Yet another "I'm not a Trekkie, but ..." E-mail

[Darth Wong]

Some guy named "Dave McDarmont":

On Wednesday 10 December 2003 10:21 pm, you wrote:

Name: Dave McDarmont
E-Mail: <snip>

Comments: Interesting webpage. Some of the ideas you have expressed, I had not thought of, such as the fact that the Federation is communist. It makes sense, once you take all the claims about no money in their economy into consideration. I will take your scientific calculations at face value, since I never was much of a mathemetician (although I do have a science, Chemistry, degree - BS, University of Colorado, in case you care).

I have an observation, though. Your standard of proof, or lack thereof, is much lower for Star Wars than for Star Trek.

I get this complaint from a lot of Trekkies. Every time, they find themselves unable to back up their "double standard" talk when challenged and end up appealing to vague non-examples. What makes you think you are going to be the exception?

There are several examples where ST contradicts inself (as you would expect from a show over 25 years old with hundreds of writers), you always assume the Federation has the lowest capability. For example, in TOS starships routinely engaged in combat at warp speed, but they do not (generally) in any of the later episodes.

Find me one TOS episode in which the ships engaged at RELATIVE speeds exceeding c. Elaan of Troyius? No dice; watch that episode with your eyes and ears open.

You therefore conclude that all ST combat occurs at low speed and short range (except for warp speed strafing runs which are reduced in effectiveness due to the warp bubble - wherever you got that).

Wherever YOU got that, you mean, since I don't know what article you are referring to.

You also accuse the world of ST as being unrealistically utopian, but the old republic did not even have a standing military, which for a galaxy sized govenment seems extremely unrealistic.

No, it had a standing navy, but not ground armies. This makes sense since individual planets would maintain their own ground armies. Please try to pay attention when you watch the movies.

You also seem to hold ST to what you see on screen is exactly what you get, no more, no less. I did read your canon page, but you seem to have taken the idea that nothing except what is in the series or movies is real a bit too far.

"Too far" by what criteria?

For example, you say there is no evidence of much of a ground combat capability for the Federation. That may be true, but just because you don't see it on ST, doesn't make it necessarily true.

Wrong. See:
- Siege of AR-588
- Reunification Part 2
- Paradise Lost
- Tears of the Prophets
- Nor the Battle to the Strong

All of the series and the movies focus on the actions on a particular ship or station, and not much else.

Many, yes. All, no. There were more than enough incidents to show that the Federation has pitiful ground combat capabilities.

To assume that since you don't see Fed tanks, they don't exist is not valid. I bet you don't see Canadian tanks on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

"False analogy" fallacy. I am not in a warzone, so I obviously don't see tanks. However, we have seen the front lines of Star Trek combat several times during the Dominion War. No tanks, no mortars, no HMGs, no grenades, no close-air support, no artillery, no NBC protection, no preparation of the battlefield, NO GROUND COMBAT ABILITIES beyond those that modern-day police officers might have.

We are talking about a sci-fi universe where screaming infantry charges routinely overrun prepared defenses, and not by sneaking up on them, but by simply OVERCOMING THEM VIA A HEADLONG RUSH. It is a universe where knife-wielding Klingons are actually dangerous. Sorry, but you are simply wrong. There is ample evidence that Federation ground combat capabilities are abysmal.

Finally, I don't consider myself a Trekkie, at least not anymore. The producers of ST have truely screwed up a good show (TOS, parts of TNG) to the point of it being unwatchable. George Lucas has certainly done some of that with the "prequel" movies, but not to the same degree. My only comment was to apply the same standards to both pieces of fiction.

Then perhaps you could find actual EXAMPLES of me doing this. So far, you have presented nothing but the usual bullshit.

Anything less is not only biased, it is intellectually lazy.

Speak for yourself. Since rebuttals to your "points" are already in my website, it is obvious that you didn't even bother reading the entire website before presuming to refute it and cast accusations about my honesty. Don't throw stones from a glass house.

ps. I won't say anything about the X-Wing and TIE fighters banking and turning like WWII airplanes if you won't.

