Stewart from SDI's other messages

[Darth Wong]

After he posted here, I dug through my E-mail feedback archives and discovered lots of messages he'd sent before. Would you like to see them? Sure, of course you would. He starts with some nice compliments but soon makes it clear that he hasn't seriously read anything on my site at all.

I appologise for not reading your many fine articles before sending my first/last msg to you. Your site is really well done and researched.

That does not change the validity of my contention. That Star Trek technology is more advanced than that displayed in the Star Wars movies.

Your arguments are very good but not though. You cite dialogue that both supports your claims and some that is contradictory to them and the points that I favor but ignore visuals for canonisation. If the dialogue is contradictory but the visuals are not, why would your own rules of objectivity find in favor of the self contradictory dialogue?

In the original serries, there are many instances of the Enterprise and other units engaged in FTL combat. That there is no supporting dialogue should not disqualify them from "Cannonisation". In those sceens, the ships use both phaser beams and missile weapons of several types. I am prepaired to rationalise this argument if required.

The second point is that although there are many failures of the transporter systems there are also many successfull uses. Barring plot mechanisms to negate the technology that would render the situation harmless, the technology of teleportation is an extreemly powerful one. I had also forgotten about the other side of that coin, the replicators and all of the implications thereof.

Thirdly, that there are an infanite number of reasons why a commander might not use all of the capassity of any given system. That does not in itself, deneigh that that greater capassity does not exist or is difficult or ineffective to use. We have possessed Nuclear weapons since the end of WW-II but have not used them even in conditions were they would certainly kill less civilians than combatants.

Lastly, technology tends to cross fertilise. It is very difficult to show any real time in history where the side with supirior technology did not have a broad array of advances in many fields over it's foes.

Thease four items lead me to belive that the opening premise that ST is more advanced than SW is as true as any fantasy relationship can be.

You cite expertise as a factor in this anallissis. I am an expert in WSA. In 1986, I was paid 6,650 per month in salery and more in bennies and other compensation for that skill. While your arguments are very good and enlightening, I saw nothing that could change this and several points that might be flawed.

I will read more before I am prepaired to argue them though and hope that you will consider my points before then. I also appologise for my grammar and spelling. One half of my brain has a 185 point IQ, while the other resembles "Forest Gump" and they are disconected by one of the origional casses of Dyslexia on record. ( I would sincerely appreciate a spell checker for this feedback device.)

Sincerely, Stewart Davies.

Maybe I should have responded to this first message instead of ignoring it. But when someone brags about his claimed salary and IQ in order to support his arguments, it just doesn't strike me as something worth taking seriously. Next message:

I was just now looking for the data on speed that you cited in several other places but can not find your data/sources under the technology or database buttons. Please send me the places to look for the sources you used for the computations you cite in the thechnology/myths pages.

Sorry to bother you, sincerely, Stewart.

The fact that the sources are generally listed right next to each computation seems to have escaped him.

[Darth Wong]

And here's another one, again with some nice compliments but again making it very clear that he just skimmed over the material and did not really look too closely at it (not to mention his usual modus operandi of totally vague claims).

1. I am new at this sort of thing,( on line debates) and love your site.
2. I found it so interesting that I went looking for more sites of a similer nature.
3. I wrote a game rules book for fun and profit that is based on "space ship combat" of the type seen on screen.
4. As part of that effort and my background as a weapons system expert I was forced to define the technology levels of the various jondre.
5. I like your analissis of the various factors that can be used to weigh the various effects.
6. Please excuse my grammar and spelling.

I have stated my belifes in the prior two letters and have had some thoughts since then.

A. There are so many inconsistancies and defects of logic in both sources that some allowance must be made as you state for the authors intention.
B. The single best "excuse" for most of these defects is that the opperators simply chose not to use all of what they had or could. The logic of this is perfectly good and can be shown to mirror current affairs. (Afganistan is one of the most desolate and perfect places to test or use nuclear weapons on the face of the planet and yet when given the most severe justification for their use, we chose not to. When a few "tactical" weapons would surely have caused many fewer casualties than fighting it out with small arms and air power. Because of the futility of resistance it would have demonstraited. The threat of mass radiation poisoning is shear folly, as approximatly 1/2 of all such devices ever detonated in the history of the world were fired in the American south west. +-2050 total with 1054 being US tests! If I remember correctly. The vast majority being at the Nevada test site.

B. Therefore if they chose to use less than the maximum capability that they possessed you can never use the lesser to deneigh the maximum.

C. One of your best arguments is the differance of speed potential. The above applies to this to as we donot know why they did not or could not use the capabilities that they had previously demostraited. Star Trek speeds every bit as high or faster than any demonstraited in star wars.

C1. In my origional analisis, I looked at the first TV series and saw that they had demonstraited several vastly different speed ranges. First in the opening credits, many billions of multiples of "C". (I simply used the minimum, average and maximum density of stars in this galixy, that I got from the director of the Hyden Planetarium in Chicago, devided by time, to find speeds, all very much higher than anything that you ascribe to any ships in the Star Wars "universe".) Secondly, the "movement" shots traveling or in combat between ships in the several combat stories. Using the same technique, I was able to compute speeds of 173,000,000 "C" to 900,000,000 "C". Finaly there was "orbital" speed.

