a Q 'claiming' it did?

There are nearly countless examples of the Q traveling galactic scale distances in perhaps a few seconds, or bringing objects and people from across the galaxy to a specific place in comparable time. Even if it's not literally able to travel anywhere in the universe instantly, it's still mindbogglingly fast.

There's quite a hell of a lot of difference between 'within the galaxy' and 'anywhere in the universe', you know. It took Q a decidedly measurable time to move the E-D a measly 7000 ly in 'Q Who'. Whatever a Q's personal travel time (at decidedly intragalactic distances), I don't recall them moving starships any faster than that.

As happened where, if you could be bothered? I can't even recall the Q ever claiming that.

As happened in "The Q and the Gray". It was a plot point that the weapons the Q were using to fight each other in the Continuum were causing stars to go supernova in the universe as an after effect.

Yeah. In the Milky Way, and if memory serves, in the Delta Quadrant. I wouldn't exactly call that in another universe.

Um-no.Q 'claimed' he could do that. But feel free to show evidence for the Q ever actually using that power.

This was said in the episode where Q had his powers removed. He says it not as a boast or an attempt to intimidate people. He says it as a lament of the power he lost. He had no reason to lie about it, and since we learn that he did really lose his power the sentiment was likely genuine.

So essentially, you want us to take his word for it. How about no. Is it possible they have this power? Absolutely. Is it verified they do? Big fat no. I'm not accepting the Q having any powers we haven't seen demonstrated.

Not seeing that within the scope of the feats the Q have actually been shown to be capable of.

No offense, but with your lack of knowledge about various things the Q had done, and your bizarre equivalencies it's not surprising that you didn't think the Q could win. Hopefully now you have a better understanding of just what they can do.

You seem to be confusing what they claim they can do and what you blithely assume they can do with what we actually know they can do on account having seen them do it.

[Boeing 757]

snip excessive ranting

Wow, you really ought to learn some lessons in brevity. Anyway, I have to ask how it was I who derailed this thread when that comment of mine in question that you quoted was primarily centered on one of the YT users over which this thread pertains, Idazmi7. I was certainly not intending to start a debate about Galactus vs Q in here. Heck, I doubt even Batman wanted to start a debate, although it just happened that you, Mercury and I all responded afterwards. It happens.

Moving on...from your original post, you admit that the Q are not omnipotent, but look at the second to the last sentence of your first post in this thread.

To merely play the powers of Q down, won't win you any credibility as these powers are known insofar as that there weren't any limits shown in them.

Here essentially you are subtlety voicing your belief that we should not even try to find low-end examples of the powers of Q, because according to you, we have never seen their powers being subjected to limits. How else should anyone take this shady sentence? In spite of you previously stating that the Q are not omnipotent, it seems there almost as if you are suggesting that some of their powers are boundless because we do not know their limits, and so we should not discuss them entirely. I would define that as a no-limits fallacy, or at least bordering close to one. Just saying that it seemed so to me. If you meant something else, then oh well.

By the way, just why shouldn't we attempt to downplay some of Q's powers? There are certain unresolved questions about his abilities. He didn't know whether Sisko would have punched him in DS9. He has shown fear of a mortal in TNG, and Q have been killed by humans wielding Q weapons. He has looked to mortals for advice and help in the past even with his seemingly "god-like" abilities. Hardly not any room there to call into question his superiority.

[Batman]

I'm not sure 'downplay' is the term we should use here. Unless the meaning of that has changed since last time I checked, 'downplay' does mean 'make something appear less than it is' (or something to that effect anyway), and we absolutely shouldn't do that. The abilities we have seen the Q to possess, we must accept. What we don't have to accept is them having any abilities beyond that. I think what you are talking about is accepting lower limits when we were never shown anything exceeding those.

[Boeing 757]

I'm not sure 'downplay' is the term we should use here. Unless the meaning of that has changed since last time I checked, 'downplay' does mean 'make something appear less than it is' (or something to that effect anyway), and we absolutely shouldn't do that. The abilities we have seen the Q to possess, we must accept. What we don't have to accept is them having any abilities beyond that. I think what you are talking about is accepting lower limits when we were never shown anything exceeding those.

Indeed. I'll be the first to admit that the Q can do some impressive things like hurtling the Enterprise 7000 lightyears away in an instant. What I don't like though is how some fans think they can blow up the universe with a snap of their fingers or other whacky shit like that which we've never seen just because Q does something far less impressive, then says that he's omnipotent thereafter.

