Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

[Roondar]

Arguing from authority (i.e. I'm better qualified than you so you must be wrong) is bad form. Easy to avoid too, no need to point out your credentials - just point out their errors and call them out on trying to hide behind their status.

Trying to show of you have good enough/equal/better credentials will only work in the advantage of who ever claims your are not good enough - it gives them ammunition.

Attack the argument, not the fallacies behind them ;)

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

So you didn't. Then how can you claim that you do not debate like a creationist?

You listed at least a few of the things they do in a debate......i did none of them.

Easy really.

I formulated or referred to full theories for all my arguments. I even laid them out several times in detail..

Rubbish, in fact in both cases you actually tried to use your own math you screwed it up and in one case had that screw up pointed out by 2 other members of your board (the first one who did so also came to a faulty conclusion).

But in standard warsie style they did give you a CMA clause.

Because presenting your theory is a REQUIREMENT for a debate.

This is not a debate, you stuck your beak into my discussion regarding materail that was going to be used in a theory.

Provide evidence that it is not true.

Its your video link WATCH IT............here it is:

Nice illustration of that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdaQHTWT_ZI

A category is not a quantity.

It applies it contains a quantity if you choose to say that all dialog is wrom=ng or that all datas quoted figures are wrong because of a small sampling you are commiting a no limit fallacy.

You fail at basic understanding.

Yes, you can. We lack any other frame of reference in that picture.

The size of the roid after impact compared to the size of the roid as the distance between it and the falcon closes.

1. Everyone can see that you did not construct a post outlining your theory,

2. as i demanded and is customary in any debate.

1. So what i never said i would...therefore i never lied by not doing so.

2. I have flushed turds that mattered to me more than a demand from you, and again you sticking your beak into a private discussion regarding material for a theory is not a debate.

What are you doing in this debate without one?
Concession accepted.

This is not a debate and never was.

No consession is given.

No, we choose to interpret them

You choose to misinterpret them to serve your bias.

Phasers are not DET weapons

I never said they were, in fact i clearly point out they are not and YOU quote me doing so......

Oh and the material contained in a 50m wide hole 3000km deep (not including very high densities) would require 10-19 gigatons per second of DET energy (ignoring the out gassing issues with a DET weapon obviously) to vaporise it all.

Due to the NDF being kinda funky we can however only say they can easily achieve the equivalant "effect" of 10-19 gigatons per second would have (if the tunnel was 50m wide).

Talk about a liar and a nitpicker, you ignore what i actualy said and then lie as if i made a opposing claim.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Ah, denial - isn't it fun?

You should know better than others.

Look, kid - i never denied that my original calculation was not correct.

I am not a kid but you certainly are.

And i never said you denied it.

But the fact IS that i now have a correct one (even if i did not do it on my own) - and you can't challenge it.

Why would i?, it agreed with me....lol.

FORMULATE your bloody theory.

A theory if it is complete will contain elements we are in fact discussing....so what is the point when you are already disagreeing with them and refusing to accept the truth already?.

You have to TELL and SHOW us what you see an infer - merely pointing at a video and screaming "LOOK AT IT" is no argument.

I did that.

A category defines things - these things will obviously have a quantity, but the category itself has no quantity.

A category has a quantity of at least 1 (as in 1 catagory) and a almost limitless internal quantity depending on what the catagory contains.

IE:
1. Mr X speaks 15,000 times in the trek verse.

2. Mr X got summat wrong verbally twice.

3. Therefore every one of the 15,000 times MrX has spoken he is wrong.

No limit fallacy.

It could be very large or very small - how do you infer a speed from it? What interdependent source do you have?

The fact is that as the distance between the falcon and the roid closes the roid should look bigger due to objects at long distance being visually percieved as smaller than closer objects.

It does not look any bigger as it passes just below the falcon compared to its size when we first see it, therfore the initial range could not have been very significant at all.

You claimed that you did after i challenged you.

I said i had posted some of what you demanded and other stuff was in the title of the thread.

How can i crash into a private debate - WHEN I NEVER JOINED YOUR BLOODY MORON-FORUM?