C2. The fact that all of those several episodes show combat at what is obviously supra "C" speeds and enormious ranges, leads me to conclude that this was not only possable, but prefered for some reason. Why should the TNG battles be fought at less than this speed but at equal ranges in some cases? I can think of many reasons that have nothing to do with capassity and more that have to do with tactics. I can recall one show were the Enterprise is fooled into beliveing they are at war with some poor defenceless blokes by a new crew member and Worf thinks he is the boss, were combat ios also at super light speed including phaser fire.

C3. In one of the movies, I can't remember which title, the enterprise with Kirk comanding, (makes so many tactical mistakes that he should have been shot, your coments about authors not being skilled in the Millitary Arts comes to mind)! But also demonstraits prodigious speed like you describe for many ships in the SW universe. It goes from the Planet of Peace? located at the triple point nutral zone between the Federation, Klingon and Romulan boarders to the center of the Galixy in under 16 hours if I remember corectly, but in any case a distance of 50,000 to 60,000 LY in under one day, so that Spock's. brother could meet "god?"

C4. That it is also plain that they can maneuver tightly at warp speed is shown dramaticly more than a few times in all of the serries shows and movies. In SW, jumping to "light speed" is not always easy and requires carefull calculations, at least for some ships.

D. Disintigration by Phaser. Is shown many times and is just one of several uses of that weapon. To say that the "physics precludes such effects is counter to your own arguments for other actions in both settings. On possable solution to the boiling water dilema, is that the phaser some how alows the charges of the various sub atomic particles to "nutralise" each other without further release of energy and they simply colapse. After all the vast majority of all volume inside every atom is empty space. No weapon shown in SW has an equivilant effect.

E. That the Empire must build the DS serries of units to destroy a planet is further proof that their technology is less advanced than that repeatedly shown in ST. Were it is possable for a standard shuttle to do this same job. It is a tenant of technology that as it advances, it gets smaller. That is also demonstraited in ST were their ships are a tiny fraction of those in the SW universe but have demonstraited several different techniques for planetary destruction. It was also said that the same small device could destroy things at great distances from it's point of detonation. That implies that a shuttle could destroy the entire fleet at Yavin or Endor including the DS-2 and the moon. The ability to destroy planets was also shown by the Romulans.

F. The ability to manipulate others defenses is also a trait of technological supiriority. We do it in todays Electronic Warfare arena were two new lines of software code can negate the Iraqi ADN. That they have shown the ability to softkill their opponents shields is further proof of their power. Using the reasoning that technology difuses from higher to lower, then it implies that SW shields would be useless against anyone who could swich them off from afar.

G. Your own examples show ST sensors to be much advanced over SW equipment. The thing to remember is that there might be many variables that change the range at which it is effective, just like a modern sonar. Able to track many targets at the fourth convergance zone, 140 nauticle miles, but still miss a fishing boat at a half a mile. I like your argument for FTL sencors in SW. But the dialoge and effects shown discredit performance in the same league as that shown in ST.

H. Transporters are a further set of proofs that the ST universe is more capable than anything shown in the SW films.

I. Replicators are the other side of the Teleportation devices nature. In ST they can interchange Matter and Energy. The "Duplicators" you describe clearly need "Raw Matierials" to build new things and thus are atleast a step or two below the technology demonstraited in ST.

J. Scale! That in SW is clearly millions of times as large as that in ST. However, that is a misleading point. History clealy shows that each advance in technology makes it's possessor at least two if not three or more orders of magnatude more powerful than their predisesors. It does not take many F-86H's and their sattendant technology to win WW-II for either side. I have gamed this several times and the outcome is the same no matter who plays wich side. Furthermore, it does not take many Pantom-II's to win Koria or F-15c's to win Viet Nam. The F-15 is perhapse the first of the next generation of weapon so technologicly overpowering that it has killed it's enemies without their having recourse.(+120 wins, no losses and no ties) The F-22 is possed to do the same, were modeling and gamming show that only 48 and their support services are needed to defeet any other airforce currently deployed in the world and any that might be fielded in it's life span. The effect of technology overmach is that powerful, that you can not pick a venue were the numbers of the lower tech side can over come the advantage of the technologicaly supirior side.

I like your site very much and look forward to your reply if you can manage it. Sincerely, Stewart.

Can you see why I didn't bother responding to this guy? This E-mail is basically the same as the the post he made in the "Technology Question Answered" thread. He appears to have some military knowledge which he tries to spin into universal paradigms and scientific claims.

[Darth Wong]

And another one, this time bragging about his handgun proficiency, swordfighting ability, and of course, his powerful muscles:

I just read your bit on the hand phaser. Your points on ergonomics seem valid to me but you miss the point on their effects.

My credentials, I enlisted in the Army Security Agency in 1967. Served in the Special Opps det and attended many advanced schools durring my 13 years ending as a WSA specialist. I then became a "civilian contractor" and "consultant" to the DoD and State Dept. for 6 more years. I now am retired but still teach classes to friends of friends and cops occaisionaly.