[WATCH-MAN]

Anyway, I have to ask how it was I who derailed this thread when that comment of mine in question that you quoted was primarily centered on one of the YT users over which this thread pertains, Idazmi7. I was certainly not intending to start a debate about Galactus vs Q in here. Heck, I doubt even Batman wanted to start a debate, although it just happened that you, Mercury and I all responded afterwards. It happens.

You really should enhance your ability to understand the texts you read. It is pathetic.
You accussed me to derail that thread:

• • • • This thread isn't even about Q versus Galactus (at least prior to your thread derail).

I showed that there were already 5 posts about Galactus respective the power of Q and that this started with your post. I did never say that it was YOU who derailed the thread.

Moving on...from your original post, you admit that the Q are not omnipotent, but look at the second to the last sentence of your first post in this thread.

To merely play the powers of Q down, won't win you any credibility as these powers are known insofar as that there weren't any limits shown in them.

Here essentially you are subtlety voicing your belief that we should not even try to find low-end examples of the powers of Q, because according to you, we have never seen their powers being subjected to limits. How else should anyone take this shady sentence? In spite of you previously stating that the Q are not omnipotent, it seems there almost as if you are suggesting that some of their powers are boundless because we do not know their limits, and so we should not discuss them entirely. I would define that as a no-limits fallacy, or at least bordering close to one. Just saying that it seemed so to me. If you meant something else, then oh well.

Does it makes it easier for you to read if the letters are so big? I'm okay with it. But let me assure you that I have no problems to read and understand the text with a normal letter size.

And again: You should read and try to understand what is said and not what you want to believe or wish.

I have not voiced a belief that you should not even try to find low-end examples of the powers of Q. I merely stated that there weren't any limits shown. I explicitly stated that, to compare the powers of Q with the powers of Galactus, you should list them (quantify them) and compare them.

And I did not suggested that some of the powers of Q are boundless. Correct is that I stated that we do not know their limits. But this does not allow for the conclusion that there are no limits. It's very simple: We do not know the limits of the powers of Q. This statement does neither mean that there are no limits nor does this mean that there are limits. The simple statement doesn't say anything about the existence of limits - it says only what we know or do not know.

To be honest: Because we do not know anything about the limits of the powers of Q, I think that a comparison between his powers and the powers of Galactus is pointless. Fact is that there was never a situation in which Q - with his powers - had to admitt that he can't do something. There was never a situation in which Q - with his powers - couldn't do something - unless another Q was involved. Again: This does not mean that his powers have no limits. But is means that we do not know, where these limits are. Insofar it seems impossible to quantify them. I do not know how it is with Galactus. But if you can't quantify the powers of Q, how do you want to compare them with the powers of Galactus? All you could do is to compare the biggest achievement both have shown. But as such achievements don't have to be the upper limit of what they can do - unless told otherwise - such a comparison is meaningless.

By the way: You are moving the goalposts. First you accused me of believing Q is omnipotent. Now I'm trying to argue that you shouldn't find low-end examples of the powers of Q. I have neither said the one nor the other. Quite the contrary: I would appreciate it if you could find examples with which you could conclude to the limits of the power of Q. Then a comparison of his powers with the powers of Galactus would start to make sense and maybe would get interessting.

By the way, just why shouldn't we attempt to downplay some of Q's powers?

As Batman said already: You shouldn't make the powers of Q appear less than they are. You should accept the abilities you have seen the Q to possess. The important question is if this were all abilities or only a small sample. As we have no evidence for it, we can not simply assume that there are no abilities beyond that. The question is, how far beyound that the abilities are going.

There are certain unresolved questions about his abilities.

With that I can totally and agree without any reservation.

He didn't know whether Sisko would have punched him in DS9. He has shown fear of a mortal in TNG, and Q have been killed by humans wielding Q weapons. He has looked to mortals for advice and help in the past even with his seemingly "god-like" abilities. Hardly not any room there to call into question his superiority.

I wonder what you are trying to argue. That Q is not omnipotent? That's not disputed?

But the question is still, what can you gain by stating this undisputed fact again and again in your quest to show that Q can not defeat Galactus. It's one sided. You are still trying to show, that Q is not omnipotent. But you are not quantifying the power of Q. You only state that there are limits - but you do not show, where the limits are. Furthermore: Is Galactus omnipotent? Do his powers have limits and if yes: where are they? These questions have to be answered to show who the more powerful being is.

