Species 8472 vs The Galactic Empire

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-06 10:47pm

Sovereign wrote:
Truths, Hard Facts,

WHAT THE FUCK EVER!

Concesssion accepted, you moron. Your subjective opinion means positively jack shit. You give Trek fans a bad name.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-06 10:49pm

Can someone tell me though- how the hell do the Technical Manuals HELP the Trek case? As I recall, this was precisely the reason why a lot of the trek side on ASVS fought so vehemently against TOWNMNBS and G2K.

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2002-12-06 10:55pm

Vympel wrote:
Sovereign wrote:
Truths, Hard Facts,

WHAT THE FUCK EVER!
Concesssion accepted, you moron. Your subjective opinion means positively jack shit. You give Trek fans a bad name.

I think you need a bigger gun Vympel.

'Concession accepted.'

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-12-06 10:56pm

Sovereign wrote:Let me tell you something, The STAR TREK: ENCYCLOPEDIA was written by Michael Okuda and Denise Okuda, They created the Technical information and had Gene Roddenberry give the Ok, same goes with The Galaxy Class TNG: TECHNICAL MANUAL, Written by Rick Sternbach (who also works with Trek ships and technology) and Michael Okuda once again. The truth is, the Only "Canon" Trek Info comes from books written by people who actually work on the show. This meens these books are TRUE CANON MATERIAL...

"nothing is canon save what you see on-screen", "[the technical manuals are only useful] to the extent that they accurately reflect what has been seen onscreen. All else is speculation" John Ordover, the senior editor of Paramount Novels at Pocket Books, publisher of the Star Trek Tech Manuals and writer of DS9 episodes "Starship Down" and "It's Only a Paper Moon."

Gene Roddenberry himself publicly dismissed all of the Star Trek novels and technical books as irrelevant when ST:TMP came out, and he never gave any indication that this policy would ever change.

"It isn't Star Trek until I say it's Star Trek" Gene Roddenberry

From StarTrek.com
"As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon.
There are a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters. (Note: There are a few details from an episode of the Animated Adventures that have entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, features some biographical background on Spock.)"

"Actually, NONE of the books are considered canon. We consider only the filmed episodes (and movies) to be canon for our purposes. We do use things like the Encyclopedia, the Chronology, the Technical Manual etc. for reference, but unless it was explicitly mentioned on screen, we won't feel bound by anything stated even in those books."- Ron D. Moore, executive co-producer of Star Trek

"None of the the books should be considered canon"- quoted from a Trekweb.com archive of one of Ron D' Moore's AOL chats from October 1, 1998.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-12-06 11:00pm

Sovereign wrote:So Star Wars Technical Manuals are canon, Star Trek Technicals are not? Sounds hypocritical to me. I know Star Wars books are considered Canon, but when I state facts from Star Wars Technical Manuals I own, you say "Your a dumbass, that is not canon" Why Not?

a) If you don't like Paramount's policy, then go whine to them about it.
b) The Star Wars Tech Journal is NOT canon. Its official. There's a difference.
c) Please point out ONE EXAMPLE where we dismissed your "facts" on the grounds of them not being canon as opposed to them not being relevant to the point you were trying to make.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-12-06 11:07pm

Sovereign wrote:
Truths, Hard Facts,

WHAT THE FUCK EVER!

So your opinion over rides reality now? Do us a favor, decide there is no such thing as gravity and step off a high building.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-12-06 11:09pm

Sovereign wrote: < snip irrelevent, noncanon bullshit >

Although the big words and smart math calculations look impressive, The Star Wars creators never said so, and you all should realize this.

You are, for the first time, correct. The numbers here are not sanctioned by Lucas liscensing in any way shape or form.

The official numbers are far, far higher then Wong's calcs.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-12-06 11:38pm

Sovereign wrote:Well lets look at speculation...

SD.NET looks at a 40 m asteroid and creates calculations for its destruction, but does anyone know for a fact that is was 40 m? No you dont, you only make a guess and speculate.

It's called scaling retard.

SD.NET also looks at the destruction of Alderaan, but do you know how big Alderaan really is? No you dont, because it is (in Star Trek terms) an "M" Class Planet, you speculate that it is about the same size as the Planet Earth. But with out exact size, speculation is all you have. So how can you call me a dumbass, dumbass?

Correct. Earth sized is low end.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-12-06 11:39pm

Sovereign wrote:YES THEY ARE, those four books were made after 1987, any book before then were non-canon. With TNG taking a new look at they way Star Trek was made, Gene Roddenberry authorized Canon reference, he even made and introduction to the TNG: Technical Manual! Also those books do look into TRUE EVENTS IN THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE! So if this guy can make SD.NET a "Canon" source by looking at movies and making calculations, then SO CAN THE REAL STAR TREK CREATORS THAT WRITE THE BOOKS THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You stupid pigfucker. Do you even realize that SD.net ends up giving Trek more power then your precious TMs?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-12-06 11:41pm

Sovereign wrote:Joule

\Joule\ (j[=oo]l), n. [From the distinguished English physicist, James P. Joule.] (Physics.) A unit of work which is equal to 10^{7} units of work in the C. G. S. system of units (ergs), and is practically equivalent to the energy expended in one second by an electric current of one ampere in a resistance of one ohm. One joule is approximately equal to 0.738 foot pounds.

Watt

\Watt\, n. [From the distinguished mechanician and scientist, James Watt.] (Physics) A unit of power or activity equal to 10^{7} C.G.S. units of power, or to work done at the rate of one joule a second. An English horse power is approximately equal to 746 watts.

And I'm sure you consider that a stunning, debate winning argument.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-12-06 11:47pm

Wow, Ender couldn't you have condensed that into 1 or 2 posts?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-12-06 11:49pm

Sovereign wrote:Joule

\Joule\ (j[=oo]l), n. [From the distinguished English physicist, James P. Joule.] (Physics.) A unit of work which is equal to 10^{7} units of work in the C. G. S. system of units (ergs), and is practically equivalent to the energy expended in one second by an electric current of one ampere in a resistance of one ohm. One joule is approximately equal to 0.738 foot pounds.

Watt

\Watt\, n. [From the distinguished mechanician and scientist, James Watt.] (Physics) A unit of power or activity equal to 10^{7} C.G.S. units of power, or to work done at the rate of one joule a second. An English horse power is approximately equal to 746 watts.

Hip, hip, huzzah. You know how to use a dictionary. You have shown the first sign of actual intelligence. Now tell us, how does any of that prove anything about what you've been trying to say?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-12-07 01:53am

Crown wrote:Wow, Ender couldn't you have condensed that into 1 or 2 posts?

Easy for you to say, Mr 1255 posts.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-12-07 02:54am

I was curious but thought best not to make it too obvious