I never said it was a private debate, i said it was a private discussion.

No, you didn't.
But attempting the energy for a DET-reaction based on something that is based on a chain reaction is...rather pointless.

Yes i did and you snipped it AGAIN.

I was pointing out that the phaser effect disintigrated a amount of material that a DET weapon would need 10-19 gigatons a second to do.

The discussion was about the equivalent EFFECT phasers can produce compared to a DET weapon.

moronic Trektard, pathetic, great imbecile, hatfucker, MORON-FORUM, WankTard, mindless drivel..

Just superb, your getting owned and as usual resort to the standard SDN foulness....so predictable..

[Jedi Master Spock]

Arguing from authority (i.e. I'm better qualified than you so you must be wrong) is bad form. Easy to avoid too, no need to point out your credentials - just point out their errors and call them out on trying to hide behind their status.

Trying to show of you have good enough/equal/better credentials will only work in the advantage of who ever claims your are not good enough - it gives them ammunition.

Attack the argument, not the fallacies behind them ;)

It's not as if the SDN crowd does anything but try to convince themselves that said credentials are, in fact, meaningless. That has been discussed before on these boards. I will, of course, again bring up ancient history and point out the case of Graham Kennedy, who participated in the debate for a while. He teaches physics to teenagers. He had his bachelor's degree focused in physics education; he had his HND specifically in physics itself.

In terms of his actual real-life credentials, as far as I know, they're roughly on the same level as Wong's. Bachelor's degree with more physics than average involved, but no graduate education, and a job that keeps basic physics skills sharp. However, most SDN residents will try to tell you that Wong's education is terribly impressive and Kennedy's meaningless.

While doing so, the topic is no longer about Wong's claims or Kennedy's claims. I agree with Roondar here; even though I would be surprised if an objective comparison of credentials between W.I.L.G.A. and Serafina would fail to favor W.I.L.G.A. by a large margin (simply having gotten an Abitur would put W.I.L.G.A. on par with the average SDN resident, and W.I.L.G.A. has rather more than that), it's generally not a productive line of discussion.

Although I will comment on the solidity of the mantle. The mantle is mostly solid, but also at temperatures above the "normal" (1 atm) melting point of its rock. We would expect under normal circumstances that anywhere in the mantle would be a very hostile environment.

Of course, these are anything but normal circumstances in the episode. W.I.L.G.A.'s interpretation of the episode is the "correct" interpretation under a documentarian approach to producing fan analysis (as is hypothetically favored on SDN). I don't favor it because of the amazingly large quantity of rock that becomes involved, thanks to the visible disc of sky. The documentarian approach is IMO flawed.

I have flushed turds that mattered to me more than a demand from you, and again you sticking your beak into a private discussion regarding material for a theory is not a debate.

Kor, I realize you're having a cross-site discussion, but I would like it if posts here conformed to this site's rules about politeness. We don't have particularly many rules, and you'll find it's better debate form anyway.

[Mike DiCenso]

t's not as if the SDN crowd does anything but try to convince themselves that said credentials are, in fact, meaningless. That has been discussed before on these boards. I will, of course, again bring up ancient history and point out the case of Graham Kennedy, who participated in the debate for a while. He teaches physics to teenagers. He had his bachelor's degree focused in physics education; he had his HND specifically in physics itself.

Graham may well be the first to suffer in the Versus debates from such a personal attack, but he is not alone and this tactic will go on as long as people tolerate it. Among other people with credentials are Bernd Schneider (PHD in electrical engineering) and Big Hairy Mountain Man (BHMM), among others who've fallen under Wong and SDN attack, despite their having vaild credentials to discuss physics and engineering. Unfortunately because of the highly invasive nature of this form of attack, it has proven to be very effective in diverting the debate away from the topics at hand, and in the case of Graham, driving him out of the Versus debate all together.
-Mike

[Who is like God arbour]

To Serafina:

