ST v SW forum, or how many ways can SW trash ST?

TurboPhaser · Post by **TurboPhaser** » 2003-05-31 11:20am

This hostility has always miffed me. Chas has a diferent opinion, and though he has not got all the facts about that asteroid scene (Of course its shields coulda stopped a rock, but as mentioned they werent up because of that holo-communication), he still deserves to state his opinion without being flamed!

I have noticed this incredible hostility everywhere in the ST v SW community and am dismayed. If your opponent is being obnoxious and stubborn, dont stoop to his level.

I have also read Darkstars site, which all of you condem, and I notice that he never states that the Star Trek universe could defeat Star Wars once. All he appears to be doing is offering different opinions. I agree with some of his site, and disagree with other parts . Darkstar seems very hostile and generally stubborn but he does present his arguments well. He doesnt just say

'Star trek would beat wars because kirks so coooool, trek would win cause they good guys yadda yadda etc etc'

He is too hostile for my likings, I'm not defending him, I'm just sayin he's entitled to his opinions without constant hate directed to him.

He seems strangley fixated on Micheal Wong, and dispalys his conflicts with him quite proudly. I dunno who started it, but i hope Mr. Wong is ignoring his e-mails.

Thankyou for your time.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2003-05-31 11:27am

He doesnt just say

'Star trek would beat wars because kirks so coooool, trek would win cause they good guys yadda yadda etc etc'

No he didn't. But not because of enlighetment. He simply hides, what you have said pure, behind a thick wall of words. That way he hopes to look like he is acting smart, what is not the case.....

JodoForce · Post by **JodoForce** » 2003-05-31 11:35am

Quite. Darkstar could have led a very successful career as a politician--although we would suffer horribly for it

--he has got doubletalk completely down and he fools 90% of people if they are not paying attention and / or don't have enough facts on hand, and his posts are filled with so much irrelevant red-herrings that they look to be the main content rather than the other way round, and this irrelevant stuff is the stuff that sounds sensible while the stuff that is actually relevant is complete rubbish

TurboPhaser · Post by **TurboPhaser** » 2003-05-31 11:58am

Agreed. Mostly.

Some of his articles make sense , but some are based on very thin evidence.

This one: http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWweakhull.html is a reasonably well thought out argument, with a good amount of truth in it. It isnt perfect, but it gets a good point across.

While this one: http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWdeathstar2.html is a very shaky argument, based on very little evidence. It is also very confusing, by the time i finish reading it, I'm not sure what he's arguing against anymore!

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-05-31 12:01pm

Anderson is very good at making people think he knows what he's talking about.

The problem is, he usually doesn't. I have made a massive rebuttal of his site, and consider the matter over with. While I agree with you that parts of his site are well thought-out and researched, I feel that a good majority of it is similar to his page on the DS and Alderaan, in that it blatantly ignores evidence.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-05-31 12:04pm

TurboPhaser wrote:This hostility has always miffed me. Chas has a diferent opinion, and though he has not got all the facts about that asteroid scene (Of course its shields coulda stopped a rock, but as mentioned they werent up because of that holo-communication), he still deserves to state his opinion without being flamed!

Sensitivies run high in these kind of debates, but he stated quite clearly he wasn't afraid of flames, ending in the 10+ pages of debates this thread had, before the "attack". Anyway, he has a different opinion, it was shown to him the errors in his opinion, but he never yielded from his initial stance, prompting even more agression.
It is okay to state an opinion, it is not OK to act like an idiot and don't understand the errors in said opinion, pointed by the more experience denizens, who have been through these arguments dozens of times before. He would get more respect if he conceded his faults.

I have noticed this incredible hostility everywhere in the ST v SW community and am dismayed. If your opponent is being obnoxious and stubborn, dont stoop to his level.

The hostility is old... very old... As for lowering to their level, that would lead to a long discussion on which method would be best.

I have also read Darkstars site, which all of you condem, and I notice that he never states that the Star Trek universe could defeat Star Wars once. All he appears to be doing is offering different opinions. I agree with some of his site, and disagree with other parts . Darkstar seems very hostile and generally stubborn but he does present his arguments well. He doesnt just say

'Star trek would beat wars because kirks so coooool, trek would win cause they good guys yadda yadda etc etc'

He is too hostile for my likings, I'm not defending him, I'm just sayin he's entitled to his opinions without constant hate directed to him.

The guy is dangerous, going only by his site, one would be convinced his findings were correct. Anyone not versed in logic debating will fall easily in the traps (If I hadn't read Saxton's and Mike's site first, I would fall prey also), too bad there are other sites that deal with the same questions, but they don't hide it behind convoluted wording like he does.

Besides, going through Mike's hatemail, and the RSA Archive, we get a better picture of him, of his techniques, of his distortions and outright lies he uses to tire his opponents, and claiming victory by default... Or so he wished that.

He seems strangley fixated on Micheal Wong, and dispalys his conflicts with him quite proudly. I dunno who started it, but i hope Mr. Wong is ignoring his e-mails.

Check out the psychiatric term "projection", you'll find a picture of him.