What is the point?

Admiral Patton · Post by **Admiral Patton** » 2002-10-07 05:35pm

What is the point with putting Star Wars against Star Trek? It is like Mac users slamming PCs.

We have to recall there is hardly anything to compare. The Star Wars universe is pasted in a Galaxy "far, far away" and takes place a "long time ago."

Clearly by the era of 2200+ AD Star Trek would come into existance, the Star Wars universe could be far more advanced than we know. If we are trying to compare how Star Wars is in its' time period to Star Trek for the sense of technological evaluation, as mature and non-biased individuals than that is fine. For all we know we may discover who actually has advantages over who.

However, I see a lot of Star Wars biased here, true this is a SW forum, but at the Star Trek forums we do not seem to act with the contempt and immaturity displayed in some of the posts in the threads of this forum.

I respect those who are non biased and seem to have technological curiousity for the sake of curiosity, rather than bashing Star Trek with a Star Wars bias.

Yes, I know more about Star Trek than Star Wars, but I am not illiterate to the Star Wars univserse.

So tell, what is the peoples intent around here?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-07 05:36pm

It's just a hobby. We do it for fun. What's the point of watching baseball games, or playing Play Stations, or going to a bar?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2002-10-07 05:42pm

I agree, there are some immature and juvenile people on this forum who have no concept of actually debating a topic, only making themselves look unnecessarily stupid (or possibly necessarily, if that is the case)and giving all true star wars fans a bad name.

I think some of you need to grow up a bit (especially some of the moderators on this board, as you never seem to hold up the agreement we all had to agree to when we signed on)

Admiral Patton · Post by **Admiral Patton** » 2002-10-07 05:44pm

It is a hobby slamming someone else's creation and idea? Which to be honest has more scientific support than Star Wars.

If slamming things is a hobby, you need to grow up

Patrick Ogaard · Post by **Patrick Ogaard** » 2002-10-07 05:46pm

The conceit of SW vs. ST is precisely the same as that of Kirk vs. Picard.

Which is objectively better, which is subjectively better, which is not mind-numbingly aggravating?

Objectively, Kirk may have had trouble keeping his pants on, but he always acted decisively, and did not spout utterly inane lines specifically designed to justify unjustifiable actions (such as denying aid to entire sapient species whose only crimes were to live on a planet suffering a catastrophe and having not yet developed a warp drive). Picard usually kept his pants on, but he was supremely indecisive and nary batted an eyelash while watching millions die that the Federation could (and should) have saved.

Objectively, what's the point of debating the merits of Kirk and Picard? There is no point, except to exercise the brain and have a bit of fun.

Patrick Ogaard · Post by **Patrick Ogaard** » 2002-10-07 05:48pm

Admiral Patton wrote:It is a hobby slamming someone else's creation and idea? Which to be honest has more scientific support than Star Wars.

If slamming things is a hobby, you need to grow up

Serious question: what scientific support?

Captain Hornblower · Post by **Captain Hornblower** » 2002-10-07 05:49pm

Put simply, this is done for fun. Sometimes discussions get rather heated and flames erupt, and sometimes we remain quite civil for the most part. My particular interest in the subject comes from my education and job field. I am a sci-fi fan, like most here on this board. Though I do freely admit that my sci-fi knowledge past SW, ST, LiS, and B5 is rather sparse.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-07 05:52pm

Admiral Patton wrote:It is a hobby slamming someone else's creation and idea? Which to be honest has more scientific support than Star Wars.

If slamming things is a hobby, you need to grow up

What are you referring to when you say that someone has more scientific support than Star Wars? Do you have any evidence for that, or is that just another unsupported claim?

In any case, yes that is part of the hobby. People like DarkStar clearly deserved flames. Ideas can be incorrect, and when someone clings to them despite all logic and evidence to the contrary, that person can be deemed illogical and stupid. More often than not, these people are also jerks, flame others, or are utterly arrogant. Should we make fun of racists, even though that would be slamming their ideas? Should we make fun of people who deny that the Holocaust ever happened? Creationists? Clearly there are people who deserve to be mocked, although admittedly the qualifications for such mockery are a matter of personal preference.

Now, everyone here is warned that if they say stupid things they will be mocked. That is the policy of the board. They do not have to participate, and by participating they have acknowledged that if they say something stupid they can be mocked for their beliefs.