Shooting a hand gun under stress is one of the most dificult things to do on the planet. The average range at which police officers get 50% hits in actual gun fights is under 7 feet! It is my oppinion that the odd ergonomics would aid the hit percentage at these sorts of ranges, because the "natural" wrist angle would tend to point the weapon up at the target when shooting from the hip as it were.

Secondly, the maximum range, about 10m to vaporise, 20 to kill and 30 to stun is such that point shooting is the best solution to the time/hits problem.

However, As an expert, (will send witnessed targets if you wish) Any hand weapon that is limeted to 30m is shear folly. I once won a $100 bet with the Chief of Police from Taif, KSA that I could hit a 14" gong, 200m away, with a .22 pistol before any of his mewn could do the same with their rifles. The kind of training that the "dust buster" implies would make those kinds of ranges possable to almost any person with a decent side arm. As proof I will train you if you will pay for the ammo and range rental.

This brings up my favorite peev about the light saber. Kool it certainly is but as a weapon it is a dud that is too dumb for words. "Less random than a blaster" implies that blasters must be terribly inaccurate, as I have made head shots under opperational pressure at ranges exceeding 60m and one at 109m. In all of those engagements I never had to shoot twice! I am absolutly certain that I can acomplish any offencive mission senario that you could dictate with a 20th century pistol in equal or less time than anyone could with and unranged weapon.( sword or saber of any type.) I should also mention that I am not realy special or great at this. If you want to see the real "Jedi" go to a ISPC match and watch the pros. Jerry Mitchulek currently holds the worlds revolver records at 1.00 seconds for eight shots on target, 1.06 seconds for two shrots on each of four different targets and 2.98 seconds for 6 shots, reloading and six more, all hits in each case, that with a revolver no less. The autoloader guys like Rob Leatham are even faster and to win the national and world titels so many times all the hits must be in the "A" zone to boot!

PS I studied Kendo while in Japan and Ethiopia, so I know a little bit about sword work too. (Not much as I got bored with all the rote exercises and quit after only a year and a half but enough to know that nothing I've seen in the movies is that good without wire work.) PPS My reflexes and strength alowed me to beat my origional Japanise instructor more than he beat me after the first two months in class. 60 pounds, 0.13 second reflexes and a 228 bench press will do that for you.

Sincerely, Stewart.

[Darth Wong]

That Stormtrooper armor is vulnerable to direct hits of he munitions, blaster bolts, as in HESH type shells is still impressive. But the race between armor and projectiles was won before it ever started by the bullets. The armor must cover the entire target but the projectile only has to attack one spot. It does not matter what the armor is made of because the bullet could be made of the same or different stuff to enhance it's perforating power.

Your analisis of AT HEAT warheads is defective. The target armor does not fracture. Both the jet and the armor behave like "perfect fluids" In fact at 12-1300M/S impact velocities, even APDSFS projectiles and their targets behave like perfect fluids and penitration is governed by the length of the "long rod" penitraitor just as it is in the length of the shaped charge jet that determines total perforation. Even ceramic laminates in "Chobham" like armor that are almost as hard as diamonds behave like water when struck by liquid metal jets at velocities over 2,000M/S. I have one such plate in my colection that is unbroken but is none the less perforated. True it has radial cracks propigating from the hole but the hole it self is smooth as glass.

Sincerely, Stewart.

Not even sure what the hell he's trying to prove or disprove here. Any idea which of my arguments this is even relevant to? Or is he just trying to prove he's knowledgeable again?

[Darth Wong]

I like your analisis of ground combat capabilities and find that it meshes well with WW-II tactics and technology, but has little to do with post RVN combat.

The current state of the art is such that restricting non optical sensors would blind our army by maby one third. EW, ECM and other sensors would make combat between the US Army and the Imperial Army as depicted a wholesale slaughter. No other army on the planet is as well equiped and trained as we are. The British were/are very poorly equiped and trained in compairison. (they just can't afford it!) In the Company-Battalion-Brigade sized battels depicted in the movies no Impierial unit would survive. At Division levels, or with lower units when reenforced with organic air assets would rapidly destroy any Impirial unit they faced.

My resoning goes like this;
Stormtrooper armor can not be bullet proof. The fact that it is easily defeeted by single blaster hits is proof of this. (My personal theory of "Blaster" tech goes like this, the gun soft launches a projectile made mostly or entirely of Crystaline matrix plastic bonded explosive, anologious to RDX, HMX and the various PBX mixtures we use today, which detonates on impact. The "soft launch" is required to eliminate recoil as depicted in the movies. The projectile burns from the rear surface as it flies to the target, accellerating all the way. Thus accounting for the "tracer" effect, appearant increase in velosity as it travels and for the limeted range depicted. Upon impact the PIBD fuze detonates the shell and a SFF or "hollow charge" war head pirces the target. The total energy content of the charge can not be very large or the things and people nearby would be damaged and displaced by it's effects. The blast effects depicted are in line with a "lady finger" or other miniature fire craker. The detonation of the smallest commertial blasting cap is many times more violent and effectasious than any we have seen so far. A one grame charge of RDX has a yeald of more than 6,000j. That is a projectile about the size of a modern .45" Colt pistol slug. Not the whole round, just the 5/8th inch long projectile. That none of the effects of any of the hand, long or portable crew served weapons have shown this much blast is beyond dispute. You will have to take my word for this unless you want to travel out to here and watch next time I run tests or just blow up some stumps.