What I don't like though is how some fans think they can blow up the universe with a snap of their fingers or other whacky shit like that which we've never seen just because Q does something far less impressive, then says that he's omnipotent thereafter.

That may be your problem. You are to emotional in your hatred that you can't even understand what you read. But maybe you should frst try to understand what someone is trying to say, before you jump to the conclusion that he is trying to say that Q can blow up the universe with a snap of their fingers or other whacky shit like that.

If you read through my posts, you will notice that I haven't made one single claim about the powers of Q - with the exception that I explicitly said that he is not omnipotent and that his powers have limits.

[Boeing 757]

Anyway, I have to ask how it was I who derailed this thread when that comment of mine in question that you quoted was primarily centered on one of the YT users over which this thread pertains, Idazmi7. I was certainly not intending to start a debate about Galactus vs Q in here. Heck, I doubt even Batman wanted to start a debate, although it just happened that you, Mercury and I all responded afterwards. It happens.

You really should enhance your ability to understand the texts you read. It is pathetic.
You accussed me to derail that thread:

• • • • This thread isn't even about Q versus Galactus (at least prior to your thread derail).

I showed that there were already 5 posts about Galactus respective the power of Q and that this started with your post. I did never say that it was YOU who derailed the thread.

Of course you didn't. Which is why you specifically accused me of starting it as per your own words and now are saying that you didn't, right? From your previous post: "Five posts about Galactus respective the power of Q. And you started it when you claimed that you blah blah blah...."

Cut the semantics horseshit out. Maybe you should take some of your own advice there, and understand what you read and write.

Moving on...from your original post, you admit that the Q are not omnipotent, but look at the second to the last sentence of your first post in this thread.

To merely play the powers of Q down, won't win you any credibility as these powers are known insofar as that there weren't any limits shown in them.

Here essentially you are subtlety voicing your belief that we should not even try to find low-end examples of the powers of Q, because according to you, we have never seen their powers being subjected to limits. How else should anyone take this shady sentence? In spite of you previously stating that the Q are not omnipotent, it seems there almost as if you are suggesting that some of their powers are boundless because we do not know their limits, and so we should not discuss them entirely. I would define that as a no-limits fallacy, or at least bordering close to one. Just saying that it seemed so to me. If you meant something else, then oh well.

Does it makes it easier for you to read if the letters are so big? I'm okay with it. But let me assure you that I have no problems to read and understand the text with a normal letter size. And again: You should read and try to understand what is said and not what you want to believe or wish. I have not voiced a belief that you should not even try to find low-end examples of the powers of Q. I merely stated that there weren't any limits shown. I explicitly stated that, to compare the powers of Q with the powers of Galactus, you should list them (quantify them) and compare them.

And I did not suggested that some of the powers of Q are boundless. Correct is that I stated that we do not know their limits. But this does not allow for the conclusion that there are no limits. It's very simple: We do not know the limits of the powers of Q. This statement does neither mean that there are no limits nor does this mean that there are limits. The simple statement doesn't say anything about the existence of limits - it says only what we know or do not know.

OK, thanks for elaborating on this.

To be honest: Because we do not know anything about the limits of the powers of Q, I think that a comparison between his powers and the powers of Galactus is pointless. Fact is that there was never a situation in which Q - with his powers - had to admitt that he can't do something. There was never a situation in which Q - with his powers - couldn't do something - unless another Q was involved. Again: This does not mean that his powers have no limits. But is means that we do not know, where these limits are. Insofar it seems impossible to quantify them. I do not know how it is with Galactus. But if you can't quantify the powers of Q, how do you want to compare them with the powers of Galactus? All you could do is to compare the biggest achievement both have shown. But as such achievements don't have to be the upper limit of what they can do - unless told otherwise - such a comparison is meaningless.

And so are all Vs. debates when you think about. They are meaningless and many of them are grounded on the worst/best accomplishments that each side has demonstrated; then they're compared. However, you can still attempt to compare the knowns available from two universes and try to make an "educated" guess about who is more likely to win. We do have several examples of what both the Q and Galactus have done, and the Galactus's best far outdo Q's best. There's no reason to assume without adequate proof that Q will be able to pull tricks out of his ass orders of magnitude more powerful than what he's shown to be able to do.