Now, we are NOT making fun of ST, here. We are making fun of people who believe that the technology in ST is better than the technology in SW. There is a clear difference. My favorite sci-fi show of all time is Babylon 5. I know full well that the B5 universe would get its ass kicked by anything in SW, and most things in ST. That doesn't bother me one bit. The quality of the show is independent of the technology depicted in that show. I don't think that there is anything wrong with enjoying ST or SW, or almost any other television show, but I do believe that people who think ST or B5 technology is better than SW technology are delusional, and should be accountable for their own ignorant beliefs.

Admiral Patton · Post by **Admiral Patton** » 2002-10-07 05:53pm

Star Trek has quite an array of scientific support, but I do know that Star Wars does as well, not nearly as much as ST however.

But as to slamming things for fun . . . Not right

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-07 05:55pm

Admiral Patton wrote:Star Trek has quite an array of scientific support, but I do know that Star Wars does as well, not nearly as much as ST however.

But as to slamming things for fun . . . Not right

Just shut up.

I mean it. We don't need morons like you to piss in our pool.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2002-10-07 05:56pm

Master of Ossus,

Give me scientific proof, and by that i mean numbers that can be proven through science, physics, and mathematics, that say that Star trek or star wars is better than one another. THERE ARENT ANY!!! THey are sci-fi. Tomorrow, someone could say in an Enterprise episode that all star trek ships are indestructable and carry weapons that can destroy galaxies in a single shot. That is why it is sci fi. It isnt real

VF5SS · Post by **VF5SS** » 2002-10-07 05:59pm

Of course, lets all just get into our disentegration chambers to get down to the planet without dying, go faster than light without infinite energy, make people disappear without so much as a whiff of steam, and find cracks in an event horizon. Oh yes, Trek is the perfect show for realism.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-07 06:03pm

Admiral Patton wrote:Star Trek has quite an array of scientific support, but I do know that Star Wars does as well, not nearly as much as ST however.

But as to slamming things for fun . . . Not right

Do you have any scientific support for ST? Can you state an example? Also, your unawareness of SW scientific "support" (if you can call it that for either universe), does not mean that it does not exist.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-07 06:05pm

NF_Utvol wrote:Master of Ossus,

Give me scientific proof, and by that i mean numbers that can be proven through science, physics, and mathematics, that say that Star trek or star wars is better than one another. THERE ARENT ANY!!! THey are sci-fi. Tomorrow, someone could say in an Enterprise episode that all star trek ships are indestructable and carry weapons that can destroy galaxies in a single shot. That is why it is sci fi. It isnt real

I have already explained this to you several times, and I really don't see why I should repeat myself. If you force me to explain this again, you will be flamed. The PREMISE OF THIS SITE is applying scientific principles to SW and ST and other science fiction universes. Why do you continue to argue this point?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-07 06:05pm

Admiral Patton wrote:Star Trek has quite an array of scientific support, but I do know that Star Wars does as well, not nearly as much as ST however.

But as to slamming things for fun . . . Not right

Take it to the Science, Logic, and Morality forum.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2002-10-07 06:09pm

VF5SS wrote:Of course, lets all just get into our disentegration chambers to get down to the planet without dying, go faster than light without infinite energy, make people disappear without so much as a whiff of steam, and find cracks in an event horizon. Oh yes, Trek is the perfect show for realism.

ARGH!!! DID I SAY THAT TREK WAS REAL!!! That is just my point, it is not real, and therefore CANNOT be argued!

I am really getting tired of this place, with its idiots for members (not all of you, there are some of you that i like, Sea Skimmer, MKSheppard) who cannot ever give decent arguments for anything. It is just one big flame fest that bashes any Star Trek/Religion/Somethign You Dont Agree With. You people make me sick and are a disgrace for all true Star Wars Fans.

Sincerely,
NF_UTVol

VF5SS · Post by **VF5SS** » 2002-10-07 06:11pm

Well I wa talking to that Admiral Patton dude, NF, but my reply came in a little late. And when you talk about the true Star Wars fans, do you mean the guys sitting in their basements who come out only to go to conventions, pass out jedi bibles, and whack off to Portman in public or some other true fan?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-07 06:13pm

So, NF_Utvol reveals his true colours...

VF5SS · Post by **VF5SS** » 2002-10-07 06:13pm

Actually I'm not that big of a Star Wars fan compared to the guys here...

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-07 06:14pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:So, NF_Utvol reveals his true colours...

He's been spamming the board since he first came here. He has never demonstrated any real intelligence. Oh well....