Therefore, the armor can not possably be proof to small arms. Because if it were, it would require much more explosive to defeat and that would have visable effects on screen. The trouble with armor is that it must protect everything while the projectile only has to attack the few square milimeters it impacts. No mater what the armor is made of, the projectile could be made of the same or different stuff designed to maximize penitration. I think that the suit must be primarily an environmental protection set that has as an additional bennifit, splinter and small fragment protection. No other explination is possable in lite of the "facts" displayed on screen.

In Colonel T. N. Dupuy's book, THE EVOLUTION OF WEAPONS AND WARFARE, he points out that as weapons lethality increases, troups must disperse more or face higher rates of casualties. This is taken as fact by every soldier and tactition on the planet today. That the Impirial Stormtroupers must mass together for effect as depicted in all of the movies is prima facie evidence that Impirial weapons are much less effective than WW-I technology little own current U. S. Army types.

Massed as shown, a single salvo of ICM's from a single battery of the organic arty of a Brigade sized force would decimate 50-80% of the units seen in the last movie. That includes the vehicals too as the submunitions are "combined effects" types. A second salvo of SADARM's would destroy another 15-16 vehicals. Against a division sized force, the entire force shown in the last movie would last less than two and one half minutes. The fire control in the M-1A1 Abrams tank is perfectly cappable of shooting down helicopters with greater aerodynamic performance than anything we have seen in the movies. The missiles used by Impieral forces are slower than the first generation missiles tested by the Germans in WW-II. Compiared to Hellfire and other newer missiles, they represent little threat to Allied armor as evidenced by their on screen explosive effects. Since the technology of shaped charges and the armor arrays neccessary to defeat them is well understood, there is no "future tech" that could increase the effectivness enough to deal with current armor.

The current thinking on future combat systems in planning and procurement now, is that soldiers will be even more dispersed than they are now. Relieing on knowing their own and enemy positions, by GPS and an entire plethora of remote sencing platforms that range from 6" RPV's to satilites, the future combat unit will comprise only 4-8 soldiers. They will be armed with combined effects weapons, a "sniper rifle" and missiles for point defence. Their primary offensive power will come from "off board" platforms such as SP Guns, aircraft, ships and missiles deployed from other continents, that will be called down on to any enemy dumb enough to show him self with in sight or sensor range of this unit.

That brings us to the inevitable conclusion that the Impirial Stormtroopers are no match for the current United States Army. Having said that, without space based support, the Federation is less well equiped to deal with that threat and would be forced to surrender after the opening salvo. How ever, that the Federation Ground Troops are meant to be used with orbital and other support they are then probably equiped well enough to deal with the Impirial Stormtroopers.

Finaly, you state that interfearance is easy enough to arainge to negate Federation technological advantages. History has shown the exact opposite to be true. The side with the higher technology is inevitably advantaged by that thechnology and it is they who jam and suppress your sensors, communication and support measures. In any contest between the two forces, the Federation would surely triumph, based not on the weapons in the hands of the ground pounders but as it is today, with the supirior support services.

P.S. In the engagement you offer, I would have used "Enhanced Radiation" "Tactical Nuclear Weapons" fired from the ubiquitious 155mm howitzers of the US Army. They would have killed every trouper within several hundreds to a thousand meters of the burst and not broken the windows of the buildings 4-5,000 meters distant.

Sincerely, Stewart.

According to him, it's impossible for stormtrooper armour to be bulletproof because it's not blasterproof, and blasters are supposedly weaker than modern rifle bullets because he assumes they fire explosive shells, and he doesn't see a big explosion when the explosive shell hits. Also, he says that the M-1 tank can shoot down aircraft doing 600 km/h.

I like the part at the end when he suggests using tactical nukes. As if one would want to escalate to nukes against an enemy which can simply glass the entire planet as a large "fuck you" warning to others.

[Darth Wong]

Yet another one:

Just a quick note after reading the shields page, no matter what the differance in cappasity between the two systems is, The higher technology of the Trek universe is such that the demonstraited power to lower your enemies shield with out his concent make this point moot. After all, if we lower your shield before fireing does it matter how strong it is?

No depiction in the SW universe has shown this cappassity.

Sincerely, Stewart.

And another:

Just finished you naval/space tactics page and have a single retort. There are many reasons why commanders do not use all of the power available to them. Just because they chose to do one thing and not the other does not preclude them having the ability to do that other thing.

I belive that the many instances of far ranged combat in the first series of TV shows is "Cannon" enough to prove that the Star Fleet ships have the ability to do this if they want, but choose not to for some obscure reason known only to the writers.

Sincerely, Stewart.

*yawn*

[Darth Wong]

And now you've seen all of the arguments he left in my E-mail inbox.

[Keevan_Colton]

Some of that stuff hurt to read...though it must have been hard to type too since he was obviously jacking off over the keyboard for half of it...it might be that his poor spelling is not due to dyslexia, but instead a result of being unable to see the keys properly under a layer of jiz.