• That’s my last post. Further debate with someone so dishonest and unreasonable does not makes sense anymore.
• The adapting of one’s theory is not dishonest. But to act as if the opponent should know the adaption of your theory before you have written down your new thoughts is dishonest. Simply look at the progress of this debate. You wrote A. I showed that A is impossible. You wrote A+ and claimed that I had made a strawman out of A. I showed that A+ is impossible. You wrote A++ and continued to pretend that I should have known that if you write A, you mean A++. You write that I am dishonest, stupid, not educated and not able to use lexica because I have not known that in your book A = A++.
• You link to a Wikipedia article and I show that even in there is something written in the very first paragraph that outright contradicts your assumptions. But suddenly you accuse me rely on a bloody Wikipedia article. I have never said that this Wikipedia article is the only source I have used. I have used them only because you have linked to them.
• And if you link to them, you are using them as source. It’s your job to make it clear, where you do not agree with what is written in the article you have linked to. If you would know how a scientifically essay is written, you would know that your method is totally unacceptable.
• And if you refer to the definition of magma, you should do it correctly:
  magma is hot fluid or semi-fluid material within the earth’s crust from which lava and other igneous rock is formed by cooling or, with other words, the hot liquid rock found just below the surface of the Earth. But the people who are writing the Oxford dictionary or the Cambridge dictionary are probably stupid too. Either they are confusing the term crust with the term mantle or they do not know what magma is at all.
• The same goes for your reference to the article in Nature. It is not a sign of honesty to ignore what is written in that article only because you do not like it. »Except for the first 50–100 million years or so of the Earth’s history, when most of the mantle may have been subjected to melting, the differentiation of Earth’s silicate mantle has been controlled by solid-state convection. As the mantle upwells and decompresses across its solidus, it partially melts. These low-density melts rise to the surface and form the continental and oceanic crusts, driving the differentiation of the silicate part of the Earth. […]«
  
  In the very same article you have linked to, they are saying that the mantly is almost exclusively solid and begins to melt only after crossing the solidus.
  
  Will wonders never cease - that is exactly what I wrote.
  
  But nevertheless, you are – ignoring the article you yourself have brought into play - still claiming that the whole mantle is liquid.
  
  Maybe you have the same problem you think Data and Geordi and Picard and Pran and Julianna are having – you are confusing terms - in your case - the meaning of honest with the meaning of dishonest.
• The same dishonesty is demonstrated by your quotation of a sentence of the Wikipedia article of hotspots. This sentence says nothing more than that hotspots are caused by plumes of hot magma in the mantle. There is nothing about a contact (shaft or suchlike) between such hotspots and these plumes of hot magma and it does not contradict my description that plumes are merely created by the slow creeping motion of Earth's rocky mantle caused by convection currents carrying heat from the interior of the earth to the surface. The hotspots are created by the through the plumes rising heat.
• Then you are totally ignoring the explicit addressed problem of current. In a plume, Earth's rocky mantle goes in a slow creeping motion from the core to the surface of Earth. But you insist on sending plasma against such a current to the core because there is already a transport mechanism. Only that it seems to be irrelevant to you that this transport mechanism goes the other way and is very very slow.
• All what follows is due to your inability to accept that the mantle is solid and your inability to conduct a scientifically discussion.
• I write a statement in one sentence and give in the following sentences an elaborated explanation – but you are demanding, after you have quoted the first sentence, such an explanation instead of writing where you have problems with my explanation.
• You distort what I have written. I wrote that I have not studied geology and nevertheless I am able to differentiate between the terms core, mantle and crust just fine and you pretend that I claim livelong expertise that prevents me from making a simple mistake.
• You ignore in what context what was written. Wyrm was it who has said »Oh the irony! First off, if the mantle were solid, it could not convect and generate tectonics — including earthquakes. It is plastic, able to conduct S-waves, but not fully solid in that it will deform under any continuous pressure, slowly.«. I responded to his claim that the mantle is not solid but plastic. Then it is not wrong to show that a plastic property does not exclude (but demands) a solid state.
• And do not think that I have not noticed that you ignored my complaint that it seems as you haven’t seen the episode at all. That alone is reason enough to stop this debate. You pretend to know something although you know next to nothing about it. If that is not dishonest I do not know what is.
• But even if you had seen the episode, your conduct in this debate gets worse and worse.
• A good example for this is not only your recourse to a favourite SDN tactic: If someone argues something you do not like, accuse him to be a creationist or at least to argue like a creationist. Instead of answering my honest question, you have done the first. Such a tactic is always good at SDN because then you do not have to provide any further arguments to refute your opponents arguments nor to substantiate your claim that he is a creationist or argues like a creationist. And of course, although it does not bring the debate forward, it distracts from the actual topic.
  