Would that be before or after I point out that capital-scale warships do the same thing in Trek, so this avails you nothing.

[Stravo]

Just as a nit because it occurred to me when you asked it about the TOS era ships fighting at warp. IIRC in the TOS Episode Arena, The Enterprise was preparing to engage the Gorn Vessel at Warp 9. They were chasing it down getting ready to open fire.

[Darth Wong]

Just as a nit because it occurred to me when you asked it about the TOS era ships fighting at warp. IIRC in the TOS Episode Arena, The Enterprise was preparing to engage the Gorn Vessel at Warp 9. They were chasing it down getting ready to open fire.

Both ships travelling in the same direction at warp 9. See the word "relative".

[Stravo]

Just as a nit because it occurred to me when you asked it about the TOS era ships fighting at warp. IIRC in the TOS Episode Arena, The Enterprise was preparing to engage the Gorn Vessel at Warp 9. They were chasing it down getting ready to open fire.

Both ships travelling in the same direction at warp 9. See the word "relative".

Ahh...my error.

[Sceptre]

Been a while since you had one of these Mike.

[Ghost Rider]

Wow...no screaming but a stab at really nothing.

He sounds more along the lines of casual fan who thought he found something that hundreds of of naysayers didn't. The ground forces bit is hilarious given you do point out on your site about the Siege at AR-588

Sorta sad really.

[Darth Wong]

Guess what: his next response switched modes to "this is a stupid subject of debate anyway, you need to get out more, and you should be more polite". How original

On Thursday 11 December 2003 06:00 am, you wrote:

The comment that I made about weapon effectiveness came from this line from your website:

Although Federation starships can engage sublight targets while at warp, they suffer a serious weapon performance loss when firing through warp bubbles, as discussed in the TM. If they choose to use these tactics against our starships they will find that their weakened weapon bursts will be completely ineffective against our shields and they will be forced to either retreat or drop to sublight and close range for maximum weapon effect. Under those conditions, they will be quickly destroyed by our heavy turbolasers.

Just refreshing your memory. I do notice you got it from the tech manual, but you have said it is "quasi-canon" at best, but you use it to prove your point. That is another example of my basic argument.

If you checked the date at which that page was last updated, you would see that it was well before the current Paramount policy was made clear. Most of my site has not been updated in years. Your transparent attempt to cast accusations about my honesty is nothing more than sophistry. I am not obligated to run around keeping every part of the site constantly updated, unless you feel like paying me to do so, which I suspect you don't.

I have not seen the DS9 episodes you refered to (told you I can't watch it anymore), so I will accept your argument. As far as that goes, tv and movies in general, not just sci fi, has a real problem depicting realistic combat. I will concede SW does a much better job than ST, but the end battle in AOTC has problems, too. We see troops running into battle in formations of squares like they were Roman or Napoleonic troops.

No we don't. I've seen that battle. They're too close together and they tend to form columns behind Jedi, but they are not arranged in squares. I like the way you accuse me of dishonesty for failing to update every part of my site to be consistent with updates on Paramount policy while spouting outright lies yourself.

Given the lethality of the weapons in use, that should have resulted in massive casualties.

In real-life, shrapnel from artillery causes more than half of all battlefield casualties, and clonetroopers are armoured against it. Direct-fire weapons at ranges of several kilometres are not as effective, particularly given the poor tactics of the droid army. That's not to say the clone army couldn't have used better tactics, but they are light-years ahead of ST ground combat, and superbly equipped. This is simply not disputable.

The battle in the Empire Strikes Back was better, but why did the sky speeders have harpoons with cables anyway? How about the ewoks beating up your storm troopers? I think I'd be more afraid of a Klingon with a knife than a ewok with a stick.

Do you believe Klingons with knives could beat an Ewok army with prepared traps, natural camouflage, tiny target profiles, the high ground, the advantage of surprise, a huge numerical advantage, stolen Imperial hand weapons, knowledge of the terrain, and a Rebel strike team assisting them?