[Robert Walper]

Mike, why am I suddenly struck by a sense of deja vu?

[Darth Wong]

Mike, why am I suddenly struck by a sense of deja vu?

This guy is much worse than you ever were, Robert. The guy at one point tries to use his monthly salary to bolster his credibility. Come on, that's just atrocious.

[Keevan_Colton]

Just because I'm rather bored...

I appologise for not reading your many fine articles before sending my first/last msg to you. Your site is really well done and researched.

That does not change the validity of my contention. That Star Trek technology is more advanced than that displayed in the Star Wars movies.

Your arguments are very good but not though. You cite dialogue that both supports your claims and some that is contradictory to them and the points that I favor but ignore visuals for canonisation. If the dialogue is contradictory but the visuals are not, why would your own rules of objectivity find in favor of the self contradictory dialogue?

Alright, I'm feeling brave, I'm sure there's a sentence in there somewhere...and it might even make a self consistent statement...you seem to be arguing that dialouge is greater than visuals....which means, that if someone on the show says that the ship is crewed by gerbils you must assume it is, even if the crew clearly are not hiding in sawdust or running around on the floor in clear plastic balls.

In the original serries, there are many instances of the Enterprise and other units engaged in FTL combat. That there is no supporting dialogue should not disqualify them from "Cannonisation". In those sceens, the ships use both phaser beams and missile weapons of several types. I am prepaired to rationalise this argument if required.

Well, then, it'd be best if there was an actual incident you could cite, though with your fucking awful grasp of english and strings of double and even triple negative statements, it's going to be hard working out what the fuck you are trying to say in the first place.

The second point is that although there are many failures of the transporter systems there are also many successfull uses. Barring plot mechanisms to negate the technology that would render the situation harmless, the technology of teleportation is an extreemly powerful one. I had also forgotten about the other side of that coin, the replicators and all of the implications thereof.

Ah, invoking the almighty plot device...it doesnt matter, those plot devices show that simple things such as dense ore can block transporters, therefore, despite it being for plot reasons, the fact that they can be blocked by ore is cannon. That means big bits or rock and metal btw, just incase you cant keep up...
Let me guess, the implications of replicators...the implication is you're wanting to go ad-infinitum with 'em. Doesnt work like that I'm afraid, they need power and raw materials to make them work.

Thirdly, that there are an infanite number of reasons why a commander might not use all of the capassity of any given system. That does not in itself, deneigh that that greater capassity does not exist or is difficult or ineffective to use. We have possessed Nuclear weapons since the end of WW-II but have not used them even in conditions were they would certainly kill less civilians than combatants.

Yes, if you come near a point, please feel free to make it?
Oh wait, there's extenuating circumstances for lower occasions and none for higher ones. That's simply bullshit. If I hold a ball in the air, and drop it, it will accellerate towards the ground, does this mean that the ball is capable of generating this force itself?
Nope, it takes me and gravity, outside influences...much like there so often is in ST.

Lastly, technology tends to cross fertilise. It is very difficult to show any real time in history where the side with supirior technology did not have a broad array of advances in many fields over it's foes.

Ah, we make really great satin....your guns and crude linen are no match for us!, is there a real point in there anywhere?

Thease four items lead me to belive that the opening premise that ST is more advanced than SW is as true as any fantasy relationship can be.

You cite expertise as a factor in this anallissis. I am an expert in WSA. In 1986, I was paid 6,650 per month in salery and more in bennies and other compensation for that skill. While your arguments are very good and enlightening, I saw nothing that could change this and several points that might be flawed.

Is...is that the sound of you jacking off over the keyboard?
What you were paid nearly two decades ago means shit about the logical validity of your arguments.

I will read more before I am prepaired to argue them though and hope that you will consider my points before then. I also appologise for my grammar and spelling. One half of my brain has a 185 point IQ, while the other resembles "Forest Gump" and they are disconected by one of the origional casses of Dyslexia on record. ( I would sincerely appreciate a spell checker for this feedback device.)

Sincerely, Stewart Davies.

Ah, so one half is smart and the other is a retard....is only the retard allowed near the keyboard?
Also, since you're meant to be smart, never fucking figure to use a word processor and then copy and paste across?

1. I am new at this sort of thing,( on line debates) and love your site.
2. I found it so interesting that I went looking for more sites of a similer nature.
3. I wrote a game rules book for fun and profit that is based on "space ship combat" of the type seen on screen.
4. As part of that effort and my background as a weapons system expert I was forced to define the technology levels of the various jondre.
5. I like your analissis of the various factors that can be used to weigh the various effects.
6. Please excuse my grammar and spelling.

Consider it excused, but dont use it as an excuse...

I have stated my belifes in the prior two letters and have had some thoughts since then.

I doubt you have any thoughts from your evidenced lack of intelligence or logic.

A. There are so many inconsistancies and defects of logic in both sources that some allowance must be made as you state for the authors intention.

Ah, the good old, but clearly the author intended approach. Only one person can tell you what the author intended and that is the author, anyone else is just making bullshit up as they go along, this is the reason for the Canon policies of both paramount and lucasfilm, to set out what is part of the intent and what is not.