  As a passing comment: I’m an atheist. I have grown up in a region of Germany where Religion didn’t have much influence. I do not know many religious people and I have never heard something that would let me believe that one of them is a creationist. I have heard of evolution long before I heard of creationism and that there are indeed stupid people who believe that an almighty beast has created Earth and all live on it in six days and has recuperated the seventh day. And because in the region of Germany, where I went to school, there was not even such thing as religious education in school, I'm not even familiar with most of religious teachings.
  
  But that is hardly relevant. After all you are not really interested in the truth about my beliefs. You have not accused me to be a creationist because you really believe it. Not even you could be so stupid. I mean, even if I were mistaken with what I said about taxonomy, does it not mean that I am a creationist. It is not black and white. Either you know all there is to know about biology or you are a creationist.
• And now a little excerpt out of my good old and trusted biology textbook:
  
  • • • • Ordovizium (500 – 440 Millionen Jahre). Hier treten die ersten Wirbeltiere auf: gepanzerte Fische mit knorpeliger Wirbelsäule und unpaarigen Flossen.
          
          • • • • • [list] [list] [list] […]
    Devon (400-345 Millionen Jahre). Erstmals treten Ammoniten und Knochenfische auf, darunter auch Quastenflosser (Crossoterygier) (s. Abb. 461.1). Die Quastenflosser sind die Ausgangsgruppe der Landwirbeltiere. Sie haben vier, durch Knochen gestützte, gequastete Flossen, die eine Fortbewegung auch auf festem Grund ermöglichen. Sie besitzen ein knöchernes Kopfskelett, Zähne, Schultergürtel und eine zur Luftatmung befähigte Schwimmblase. Gegen Ende dieses Zeitalters traten die Amphibien auf. Zu den ersten Vertretern gehört die in Grönland gefundene salamanderähnliche Ichthyostega (s. Abb. 461.2). Sie zeigt mit einer Rücken- und einer Schwanzflosse und einem fischähnlichen Gebiß einerseits noch Fischmerkmale, andererseits aber mit dem Besitz von vier fünfzehigen Extremitäten sowie einem Schulter- und Beckengürtel bereits Landwirbeltiermerkmale.
    
    • • • • 
    (Seite 460 f. aus Linder Biologie - Lehrbuch für die Oberstufe - von Bayrhuber und Kull - 20. Auflage - Schroedel Schulbuchverlag - ISBN 3-507-02347-4).

[/list] [/list]

• • • • And another image I have found:
        
        • • • • 

What was it what you have said? I can repeat it for you: » Have you ever seen a fish or amphibian? They look nothing alike, and are completely different taxonomic groups.« and »Amphibians are organisms that have an early aquatic stage in their livecycle, require a humid environment and can breath air. That directly contradicts some of the logical criteria for a categorization as a fish« and »There are no fish which would be classified as amphibia. It is remotely possible to construct a taxonomy that has a wide classification "fish" which has a subgroup that includes "amphibia" - but such a taxonomy would be bad.« and » Implying that the ancestors of Tetrapods could be classified as fish is bad enough«

Curios that, after reading my biology textbook and other sources, I’m still convinced that it is not totally wrong and absolutely indefensible to say that fishes are underdeveloped or retarded amphibians, especially if fish-like-species would be an exception and amphibians the rule on the majority of all planets.