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2002-10-07 06:15pm

NF_Utvol wrote:
VF5SS wrote:Of course, lets all just get into our disentegration chambers to get down to the planet without dying, go faster than light without infinite energy, make people disappear without so much as a whiff of steam, and find cracks in an event horizon. Oh yes, Trek is the perfect show for realism.
ARGH!!! DID I SAY THAT TREK WAS REAL!!! That is just my point, it is not real, and therefore CANNOT be argued!

I am really getting tired of this place, with its idiots for members (not all of you, there are some of you that i like, Sea Skimmer, MKSheppard) who cannot ever give decent arguments for anything. It is just one big flame fest that bashes any Star Trek/Religion/Somethign You Dont Agree With. You people make me sick and are a disgrace for all true Star Wars Fans.

Sincerely,
NF_UTVol

Say it with me, say it with me:
SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF

Now that we've answerred part one of your rante let me further state that the baord makes it quite clear that those who cling to irrational beliefs in the face of all evidence to the contrary will be mocked. if you don't like it then don't cry just go away because we aren't going to change for you.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-07 06:23pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:So, NF_Utvol reveals his true colours...
He's been spamming the board since he first came here. He has never demonstrated any real intelligence. Oh well....

Yeah, it's just that this "they're both sci-fi, so you can't debate them!" shit from him is new to me.

God, I used to hate it when morons used to pull that shit for Gundam.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2002-10-07 06:26pm

NF_Utvol wrote:

ARGH!!! DID I SAY THAT TREK WAS REAL!!! That is just my point, it is not real, and therefore CANNOT be argued!
Then why does it show on my tv screen?

I am really getting tired of this place, with its idiots for members who cannot ever give decent arguments for anything.

The only idiot is you thank you and as for the sake of arguements, what have you given us?

It is just one big flame fest that bashes any Star Trek/Religion/Somethign You Dont Agree With.
It's not that we don't agree with them. We don't share the beliefs of religion and as for ST we flame the fans who believe their show is better than SW. and B4 I watched SW in '97 I too was a ST fan and I still like it but SW has taken the lead of my liking.

You people make me sick and are a disgrace for all true Star Wars Fans.

No I believe you are a disgrace for all true SW fans b/c it's the likes of you that say the latter. BTW Your the one that makes me and probably others SICK.

Cyaround,
Jason
P.S.- though since he left i believe this post has become meaningless but i had to get it off my chest

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-10-07 06:26pm

Admiral Patton wrote:What is the point with putting Star Wars against Star Trek? It is like Mac users slamming PCs.

Yes, but Macs do suck, as does B&B Trek

We have to recall there is hardly anything to compare. The Star Wars universe is pasted in a Galaxy "far, far away" and takes place a "long time ago."

"We" have to remember that this is all irrelevent. We have stats on the equipment, there for comparrison is possible.

Clearly by the era of 2200+ AD Star Trek would come into existance, the Star Wars universe could be far more advanced than we know.

Yes it would, and that is my favorite counter to the "Give us time" whine.

If we are trying to compare how Star Wars is in its' time period to Star Trek for the sense of technological evaluation, as mature and non-biased individuals than that is fine. For all we know we may discover who actually has advantages over who.

That is what we seek to do here. And we have accomplished it.

However, I see a lot of Star Wars biased here, true this is a SW forum, but at the Star Trek forums we do not seem to act with the contempt and immaturity displayed in some of the posts in the threads of this forum.

Bullshit, I direct you to the Treknology forum at Ex-Antres Station or DarkStars website or Echelon's Website, or GK's Fanfic that was specifically designed to piss off warsies.

We are all equally childish here.

I respect those who are non biased and seem to have technological curiousity for the sake of curiosity, rather than bashing Star Trek with a Star Wars bias.

And I respect people who present valid points with a logical backing. Hence why I have zero respect for you.

Yes, I know more about Star Trek than Star Wars, but I am not illiterate to the Star Wars univserse.

A statement contradicted by your position about taking game mechanics over official sources.

So tell, what is the peoples intent around here?

To get our fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-10-07 06:30pm

Admiral Patton wrote:It is a hobby slamming someone else's creation and idea? Which to be honest has more scientific support than Star Wars.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

If slamming things is a hobby, you need to grow up

And you effectively admitted in the Sovie thread you are here only to troll. Who needs to grow up now?

Don't do that. Read the fucking annoucements. You made everyone scroll a lot.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What is the point?

What is the point?

Welcome Aboard Admiral

Re: What is the point?