B. The single best "excuse" for most of these defects is that the opperators simply chose not to use all of what they had or could. The logic of this is perfectly good and can be shown to mirror current affairs. (Afganistan is one of the most desolate and perfect places to test or use nuclear weapons on the face of the planet and yet when given the most severe justification for their use, we chose not to. When a few "tactical" weapons would surely have caused many fewer casualties than fighting it out with small arms and air power. Because of the futility of resistance it would have demonstraited. The threat of mass radiation poisoning is shear folly, as approximatly 1/2 of all such devices ever detonated in the history of the world were fired in the American south west. +-2050 total with 1054 being US tests! If I remember correctly. The vast majority being at the Nevada test site.

Ah, great, here we go....we havent blown up every nation that has offended us....so you cant assume demonstrated firepower is the best they have.
Here though you run into a problem, in afghanistan the minimum amount needed to do the job was used, to establish an upper limit rather than a lower one, you look to see what it CANT achieve. For example in the episode of TNG featuring the Pegasus and the phase cloak device, it is stated that the entire payload of photorps on the enterprise would not be enough to blast apart the asteroid, therefore, their upper limit is below the firepower needed to destroy that asteroid...managing to keep up?

B. Therefore if they chose to use less than the maximum capability that they possessed you can never use the lesser to deneigh the maximum.

That's another B. there, and the same applies.

C. One of your best arguments is the differance of speed potential. The above applies to this to as we donot know why they did not or could not use the capabilities that they had previously demostraited. Star Trek speeds every bit as high or faster than any demonstraited in star wars.

Bull and shit, all it takes to disprove that is one word Voyager

C1. In my origional analisis, I looked at the first TV series and saw that they had demonstraited several vastly different speed ranges. First in the opening credits, many billions of multiples of "C". (I simply used the minimum, average and maximum density of stars in this galixy, that I got from the director of the Hyden Planetarium in Chicago, devided by time, to find speeds, all very much higher than anything that you ascribe to any ships in the Star Wars "universe".) Secondly, the "movement" shots traveling or in combat between ships in the several combat stories. Using the same technique, I was able to compute speeds of 173,000,000 "C" to 900,000,000 "C". Finaly there was "orbital" speed.

What a steaming load of bullshit. Nine hundred million times the speed of light, based on the assumption that the movement of the "stars" averaged with densitiy from some guy you cant name...

C2. The fact that all of those several episodes show combat at what is obviously supra "C" speeds and enormious ranges, leads me to conclude that this was not only possable, but prefered for some reason. Why should the TNG battles be fought at less than this speed but at equal ranges in some cases? I can think of many reasons that have nothing to do with capassity and more that have to do with tactics. I can recall one show were the Enterprise is fooled into beliveing they are at war with some poor defenceless blokes by a new crew member and Worf thinks he is the boss, were combat ios also at super light speed including phaser fire.

Yet again, irrelevant bullshit without a proper point to it....unless dialouge is indeed superior to visuals...and your calculations based on figures you got from some guy down the pub told you...

C3. In one of the movies, I can't remember which title, the enterprise with Kirk comanding, (makes so many tactical mistakes that he should have been shot, your coments about authors not being skilled in the Millitary Arts comes to mind)! But also demonstraits prodigious speed like you describe for many ships in the SW universe. It goes from the Planet of Peace? located at the triple point nutral zone between the Federation, Klingon and Romulan boarders to the center of the Galixy in under 16 hours if I remember corectly, but in any case a distance of 50,000 to 60,000 LY in under one day, so that Spock's. brother could meet "god?"

Except it isnt the centre of the galaxy.......only the dialouge indicates such and is over ridden by the visuals....although, there's always the counter using your own choice argument, the almighty plot device...unfortunately, the only VS debates it is really a factor in are those involving Discworld, where the plot device is a real part of the proceedings.

C4. That it is also plain that they can maneuver tightly at warp speed is shown dramaticly more than a few times in all of the serries shows and movies. In SW, jumping to "light speed" is not always easy and requires carefull calculations, at least for some ships.

Where the fuck is it "shown dramatically"? Refrences are needed to prove a point, but you seem allergic to providing them.

D. Disintigration by Phaser. Is shown many times and is just one of several uses of that weapon. To say that the "physics precludes such effects is counter to your own arguments for other actions in both settings. On possable solution to the boiling water dilema, is that the phaser some how alows the charges of the various sub atomic particles to "nutralise" each other without further release of energy and they simply colapse. After all the vast majority of all volume inside every atom is empty space. No weapon shown in SW has an equivilant effect.

So we're back to NDF.....which is great....why does it do almost fuck all to dense materials such as the good ol' packing crates or walls?

E. That the Empire must build the DS serries of units to destroy a planet is further proof that their technology is less advanced than that repeatedly shown in ST. Were it is possable for a standard shuttle to do this same job. It is a tenant of technology that as it advances, it gets smaller. That is also demonstraited in ST were their ships are a tiny fraction of those in the SW universe but have demonstraited several different techniques for planetary destruction. It was also said that the same small device could destroy things at great distances from it's point of detonation. That implies that a shuttle could destroy the entire fleet at Yavin or Endor including the DS-2 and the moon. The ability to destroy planets was also shown by the Romulans.