For that matter, do you believe a single Klingon with a knife would beat a single Ewok with a bow? What even makes you think a single Klingon is stronger than an Ewok? Most animals easily kick human ass in terms of physical performance, you know.

As for your misconceptions about the ROTJ battle, what you don't seem to realize is that after the initial surprise (remember that the stormtroopers had been told to expect just a half-dozen infiltrators), they recovered and were soon kicking Ewok ass until Chewbacca managed to hijack a scout walker and a couple of other walkers ran into prepared traps.

Overconfidence killed the Imperials on that day, but that is not unique in military history. And it would far more difficult to see and shoot a three-foot tall brown furry Ewok in thick jungle than a Klingon on a desert world such as the one shown in "Nor the Battle to the Strong", yet Bat'leth-wielding Klingons were able to overrun Federation positions. Or do you think it's actually harder to shoot a screaming six foot tall Klingon on open ground than a camouflaged three foot tall animal in thick jungle?

Lastly, this was meant to be a friendly discussion.

Perhaps you should have thought of that before accusing me of dishonesty, then. Is that how you always open friendly discussions? By accusing people of dishonesty right off the bat, taking their comments out of context in order to accuse them of double-standards, etc?

Sorry if you took offense to my comment about laziness. It is obvious that you have put a lot of time and effort into your website. When I said I don't consider myself a trekkie, I meant to show that I was not one of the people that could not see the validity of your arguments, got angry when ST was attacked, and lashed out in extremely petty and immature ways. Apparently, you have gotten too many of those comments, because the overall tone of your response was petty and mean, as well. Also, I never used profanity. I don't have a problem with profanity, but when you use it in your rebuttal, you come across as that much more petty.

Define "petty". You are the one who is attacking my character by accusing me of dishonesty and double standards, and then attempting to hold your nose in the air because I used a dirty word. "Oooooh, he used a dirty word, teacher! He broke the rules! He's a bad man!" Grow up.

I considered carefully before I even wrote in, because fundamentally, this stuff is pretty geeky.

Of course it is. So is English literature studies.

You apparently have a job and family, so I can't use the "move out of your parents basement" argument, but please realize, this is fiction. (That was a joke, so don't get mad) Arguing over which is better, ST or SW is at best a test in which a given person likes better, and at worse a "my dad can beat your dad" argument.

So says the person who decided to attack somebody's integrity over it. Oh sorry, I forgot. After yet more personal attacks, you think I'm the one who's being "petty".

I would be happy to continue to write back and forth with you, but only if it can be done within a friendly discussion framework. If not, my advice is to get out of the house more.

Ah yes, "get out of the house more". Is this the part where I should apologize for being "petty" after yet more personal attacks on YOUR part?

Good luck with your website, though.

This is a GAME, much like many other hobbies people have. If you don't want to play, fine. But you chose to participate, got your bullshit shot down, and then decided to backpedal to say "well, who cares about this anyway". Don't worry, I've seen your type before.

If you put this up on your website as an example of how you vanquished another ignorant trekkie, I will laugh.

Not nearly as much as my readers will.

You obviously know much more about both ST and SW than I do. Congrats.

I know enough not to accuse people of dishonesty without having good evidence of it. An accusation of dishonesty is not some minor detail to be blown off with a shrug. Such an accusation is more important than ST vs SW, and speaks to the person's character. You do not make accusations like that lightly, nor should you pretend that the target of such an accusation has no right to be offended.

The only reason I pointed out flaws with SW is you enjoy pointing out flaws with ST.

I never said SW was perfect. However, it is not the military laughingstock that ST is, and all of your whining, personal attacks, and false accusations of dishonesty won't change that.

Again, I don't consider myself a trekkie, mostly for reasons you point out on your website. I am a fan of sci fi, so therefore both ST (at least some of it) and SW.

Dave

You're very good at being whiny and attacking your opponent while simultaneously pretending to be an impartial observer. Don't think I haven't seen this kind of attitude before.

[Balrog]

Guess what: his next response switched modes to "this is a stupid subject of debate anyway, you need to get out more, and you should be more polite". How original

You've got to wonder, if it was a stupid debate then why'd you get involved in it in the first place?