By the way: You are moving the goalposts. First you accused me of believing Q is omnipotent. Now I'm trying to argue that you shouldn't find low-end examples of the powers of Q. I have neither said the one nor the other. Quite the contrary: I would appreciate it if you could find examples with which you could conclude to the limits of the power of Q. Then a comparison of his powers with the powers of Galactus would start to make sense and maybe would get interessting.

And where exactly did I accuse you of that when I already have stated several times that you didn't? Aside from that one unclear sentence from your first post, I have said that you have not claimed that they were omnipotent. It does still seem though as if you are open to the idea that they are capable of possibly a lot MORE since we haven't seen many of the Q's limits, but personally I tend to err on the skeptical side.

By the way, just why shouldn't we attempt to downplay some of Q's powers?

As Batman said already: You shouldn't make the powers of Q appear less than they are. You should accept the abilities you have seen the Q to possess. The important question is if this were all abilities or only a small sample. As we have no evidence for it, we can not simply assume that there are no abilities beyond that. The question is, how far beyound that the abilities are going.

I didn't, moron. Read what was previously posted. You're the one accusing me of downplaying their abilities. You are the one who used that word specifically. I'll readily admit that they can pull off impressive deeds. I'm not denying that they can. What I don't agree with is that they'll be able to pull crap out of their asses orders of magnitude more powerful than what they have done in the past. And especially against a being like Galactus.

There are certain unresolved questions about his abilities.

With that I can totally and agree without any reservation.

OK.

He didn't know whether Sisko would have punched him in DS9. He has shown fear of a mortal in TNG, and Q have been killed by humans wielding Q weapons. He has looked to mortals for advice and help in the past even with his seemingly "god-like" abilities. Hardly not any room there to call into question his superiority.

I wonder what you are trying to argue. That Q is not omnipotent? That's not disputed?

But the question is still, what can you gain by stating this undisputed fact again and again in your quest to show that Q can not defeat Galactus. It's one sided. You are still trying to show, that Q is not omnipotent. But you are not quantifying the power of Q. You only state that there are limits - but you do not show, where the limits are. Furthermore: Is Galactus omnipotent? Do his powers have limits and if yes: where are they? These questions have to be answered to show who the more powerful being is.

No, I'm trying to say that the Q are not the supposed demi-gods that don't have any weaknesses as many (especially pro-Trek) debaters deem them to be. This has nothing to do with whether they are omnipotent or not.

As to your second point here, why don't you start a new topic about it and find out? Do your own research. Frankly I don't have the time nor the interest to get into a full blown debate about Q vs Galactus right now. I posted a couple of links about Galactus's powers earlier, though. Feel free to glance them over.

What I don't like though is how some fans think they can blow up the universe with a snap of their fingers or other whacky shit like that which we've never seen just because Q does something far less impressive, then says that he's omnipotent thereafter.

That may be your problem. You are to emotional in your hatred that you can't even understand what you read. But maybe you should frst try to understand what someone is trying to say, before you jump to the conclusion that he is trying to say that Q can blow up the universe with a snap of their fingers or other whacky shit like that.

Playing the psychologist now over the internet, are we? Give me a break, guy. Stop psychoanalyzing people online whom you've never even met.

If you read through my posts, you will notice that I haven't made one single claim about the powers of Q - with the exception that I explicitly said that he is not omnipotent and that his powers have limits.

What is your point here other just to state this for shits and giggles? Is trolling on the internetz your personal past-time or something?

[Admiral Mercury]

Batman your attempts at dismissing the powers of the Q are laughable. You've either never seen a Star Trek episode with Q in it, or it's been so long that you don't remember very much from them.

Yes, that's me, and I'll continue doing so as long as you continue using unqualified examples like that, because I'm right. 'They can bring back the dead under circumstances XYZ where even Federation medicine is powerless, the body is totally destroyed, the death happened 9 gazillion years ago' etc etc would have been one thing. What you actually did say (well, write, this being a textual medium) was simply 'they can bring back the dead' with no mention of the circumstances. Guess what-so can modern medicine.

In the TNG episode "Hide and Q" Dr. Crusher implores Riker to use his new Q powers to bring a little girl back from the dead. He refuses, not because he can't, but because he was ordered not to use his powers by Picard. Being able to bring that girl back to the dead is a power beyond what Federation medicine was capable of. Another example would be in the episode "Death Wish" were Quinn accidentally removes all the men of Voyager from existence and then brings them back to life. I don't think modern medicine is quite so good that it can bring people back to life after every trace of them has been removed from reality.