For the sake of fuck, you really are a bloody moron arent you?
The death star was designed to deal with heavily shielded or defended planets that the fleet could not perform a Base-Delta-Zero operation on...I'd love to know when the romulans have destoryed a planet...if its your mix up with the bio-weapon thing....we can do similar shit today if we put our mind to it....does that make us of great technological prowess than the Empire?

F. The ability to manipulate others defenses is also a trait of technological supiriority. We do it in todays Electronic Warfare arena were two new lines of software code can negate the Iraqi ADN. That they have shown the ability to softkill their opponents shields is further proof of their power. Using the reasoning that technology difuses from higher to lower, then it implies that SW shields would be useless against anyone who could swich them off from afar.

Baseless bullshit...ST claims to have over ride codes for controlling fed ships...there's no such crap ever mentioned in SW's, though they do have ECM and ECCM....

G. Your own examples show ST sensors to be much advanced over SW equipment. The thing to remember is that there might be many variables that change the range at which it is effective, just like a modern sonar. Able to track many targets at the fourth convergance zone, 140 nauticle miles, but still miss a fishing boat at a half a mile. I like your argument for FTL sencors in SW. But the dialoge and effects shown discredit performance in the same league as that shown in ST.

Where and when idiot?

H. Transporters are a further set of proofs that the ST universe is more capable than anything shown in the SW films.

Ah, but what about your precious plot device?
Transporters have been shown to be useless in so many situations, that they would provide no real advantage....

I. Replicators are the other side of the Teleportation devices nature. In ST they can interchange Matter and Energy. The "Duplicators" you describe clearly need "Raw Matierials" to build new things and thus are atleast a step or two below the technology demonstraited in ST.

Replicators require raw material and energy.

J. Scale! That in SW is clearly millions of times as large as that in ST. However, that is a misleading point. History clealy shows that each advance in technology makes it's possessor at least two if not three or more orders of magnatude more powerful than their predisesors. It does not take many F-86H's and their sattendant technology to win WW-II for either side. I have gamed this several times and the outcome is the same no matter who plays wich side. Furthermore, it does not take many Pantom-II's to win Koria or F-15c's to win Viet Nam. The F-15 is perhapse the first of the next generation of weapon so technologicly overpowering that it has killed it's enemies without their having recourse.(+120 wins, no losses and no ties) The F-22 is possed to do the same, were modeling and gamming show that only 48 and their support services are needed to defeet any other airforce currently deployed in the world and any that might be fielded in it's life span. The effect of technology overmach is that powerful, that you can not pick a venue were the numbers of the lower tech side can over come the advantage of the technologicaly supirior side.

One man with an assault rifle against the entire roman army....he looses. That's your basic premise and it's bullshit.

I like your site very much and look forward to your reply if you can manage it. Sincerely, Stewart

You are dumber than a rather stupid box of rocks

I also want to touch upon this...

PS I studied Kendo while in Japan and Ethiopia, so I know a little bit about sword work too. (Not much as I got bored with all the rote exercises and quit after only a year and a half but enough to know that nothing I've seen in the movies is that good without wire work.) PPS My reflexes and strength alowed me to beat my origional Japanise instructor more than he beat me after the first two months in class. 60 pounds, 0.13 second reflexes and a 228 bench press will do that for you.

What a fuckload of bullshit....unless of course your "instructor" was actually another of these guy at the pub type people. I've spent over five years studying sword combat, and besides the Force jumps, there is nothing to what they were doing...infact, in terms of martial arts, a lot of it sucked donkey balls...

Tell me Baron Von numbnuts....do you sufer from some form of munchausen syndrome?

[Stewart at SDI]

I was under the asumption that the echange of ideas would be fair. I was obviously mistaken. My original postulate and questions are still unanswered. I did not understand the protocall of BBS "combat" of ideas and I am sorry for putting so many ideas in play at once. I just got the idea that you would read my origional letters and write back from your opening MSG.

Still looking forward to the test, sincerely, Stewart.

[Robert Walper]

Mike, why am I suddenly struck by a sense of deja vu?

This guy is much worse than you ever were, Robert.

A compliment? I'm touched(by the hand of Wong I might add )

Of course, stating I'm not that stupid should be taken with a grain of salt I suppose.

The guy at one point tries to use his monthly salary to bolster his credibility. Come on, that's just atrocious.

*nods* Yeah, that is pathetic....I mean irrelevent.

[PainRack]

Heh, I like the way he phrased his US Army >> Imperial Army.


By his logic, since the SAF division is less than 1/5 the manpower level of the US division, obviously, we are more advanced and better armed and equipped than the US.
After all, the US army needs to amass 15,000 men to meet the same organisational requirements our 3,000 men do.

[Robert Walper]

I was under the asumption that the echange of ideas would be fair. I was obviously mistaken. My original postulate and questions are still unanswered. I did not understand the protocall of BBS "combat" of ideas and I am sorry for putting so many ideas in play at once. I just got the idea that you would read my origional letters and write back from your opening MSG.

Still looking forward to the test, sincerely, Stewart.