[Darth Wong]

And he tries yet again:

Wow, I guess no friendly discussion, huh? Alright, if you want to play that way, game on.

You started that way, by accusing me of dishonesty. Don't pretend otherwise.

First of all, Mike, I didn't accuse you of dishonesty, only of bias. The definition of bias, at least in the context I used it, is (so we can get that out of the way):

*A preference or inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment, prejudice. (From the American Heritage Dictionary, 2d College Edition).*

Which seems to sum up your attitude quite nicely.

No, you misrepresent my arguments in order to make it appear as if they are dishonest. You claimed that I deliberately quoted the TM in order to make Trek appear weaker even though it's non-canon, when official statements dismissing its status were only made AFTER most of my tech pages were written. You claimed that I apply a different standard of analysis to SW vs ST, yet you had no evidence of this differing standard. These are accusations of dishonesty. It is more honest to concede than to backpedal.

You indicate a preference or prejudice for SW, and I believe that it inhibits your impartial judgment. Nowhere does it say, or even imply, dishonesty. Nor do I think you are dishonest, just biased.

Wrong. Read your own comments, in which you accused me of applying different standards, deliberately contradicting myself, etc. If you want to accuse someone of dishonesty, do not be surprised when he reacts negatively, do not be surprised when he demands that you back up your accusations, and do not take the coward's way out by trying to backpedal instead of conceding the point when you cannot produce the evidence required.

Face it, we are all biased in one way or another, get over it. A (somewhat) current real world example is whether President Bush legitimately won the election in the US or not. Where a person comes down on that particular issue is a question of bias, since there are arguments for either position. If you choose to be offended and think I accused you of dishonesty, I can't help that. I will offer a small olive branch in saying that was not my intent. However, if you choose not to accept it, again, I can't help it.

Ad-hominem fallacy. The fact that a human being is biased does not mean that his methods must be unfair.

Secondly, let's get back to the issue of the warp bubble. I did not quote the ST Tech Manual; I quoted YOUR site, under the section entitled Federation FTL Combat, which quotes the TM. I am not sure you understood I was quoting your work, after you told me to read your whole site. If you are not familiar with your site, how can you expect me to be? If you knew I was quoting your site, why would you tell me to check your site, but then tell me Paramount has updated the warp bubble, but you have not on your site?

You said "wherever you got that", thus implying that I had just made it up. Then you post a quote from an old portion of my site in which it is VERY clear that it was taken from the TM, hence the "wherever you got that" comment is still bullshit. Once again, you show a consistent pattern of trying to make me look dishonest, and then trying to change the subject when confronted about it.

Is your site valid source material or not?

My site is an ANALYSIS of source material. How can it be source material? Only canon films and/or books (if upheld to be such) are source material.

Note, I did NOT accuse you of dishonesty for not updating your site, I didn't even realize it needed to be updated.

Wrong. You said "I do notice you got it from the tech manual, but you have said it is "quasi-canon" at best, but you use it to prove your point. That is another example of my basic argument." You accused me of deliberate self-contradiction, which is a form of dishonesty.

Next, the profanity thing. You tell me to grow up, but, at least in my opinion, using profanity for no good reason is less mature than not using it. I was not overly offended by that fact you used it, just that you used it for no good reason.

Your subjective opinions on the use of foul language have precisely zero value. Unless you can show how emotional maturity is somehow tied to the avoidance of naughty words, you are merely wasting time by attacking style over substance.

Finally, let's get to the rebuttals of your assertions about the matter at hand:

Rebuttal (Warp Speed Combat):

1. An episode where ships engaged at high relative speeds was Journey to Babel, where the Orion ship made numerous warp speed strafing runs against the Enterprise, which was at a sub-light speed at the time. You state on your site that the range numbers that Sulu call out disprove his speed, but when the two numbers (range vs speed) disagree, you automatically assume the speed is wrong, not the range. Why is that if there is no SW bias?