Um-where, exactly was it ever said that the Q were in any way shape or form responsible for that? The damned anomaly undeniably happened, but at no point was it intimated that the Q actually created it, they merely decided not to stop it (which presupposes they could do so to begin with).

You are painfully misinformed. Q specifically states that he was ordered to kill humanity on orders of the Continuum. Picard is only able to create the anomaly in the first place due to the information he gathers in all three timelines. Q is the one taking Picard from time period to time period. In this instance Picard is simply being used as a tool by Q to create the anomaly. To say that it's not Q creating it is like saying carpenters don't build things, their tools build things, or that musicians don't play music, their instruments play music.

Yeah. In the Milky Way, and if memory serves, in the Delta Quadrant. I wouldn't exactly call that in another universe.

The Q aren't fighting in the Milky way, they're fighting in the Q Continuum which is about as much of another universe as exists in Star Trek. Also, really? You're going to imply that the supernovas were localized to the Delta Quadrant? That's really so stupid that I will not dignify it with an answer.

[WATCH-MAN]

Of course you didn't. Which is why you specifically accused me of starting it as per your own words and now are saying that you didn't, right? From your previous post: "Five posts about Galactus respective the power of Q. And you started it when you claimed that you blah blah blah...."

Cut the semantics horseshit out. Maybe you should take some of your own advice there, and understand what you read and write.

I wrote:

• • • • Five posts about Galactus respective the power of Q. And you started it when you claimed that you »saw him claim recently that Q could take on Galactus and win easily«.

Please show me where I have said that you are responsible for the derail. I merely said that your comment started the derail. But this does not mean that you are responsible for it. It happens that an innocent comment can be the starting point of a new debatte, a new aspect, that has nothing to do with the original subject. That's only natural. If at all, one could say that thoose, who are readily jumping on such a comment - although it is unimportant for the subject - are to blame. But even with such an assessment I'd be cautios.

But if we now are debatting who is responsible for the derail of this thread: Maybe you can explain what your intentions were when you replied to Vance:

• • • • Honestly, Idazmi's videos were the first real time I had truly encountered the ill logic Trekky so often mentioned on Mikes site, he's the stereotypical paragon of the "Trektard" lol. I honestly think most Trek fans are nowhere near as stupid, and are just like everyone else.

        This isn't SW vs ST related, but I saw him claim recently that Q could take on Galactus and win easily.

If it has nothing to do with SW vs ST, why mention it?
Did you expect that nobody will respond to this comment?
Or was it your intent to provoke replies and steer this thread to this subject?

As I have said above: Until now I haven't considered who is responsible for this thread. But then you have to come and complain that I had accused you - as if you were totally innocent. Ha Ha Ha ...

OK, thanks for elaborating on this.

You are welcome.

And so are all Vs. debates when you think about. They are meaningless and many of them are grounded on the worst/best accomplishments that each side has demonstrated; then they're compared. However, you can still attempt to compare the knowns available from two universes and try to make an "educated" guess about who is more likely to win. We do have several examples of what both the Q and Galactus have done, and the Galactus's best far outdo Q's best. There's no reason to assume without adequate proof that Q will be able to pull tricks out of his ass orders of magnitude more powerful than what he's shown to be able to do.

The difference usually ist that we have lots of context and footage to conclude to upper limits. In this case we have nearly nothing. We have seen a few tricks of Q - but we do not know if these tricks were only a little bit of what he can do or if they were nearly all he can do.

And where exactly did I accuse you of that when I already have stated several times that you didn't? Aside from that one unclear sentence from your first post, I have said that you have not claimed that they were omnipotent.

And yet - as I have shown before, many of your replies are only making sense if you still assumed that I'm believing Q to be omnipotent.

• • • • I never said that you claimed the Q were omnipotent.

        And why did you wrote in response to my post:

        • • • • Fact is that Q is very powerful. We don't know, where the limits of his powers are.

                Which is a far cry from having no limits. Just because we haven't seen the limit of his powers doesn't mean that he has none, or that they must be orders of magnitude greater than what he had shown in the past.

        Where does this come from - if you haven't assumed that I'm the opinion that the powers of Q have no limits?
        

        • • • • To merely play the powers of Q down, won't win you any credibility as these powers are known insofar as that there weren't any limits shown in them.

                Do you understand what a no-limits argument is?

        Again: Where does this come from - if you haven't assumed that I'm the opinion that the powers of Q have no limits?
        