Steward, by every indication, you've already failed the test. The Federation, and most Trek in general, is hopelessly outmatched by Imperial technology(read the main site and drop your preconceptions). It has been gone over so many times it's not even funny. Trust me on that. You're not contributing anything really new here. Continue on this track and you'll be flamed. I'm a Trekkie too and I've been through it. *points at sig*

[Keevan_Colton]

I was under the asumption that the echange of ideas would be fair. I was obviously mistaken. My original postulate and questions are still unanswered. I did not understand the protocall of BBS "combat" of ideas and I am sorry for putting so many ideas in play at once. I just got the idea that you would read my origional letters and write back from your opening MSG.

Still looking forward to the test, sincerely, Stewart.

I suspect you may well soon be winging your way to the HoS if you dont start to understand the idea of a logically self consistent argument AND evidence and refrences to support it rather than your vauge bullshit.

Polite stupidity scores no points here...

[Robert Walper]

Polite stupidity scores no points here...

Really? Then what the hell am I doing here?

Oh, wait, I get it. The position is filled already.

[PainRack]

I was under the asumption that the echange of ideas would be fair. I was obviously mistaken. My original postulate and questions are still unanswered. I did not understand the protocall of BBS "combat" of ideas and I am sorry for putting so many ideas in play at once. I just got the idea that you would read my origional letters and write back from your opening MSG.

Still looking forward to the test, sincerely, Stewart.

We answered your questions. Some more politely than others. However, you obviously haven't read the site in the first place, or even replied back to us.

[Tribun]

Mike, why am I suddenly struck by a sense of deja vu?

This guy is much worse than you ever were, Robert. The guy at one point tries to use his monthly salary to bolster his credibility. Come on, that's just atrocious.

Could this be an "appeal to money"?

[Master of Ossus]

I like how he consistently claims that there are any number of reasons to use less than the maximum effect, and dismisses the fact that there are no cases of superior effectiveness for the technologies that he's claiming. He also uses MASSIVE appeals to his own authority, vague claims, and some outright lies. He's not even worth arguing against.

[PackMule]

Sorry but has this guy proven any of his "qualifications" that he claims he has?

Mike has a picture of his degree on his site, and has proven his knowledge of engineering many times. This guy just says he has all this knowledge and experience, but provides no evidence, and his attitude and debating style contradicts what he says.


I'm relatively new to this board, but I took the effort to read around first, to get a general feel for the topics and the people involved.

A little reading goes a long way.

[HRogge]

Could this be an "appeal to money"?

Maybe an appeal to bullshit ?

[seanrobertson]

PPS My reflexes and strength alowed me to beat my origional Japanise instructor more than he beat me after the first two months in class. 60 pounds, 0.13 second reflexes and a 228 bench press will do that for you.

Sincerely, Stewart.

To conclude a long, swaggering message with a blurb about your strong kung-fu seems like a thinly veiled ad baculum to me.

For future reference, Stewart, you're exaggering your IQ beyond what anyone'll believe, but you have the opposite problem with the bench press, which is much too low for braggin' rights.

Thus, I advise you to add at least 50% to it (as you did with your real IQ); that'd give you a somewhat respectable lift, and it wouldn't be too unreal.

I wouldn't go much higher than that, though...once you lay claim to weights I'd struggle with, I'm likely to call bullshit.

I hope that helps. It'd behoove you to drop the irrelevant posturing in the first place, but if you gotta do it, at least do it right.

[Lt. Dan]

And another one, this time bragging about his handgun proficiency, swordfighting ability, and of course, his powerful muscles:

This brings up my favorite peev about the light saber. Kool it certainly is but as a weapon it is a dud that is too dumb for words. "Less random than a blaster" implies that blasters must be terribly inaccurate, as I have made head shots under opperational pressure at ranges exceeding 60m and one at 109m. In all of those engagements I never had to shoot twice! I am absolutly certain that I can acomplish any offencive mission senario that you could dictate with a 20th century pistol in equal or less time than anyone could with and unranged weapon.( sword or saber of any type.) I should also mention that I am not realy special or great at this. If you want to see the real "Jedi" go to a ISPC match and watch the pros. Jerry Mitchulek currently holds the worlds revolver records at 1.00 seconds for eight shots on target, 1.06 seconds for two shrots on each of four different targets and 2.98 seconds for 6 shots, reloading and six more, all hits in each case, that with a revolver no less. The autoloader guys like Rob Leatham are even faster and to win the national and world titels so many times all the hits must be in the "A" zone to boot!

PS I studied Kendo while in Japan and Ethiopia, so I know a little bit about sword work too. (Not much as I got bored with all the rote exercises and quit after only a year and a half but enough to know that nothing I've seen in the movies is that good without wire work.) PPS My reflexes and strength alowed me to beat my origional Japanise instructor more than he beat me after the first two months in class. 60 pounds, 0.13 second reflexes and a 228 bench press will do that for you.

Sincerely, Stewart.

I'm a bit confused here. How is this related to SW? Is he saying that he's a bad ass? When did Obi ever say that blasters aren't accurate? And what is this about Kendo? I'm a bit dumbfounded...

[Spanky The Dolphin]

You see, in Moron Land, personal boasting counts as a viable argument.