Perhaps because I'm talking about Elaan of Troyius rather than Journey to Babel (where BOTH ships were at warp if I recall correctly), so you're just mixing and matching one argument with another in order to generate your desired false impression of dishonesty.

Also, the Enterprise was unable to hit the other ship until the crew explicitly stated it had dropped to sublight. This would tend to support the idea that the range numbers were wrong, not the speed.

If you have some script excerpts and an actual point to make rather than trying to mix and match arguments confusing one episode with another, then by all means, let me know.

2. You state that direct observation (such as screen shots) should be taken at face value over character dialog. That is fine, except how would you depict warp speed combat on screen, or when the range is over a few dozen kilometers? You would have to show separate shots of the opposing ships firing and taking damage, just like was shown in TOS.

Yes, you would. So?

Or, you could show tactical representations on the bridge of one of the ships with the relative locations of the ships and their ranges to one another, like in the Wounded.

Which involved photon torpedoes, not phasers. Long-range accuracy is much easier with a guided missile than a gun.

I can't think of another way to show a fight where the combatants cannot see each other. In this case, the dialog and direct observations support one another.

3. You have contradicted yourself as far as Federation capabilities. One such example is on your Star Trek SCM (Space Combat Maneuvering) page, you state:

*In conclusion, it is important to remember that direct observation of every Star Trek space combat incident since ST2 has failed to reveal a single incident in which starships engaged in combat at the long ranges and relativistic speeds claimed by Federation cultists. Ship-to-ship fire invariably occurs at ranges of a few kilometres at most, and any long-range fire is invariably directed at constant-velocity targets such as planets*.

However, you do concede in your Federation FTL combat page that warp strafing DOES occur. So, which is it? (By the way: Federation cultists? Do you talk about Imperial cultists on your website? Could that be construed as bias?)

Yet again, you accuse me of dishonesty by misrepresenting my arguments. When have I ever said that warp-strafing occurs? Are you referring to the part where I say they can engage sublight targets from warp, based on the fact that they can do so at long range with torpedoes? How does this translate to phasers and warp-strafing? And how does it support your assertion that I'm deliberately cherry-picking Trek incidents to make Trek look bad?

4. If by high RELATIVE speeds you mean where two ships are going at different speeds (such as Warp 1 and Warp 4, for example), it doesn't matter unless you also talk about the direction they were traveling at the high speed (vector). Two ships fighting at Warp 1 would only have a small relative speed when traveling on approximately the same vectors (obviously). If the two ships are approaching each other, their relative speeds would be twice the speed of light, which is pretty high.

So what? Do you have some evidence that these incidents involved ships traveling in opposite directions? Or are you just looking for more excuses to cast empty accusations of dishonesty?

Rebuttal (Warp bubble):

You state that weapons effectiveness is reduced by the warp bubble, which you got from the TM. However, unless the TM says how much the weapons effectiveness is reduced, your statement that they are completely ineffective against Imperial shields is not valid and another example of assuming the worst capabilities of the Federation vs the Empire.

Well, since the phaser beam is said to travel at c in that same TM, the performance problem is obviously pretty severe since the beam will essentially be backing up entirely at the warp bubble perimeter (and being distorted/redirected in the process) since the bubble is outrunning the beam. Or didn't that occur to you? I'm starting to doubt your claims of scientific background.

On your photon torpedo page, you estimate an ISD could withstand 1000 photon torps or 370 quantum torps before its shields failed. Even accepting that, and if the warp bubble reduced the weapon effect by 50%, it is still conceivable that a Federation task force could take out an ISD with no losses, since the ISD could not return fire. The Imperial hyperdrive definitely gives them a strategic advantage, but warp drive gives the Federation a tactical one.

With missiles that are too weak to damage the enemy, beam weapons which they will outrun at warp speed thus scattering them across the forward warp bubble distortion area, and for which there is no proof that they have sufficient accuracy to hit anything at relative speeds exceeding c? Hardly.