        What are you trying to argue here - if not that the powers of Q have limits? And if this is what you are arguing: Why are you arguing it if you do not think that I'm the opinion that his powers have no limits? Where is your point?

You didn't answer this questions.

It does still seem though as if you are open to the idea that they are capable of possibly a lot MORE since we haven't seen many of the Q's limits, but personally I tend to err on the skeptical side.

That is correct. As no upper limits are established, I am open to the idea that they are capable of possibly a lot MORE.

And at the same time, I am open to the idea that all the tricks we have seen, is nearly all they can do.

I didn't, moron. Read what was previously posted. You're the one accusing me of downplaying their abilities. You are the one who used that word specifically.

While it is correct that I was the first who used that word, this has nothing to do with the question, who has done the deed. Naming it and doing it are different things.

Furthermore: I never said that you did. I wrote:

• • • • As Batman said already: You shouldn't make the powers of Q appear less than they are. You should accept the abilities you have seen the Q to possess. The important question is if this were all abilities or only a small sample. As we have no evidence for it, we can not simply assume that there are no abilities beyond that. The question is, how far beyound that the abilities are going.

And with that I replied to your question:

• • • • By the way, just why shouldn't we attempt to downplay some of Q's powers?

Are you denying to have asked that question?

I'll readily admit that they can pull off impressive deeds. I'm not denying that they can. What I don't agree with is that they'll be able to pull crap out of their asses orders of magnitude more powerful than what they have done in the past. And especially against a being like Galactus.

As I have said that I'm open to that idea - not that I believe it. And I'm open to the idea that all they have done is nearls all they can do. And I'm open to the idea that their limits are anywhere between these points.
To me it simply is a non sequitur.

No, I'm trying to say that the Q are not the supposed demi-gods that don't have any weaknesses as many (especially pro-Trek) debaters deem them to be. This has nothing to do with whether they are omnipotent or not.

Does this mean that you are trying to convince me of something I'm already convinced of? Because I have never claimed that Q is a demi-god who doesn't have any weakness.

As to your second point here, why don't you start a new topic about it and find out? Do your own research. Frankly I don't have the time nor the interest to get into a full blown debate about Q vs Galactus right now. I posted a couple of links about Galactus's powers earlier, though. Feel free to glance them over.

This again lets me wonder what your intention is. I already explained that I'm not really interessted in such a comparison. But you startet this subject with your post about someone claiming recently that Q could take on Galactus and win easily.

But then you only harped on the point that Q is not omnipotent and not a demi-god and not invulnerable - what no participant in this thread has disputed. With this you have done nothing to quantify the powers of Q. You have done nothing to make them comparable with the powers of Galactus. You have done nothing to show that the claim, that the claim that Q could take on Galactus and win easily is false. What again is your intention?

What is your point here other just to state this for shits and giggles? Is trolling on the internetz your personal past-time or something?

As I have explained already: The starting-point for this subject was your own post:

• • • • This isn't SW vs ST related, but I saw him claim recently that Q could take on Galactus and win easily.

You and Batman deemed this claim to be absurd.
But you have done nothing to show that it is absurd. All you have done is to harpe on the point that Q is not omnipotent and not a demi-god and not invulnerable. But you have done nothing to show that this makes him incapable of taking on Galactus and winning easily.

My intent was to show you that. Maybe I hoped that your arguments could have become better, that you start to try to quantify the powers of Q and Galactus and then really compare them.

[Darth Yan]

I was kind o asking how orionsagan's were inaccurate.

[Batman]

Batman your attempts at dismissing the powers of the Q are laughable. You've either never seen a Star Trek episode with Q in it, or it's been so long that you don't remember very much from them.

Yes, that's me, and I'll continue doing so as long as you continue using unqualified examples like that, because I'm right. 'They can bring back the dead under circumstances XYZ where even Federation medicine is powerless, the body is totally destroyed, the death happened 9 gazillion years ago' etc etc would have been one thing. What you actually did say (well, write, this being a textual medium) was simply 'they can bring back the dead' with no mention of the circumstances. Guess what-so can modern medicine.

In the TNG episode "Hide and Q" Dr. Crusher implores Riker to use his new Q powers to bring a little girl back from the dead. He refuses, not because he can't, but because he was ordered not to use his powers by Picard. Being able to bring that girl back to the dead is a power beyond what Federation medicine was capable of. Another example would be in the episode "Death Wish" were Quinn accidentally removes all the men of Voyager from existence and then brings them back to life. I don't think modern medicine is quite so good that it can bring people back to life after every trace of them has been removed from reality.