Rebuttal (Battle on Return of the Jedi):
You assert that one of the reasons that the Ewoks had initial success against the stormtroopers is that they are animals and:

*Most animals easily kick human ass in terms of physical performance, you know*.

Where do you get that the Ewoks are animals? I thought they were primitive sentients, not animals.

Once again, you miss the point. Sentience is not the issue; the fact that humans are unusually WEAK among members of the animal kingdom is the issue. And Klingons are not much stronger than humans, if at all.

Just because they look like koala bears does not mean they ARE koala bears. Also, where is your physical evidence? They may or may not be stronger, but you can't prove they are.

Don't have to. You asserted that Klingons are obviously more formidable than Ewoks. The burden of proof is yours.

You compare Klingons to the Ewoks (I know I did it first), but ask if I would rather face a Klingon in open terrain or Ewoks in their natural environment with prepared traps. I don't think that's a fair question;

Why not, since you were attempting to compare observed combat competence? The Ewoks were getting their butts kicked once the stormtroopers got over the initial surprise up until Chewbacca commandeered one of their vehicles, while Klingons (in a much more favourable environment for the defenders) were able to overrun Federation positions in "Nor the Battle to the Strong". It doesn't take a genius to see that if group B does much better than group A despite having far FEWER advantages, then it was obviously facing VASTLY inferior defenders. And it is the skill of the defenders which is primarily at issue here, isn't it?

how about if I would rather face Klingons or Ewoks in similar circumstances. That is a more fair (non-SW biased) question. And, yeah, I do believe that a single Klingon would beat a single Ewok with a bow, if all the advantages weren't heaped on the Ewok's side.

Oh, that's rich. This is how the engagement would proceed: knife-wielding Klingon charges at Ewok with bow. Ewok with bow shoots knife-wielding Klingon. Knife-wielding Klingon falls down. This isn't complicated, kiddo.

Rebuttal (Battle on Attack of the Clones)
1. First, you accuse me of dishonesty when I said they formed into squares like Roman troops, when in fact it was columns, not squares. Forgive me, it has been a while since I saw the film, but my initial impression was that of squares of troops advancing at a run. If I am mistaken, it was a mistake, not a lie. However, if you put enough columns close together, they tend to look like squares.

When I watched the movie, they were either in small columns of a dozen or so men behind a Jedi shot-blocker, or they were in loose agglomerations, firing at the enemy front. Nothing looked remotely like a square. The only part of the movie where they formed squares was on the parade grounds at Coruscant, not the battle of Geonosis.

2. Second, you state that there was no reason for the clone troopers not to advance in such a manner since 50% of all battle casualties occur from shrapnel, and their armor was impervious to shrapnel. It's impervious to ALL shrapnel? What about the other 50%.

The other 50% comes from direct fire, obviously. And stormtrooper armour is not perfectly impervious, but it is so highly resistant that the wearer's survival probability is many times that of an unarmoured person at the very least. There are many quotes on my webpage from official sources pertaining to this subject.

You alluded that the majority of the other 50% must come from small arms fire, since you stated that small arms fire is inaccurate at long range.

No, it comes from direct fire. The weapons of war are not limited to small-arms fire and artillery, you know.

But what about direct concussion effect from explosions, which would make bunching up into columns a really BAD idea?

Concussion blasts have very poor effectiveness against infantry, which is why anti-personnel grenades in real life are fragmentation grenades, not concussion grenades. You have to hit so close to the target that you are better off simply using a HMG and trying to mow them down. Human beings can actually survive considerable transient overpressures.

Or heavy direct fire weapons from the enemy's vehicles?

If the enemy needs vehicles just to take down your infantry, you are in a winning position, aren't you?

Even if the armor will save them from the majority of casualties, why needlessly throw those few troops away? I realize they are clones, but they are expensive to train and equip, if nothing else.

No one said their tactics were perfect. However, they ARE light-years ahead of the pathetic ground combat skills demonstrated by Federation soldiers in Star Trek, they demonstrated combined-arms tactics, they had a kill ratio of roughly 5 to 1, and this was their very first live engagement EVER, since all of them (officers and men) were quite literally fresh out of training.