See? That's exactly what I'm talking about. It is undeniable evidence that Q abilities far outstrip modern medicine. The problem is you didn't provide it at the time you made your claim. This is your claim. I'm not required to seek out evidence for it, you have to present it. If all all you do present are unqualified generalities, don't whine when people counter them with other unqualified generalities.

Um-where, exactly was it ever said that the Q were in any way shape or form responsible for that? The damned anomaly undeniably happened, but at no point was it intimated that the Q actually created it, they merely decided not to stop it (which presupposes they could do so to begin with).

You are painfully misinformed. Q specifically states that he was ordered to kill humanity on orders of the Continuum. Picard is only able to create the anomaly in the first place due to the information he gathers in all three timelines. Q is the one taking Picard from time period to time period. In this instance Picard is simply being used as a tool by Q to create the anomaly. To say that it's not Q creating it is like saying carpenters don't build things, their tools build things, or that musicians don't play music, their instruments play music.

Do you have a quote for that? It's been a while since I saw 'All Good Things' but I don't recall anything about the anomaly being deliberately created nor Q having orders to terminate humanity, he was merely told to let them die as I recall.

Yeah. In the Milky Way, and if memory serves, in the Delta Quadrant. I wouldn't exactly call that in another universe.

The Q aren't fighting in the Milky way, they're fighting in the Q Continuum which is about as much of another universe as exists in Star Trek. Also, really? You're going to imply that the supernovas were localized to the Delta Quadrant? That's really so stupid that I will not dignify it with an answer.

If there is evidence for supernovas happening elsewhere all you have to do is provide it. Which is something you seem to be eerily reluctant to do for somebody who is so sure of his position.
As for other universes existing in Star Trek, I do seem to remember something about a mirror universe somewhere...
The Q Continuum is another dimension. Trek is lousy with those. That doesn't necessarily make it another universe.

[Ted C]

In "All Good Things", Q creates the situation that allows Picard to start the anti-time anomaly.

Of course, by the end of the episode, only Picard remembers anything happening, which leaves open the possibility that everything we saw was happening in his head, and that there was never really a galaxy spanning threat.

[Ted C]

Specifically, Q makes it possible for Picard to order a " inverse tachyon pulse" to be used at the same point in space at three different points in time, resulting in the "anti-time eruption".

As noted, however, there's no evidence "after the fact" that anything Picard remembers actually happened.

[Battlegrinder]

To get things back on track (mocking stupid trekkie youtubers).

Oh, man. I debated this guy once, and it was the most fun I'd had in years. I think the "Star Trek vs Star Wars: Star Wars Fanboys" video was posted as a partial (and awful) rebuttal of some of my points. I know that "SW fanboys claim phasers can't even punch through packing crates" bit was.

A few choice quotes from the debate, for your amusement (sadly, I lost most of the early bits, but if you've seen his videos you can proably guess how clever his arguments were).

part of his attempt to prove the Doomsday Machine had DS level firepower (for no adequately explained reason):
"You first statement ruined your argument. NOT BULL. Spock gave the info, Kirk reacted: "Every planet in this system has been BLOWN TO RUBBLE." - less than five minutes into the episode. And the clearly visible debris everywhere...

Like the fact that it destroyed planets in seconds, according to Decker."

To which I responded: "The Doomsday Machine was not and could not be at Death Star level firepower. The logic is irrefutable.
IF the Doomsday Machine was able to fire a 2.3E32 joule beam, AND it was not able to destroy ST ships in one shot with said beam, THEN ST ships have shields that can withstand 2.3E32 joules of energy.
IF ST ships have shields that can withstand 2.3E32 joules of energy, THEN ST weapons must deal far more damage than 2.3E32 joules in order to take down enemy shields.
IF ST weapons must deal far more damage than 2.3E32 joules in order to take down enemy shields, THEN the Enterprise D should have been able to blast its way out of a small asteroid in "The Pegasus", The Cardassian-Romulan fleet should have obliterated the Founder's homeworld with only a few shots in "The Die is Cast", and the 2000 kilogram warhead of the Cardassian ATR-4107 ("Dreadnought") with a rough yield of 42960 megatons, would not have been referred to as such a horrifically powerful weapon (nor should Voyager's self destruct have been the only way to destroy it).
SINCE the 1701-D couldn't blast its way out of the asteroid, the fleet didn't destroy the Founder's homeworld, and the ATR-4107 was considered to be terrifyingly powerful, THEN ST weapons are not capable of 2.3E32 joules range firepower, and thus their shields have a much lower threshold for failure, and thus the Enterprise and the Constellation would have been destroyed by the Doomsday Machine if it had Death Star level firepower. In addition, the Constellation detected a planet breaking up (implying a slow destruction in line with my theory) as it approached the Machine, rather one that had been destroyed in one shot. And finally, no matter how powerful the Doomsday Machine was, it still wasn't federation technology, and it was still destroyed beyond their ability to repair, and even if it was brought back online or another one was found, it is just as likely to attack the federation as the empire. It isn't as powerful as you claim, it isn't available for use, and it isn't reliable even it if was available."

He never managed to rebut that point.


Military forces:
He attmepted to claim MAKOs were still around in TNG era, and were superior to Stormtroopers.
"Well, judging by you stating that MACO troops have "unimpressive" armor and equipment, (Their armor is like a more advanced version of modern Marine wear in 2160, and their guns are exactly like a clone trooper's blaster rifle: by 2409 they have fully contained powered battlesuits with cloaking devices - you would know that if you actually researched them) and your statements about stormtrooper armor (which never did anything useful at all in the films, the Clone Wars, the videogames, or the EU) I'm forced to accept that you refuse to evaluate anything based on what it does: only on what you wish it was, and what a layman would think by looking at the lowest elements of Star Trek."

He also tried to claim that Vulcans and Betazoids were a significant tactical advantage for the Federation, and that Gary Mitchell was representative of the level of psychic powers possessed by most federation humans.

And I found it impossible to get him to discuss anything else at length (such as shields, weapons, hull strength, etc), since he evidentally didn't have quotes to support his various BS points. I do remember him seizing on the phrase "parody army" from when I pointed out that the guys from Starship Troopers (a movie made to mock militarism) were still better equipped than federation troops, and trying to claim that SW armies were also a "parody army" (using yet more cherry picked scenes from the Clone Wars TV show), rather than countering my point that even if that was true, said parody army also outguns the Feds. And that he has no idea what "parody" means, even after I sent him the relevant dictionary.com link.



If you want a fun time, I'd suggest calling him out. Just don't expect a clever and well organized response. He's clearly spent too much time talking with his ignorant trektard buddies on his tightly controlled youtube videos to deal with anyone who disagrees with him.

[Vance]

Well -- seems someones "reported me" for my "recent rabid warsie activity". In his latest video OrionBroadcast has attacked my recently launched website.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-f59aWsBbw

His rant is quite funny: "the eclipse is not canon... (long pause) .... NO!.. Firmus Piett!" lol.

Idazmi seven is not my "arch nemisis" lol

[Boeing 757]

Wow...just wow.

[Xess]

I read some of his blog posts, they alone gave me such an uncomfortable feeling that I couldn't watch his videos. His obsessive behaviour and apparent delusions imply to me a person having severe problems with mental illness.

I myself was at my most confrontational and uncompromising about versus debates when I was suffering from severe depression. Looking back I am embarrassed by my past behaviour and now realize I was connecting some of my self-worth to being on the "winning" side. Fortunately, I received the medical help I needed and no longer think that way. It saddens me to see this man clearly in need of help and clearly not getting it. I keep thinking that the internet is the worst place for him to be since he can receive feedback that supports his unhealthy behaviour and draw a lot of negative feedback that will simply aggravate him.

Since I'm not a psychiatrist or any other expert on mental illness I can very well be completely off base. Whatever the case may be that is my thoughts on the matter and I find that I can't laugh at this man, I can only feel pity.

[darth_timon]

I've just provided a link to my own take about Trek vs Wars on Orion's Youtube page. I doubt he'll respond but ya never know.

http://darthtimon.wix.com/meerkatmusing ... wars/c135t

[Ted C]

I just watched his "Decisive Argument in 5 Minutes" and was astonished at the dumb.

Using Charlie X and Gary Mitchell as examples of psionic ability available to the Federation?
Long-range anti-capship guns firing close-range at fighters as examples of SW accuracy?

It just gets dumber as you go along.

[Kane Starkiller]

This man clearly has bigger issues than something as inconsequential as STvsSW debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypTP8GJoYoQ