3. I hope you noticed that I agreed with your basic argument that SW depicts ground combat much better than ST. I noticed you didn't touch my question about why the sky speeders had harpoons and cables in the Empire Strikes Back.

Because it was a dumb question, and your obvious attempt to act as though I must be hiding something is yet another of your sophistries. Jeeps and helicopters have winches on them, do they not? Is it THAT hard to imagine why a speeder might have some kind of towing attachment on it? Do you really think this question is even worth bothering to answer?

Conclusion.

Overall, if this is just a game where we debate the pros and cons of the two pieces of fiction, you really need to lighten up.

A bit late for a call to civility once the accusations of dishonesty fly, isn't it? It's not my fault you decided to START this conversation by accusing me of using dishonest methods, or that you would rather backpedal than concede on that point.

Arguing that you are biased towards your favorite is not attacking your integrity, and if you feel it is, then you do need a reality check.

Arguing that my METHODS are biased based on my personal biases is an accusation of dishonesty based on an ad-hominem fallacy. Either concede that you have no evidence for your myriad accusations of dishonest methodology or back them up. So far all I'm seeing is a lot of bullshit.

I didn't say you were making anything up, or only presenting evidence that helps your case, or anything that could or should be construed as a personal attack.

Wrong. See the top of this message.

And even if I did, it is about things, which at the end of the day, really don't matter.

Irrelevant. You have either accused someone of dishonesty or you haven't. When you accuse someone of being a dishonest gamer, you can expect him to take offense. Get it yet?

Again, I did not mean to question your integrity, but if you view it that way, its ok by me.

Looking forward to your response

I grow weary of your constant attacks against my honesty. You obviously feel that I have underestimated ST's chances against SW. You obviously were lying when you said that you don't particularly care about SW vs ST, since you read portions of my site and decided to accuse me of dishonesty over your irritation at me supposedly not treating ST fairly. Therefore, you should show where you think ST would have a better chance than I give them credit for, and present evidence to back up your position. What you are doing is not presenting a position; it is nothing more than a series of personal attacks, such as (paraphrased): "I think I can show where something you said in an article written THREE YEARS AGO contradicts something you said earlier this year, after more information came out! This means you're cherry-picking the facts to suit your conclusion!" With tactics like that, it amazes me that you would be surprised when I react in an unfriendly manner. You are either very dense or very accustomed to dealing with people who meekly turn the other cheek.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, I checked, and the article he was talking about was written more than FOUR years ago.

[Howedar]

I'd have cut him some slack on the first email, because in all honesty not everyone is as geeky as us. Of course, his proper response should have been: "Oh, okay, I didn't know about this and this and this. You're right/I'll go review these and get back to you."

Of course he didn't do that, so now he's fair game in my book.

[Stravo]

I'd have cut him some slack on the first email, because in all honesty not everyone is as geeky as us. Of course, his proper response should have been: "Oh, okay, I didn't know about this and this and this. You're right/I'll go review these and get back to you."

Of course he didn't do that, so now he's fair game in my book.

Frankly if he wasn't as geeky as us he wouldn't even CARE about versus. Certainly not enough to engage in an email debate.

[Darth Wong]

Notice how he is now claiming that a Federation fleet should be able to take out an Imperial fleet with zero casualties! I knew what kind of cloying Trekkie fanatic he was from the moment I read his first paragraph. He figures he can sneak in under the radar by acting superficially polite.

[Crown]

Okay first of all; a Koala isn't a bear ... this guy cannot possibly be an educated human being.

[Howedar]

I'd have cut him some slack on the first email, because in all honesty not everyone is as geeky as us. Of course, his proper response should have been: "Oh, okay, I didn't know about this and this and this. You're right/I'll go review these and get back to you."

Of course he didn't do that, so now he's fair game in my book.

Frankly if he wasn't as geeky as us he wouldn't even CARE about versus. Certainly not enough to engage in an email debate.

You know what I mean. Not every Wars fan has read the EU (I haven't, for one), not every Trek fan has watched every series religiously.

[AdmiralKanos]

You know what I mean. Not every Wars fan has read the EU (I haven't, for one), not every Trek fan has watched every series religiously.

And yet it turns out that he can mysteriously quote episode names and specific events which he feels support his case. I tell you, I can smell these dishonest weasels as they approach.

[Tribun]

Please Mike!

This guy had to appear in your hate mail page!

He is simply exactly what we need it it, because he is phathetic, dumb and funny in one person. Such a fanatic Trekkie you don't see often.....

[Robert Walper]

Notice how he is now claiming that a Federation fleet should be able to take out an Imperial fleet with zero casualties! I knew what kind of cloying Trekkie fanatic he was from the moment I read his first paragraph. He figures he can sneak in under the radar by acting superficially polite.

Good God Man! I'm having flashbacks! I recall being accused of the same thing...I pity the poor bastard...

[Robert Walper]

You know what I mean. Not every Wars fan has read the EU (I haven't, for one), not every Trek fan has watched every series religiously.

And yet it turns out that he can mysteriously quote episode names and specific events which he feels support his case. I tell you, I can smell these dishonest weasels as they approach.

What is that smell like? Crisp, freshly pressed Starfleet uniforms?

[DPDarkPrimus]

This is entertaining...

[IceHawk-151]

Wong says:
"Notice how he is now claiming that a Federation fleet should be able to take out an Imperial fleet with zero casualties!"

He says:
"a Federation task force could take out an ISD with no losses, since the ISD could not return fire"

Although probably not intentional on Mr. Wong’s part, small miss-quotes such as these could cast a person as a “cloying Trekkie Fanatic” when they were making a conclusion that coincides, though only slightly, with this website.

This guy has stated that it is his belief that it would take an entire Federation taskforce to destroy a Star Destroyer without receiving casualties. Now, how big is a taskforce such as the one he has mentioned, I don’t know.

How does that statement help lend credence to his classification as a "Fanatic"?

I thought the statement was pretty logical.
Then again I think 5 Soviergns would be a a large enough taskforce

[SirNitram]

I thought the statement was pretty logical.
Then again I think 5 Soviergns would be a a large enough taskforce

For what? Mild target practice for the heavy gunners while everyone else is at lunch?

[IceHawk-151]

I thought the statement was pretty logical.
Then again I think 5 Soviergns would be a a large enough taskforce

For what? Mild target practice for the heavy gunners while everyone else is at lunch?

Actually, while I acknoledge that one on one a Sovvie is no match for an ISD, I also think that Torpedoes are in the megaton range, and the ISD low gigaton range for total output.

Roughly 3 QT per second, per Sovie, at around 100 MT per torpedo, etc etc .

[SirNitram]

I thought the statement was pretty logical.
Then again I think 5 Soviergns would be a a large enough taskforce

For what? Mild target practice for the heavy gunners while everyone else is at lunch?

Actually, while I acknoledge that one on one a Sovvie is no match for an ISD, I also think that Torpedoes are in the megaton range, and the ISD low gigaton range for total output.

Roughly 3 QT per second, per Sovie, at around 100 MT per torpedo, etc etc .

QT's haven't shown 100MT yields before, but even then, an ISD's precursor, the Acclamator Transport, is canonically rated at 16TT(MT->GT->TT) per second for it's shields. This, I'm afraid, makes it utterly impossible for a Trek win.

[Tribun]

For what? Mild target practice for the heavy gunners while everyone else is at lunch?

Actually, while I acknoledge that one on one a Sovvie is no match for an ISD, I also think that Torpedoes are in the megaton range, and the ISD low gigaton range for total output.

Roughly 3 QT per second, per Sovie, at around 100 MT per torpedo, etc etc .

QT's haven't shown 100MT yields before, but even then, an ISD's precursor, the Acclamator Transport, is canonically rated at 16TT(MT->GT->TT) per second for it's shields. This, I'm afraid, makes it utterly impossible for a Trek win.

Did this mean that a Acclamator can BDZ Earth just for fun, without even have to fear counter-measures?