And it is no sound argument to say »on any planet with liquid water, life will fill that niche« when I already had written in an earlier post, that »I do not want to imply that on such planets are no animals which are living only in their oceans - but even on Earth we have many different kinds of animals living in our oceans that are no fishes « Even on planets who have oceans as Earth – and most Planets seen in Star Trek were not blue – don’t have to be fishes. There can be other species who are in their oceans that are no fishes as our oceans were filled a long time ago with many species but not one single fish, which have developed not before the Ordovizium. And even today there are other sea dwellers than fishes on Earth.

Are you sure that you are not a Creationist, assuming that evolution on each planet has to be the same because there is a greater plan behind it?




[*]The only time you have more or less admitted, that you have lied, was when I caught you with your lie about your textbooks. But instead of really admitting that you have lied, you lie again by claiming that your teacher has given you notes/handouts, which must have been more detailed than not only your textbooks but also my 13th year textbooks.

In that context it is interesting how you write that you have misused the word textbook and that you did not want to imply that it was the textbook from your 10th class you used when writing your drivel. But when I made the argument, that if you claim me stupid and uneducated because I – according to you – didn’t even know mantle plumes or hotspots or what taxonomy is, you have, if you are consequent, to think that Data and Geordi and Picard and Julianna and Pran are stupid too, using the terms core and mantle wrong, you objected that »Making a mistake while speaking and making the same mistake while writing are two different things. In case of the former, you do not have time for research and corrections. In the case of the latter, you do.« If I take you by your word, you had enough time to research if you had used your textbooks or your notes/handouts and you had enough time to research the meaning of both terms and to correct yourself. It is after all your own benchmark I apply to what you have said.

Somehow I even doubt that taxonomy is part of the curriculum of 10th grade at all and if it is, it is only in a most simplified form (like here). Neither in Bavaria is taxonomy part of the curriculum of biology in the 10th grade [O] nor is it in Baden-Württemberg [O] or Saxony [O]. And these states are regarded as those with the most ambitious curriculum. I say it as it is: I do not believe you that you learned in your biology lessons in 10th grade such a sophisticated taxonomy.




[*]I do not even believe that you are really interested in this debate. You needed less than two hours (one hour and fourteen minutes to be precise) to find out that I made a response to your last post, to read it, to think about it and to write your drivel.

If you were really interested in a real debate, you had taken more time and thought about the imbecility you have written down before you wrote it. You would have been careful to formulate arguments instead of insults.

Above all, you would have done your own research to verify that your claim that the whole mantle is liquid. If you had done that, we could have saved us a lot of trouble. But that would require that you are really interested in this debate and in finding the truth (as far as the truth can be find).[/list]


As I have said, this is my last post. I do not continue this debate with you – if you can call it that at all. Unlike others I have not the time to sit the whole day in front of my computer and wait for a response to my posts. And when I use some of my spare time to debate for fun, I expect it to have a minimum of intellectual power and honesty.

A fortiori I will not debate with Wyrm who seems to be too lazy to go and read for himself what I have written. To participate in this debate but to read only what Serafina has quoted from me is without doubt not a method any serious scientist or even any intelligent person would apply.

He doesn’t even seem to be able to look for the simple term solidus curve himself and demands from me to produce this curve, with its legend. If he would be so clever as he likes to pretend, he could as easily as I have found this page from the Center for Isotope Geochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley. There it is explained that even a kindergarten child could understand it.

But probably the experts from the Center for Isotope Geochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley are wrong too. After all, according to their solidus curve, at the depth of 200 km not even a temperature of 1.700 °C would be enough to melt the mantle rock. But that can’t be right, when it is contradicting the substantiated and well developed opinion of Serafina and Wyrm that the mantle is not solid but liquid.

I’m sure that you now will claim to be the better debater or that I have conceded or that you will continue to attack me instead of my arguments. But that’s not important. It is only important, that everyone can see how debates are conducted at SDN and this debate is a very fine example.

[Who is like God arbour]

Now follow the links to each post of this debate in chronological order:

1. Posted: 2010-06-18 07:05pm by Who is like God arbour at SFJ
2. Posted: 2010-06-18 04:37pm by Serafina at SDN
3. Posted: 2010-06-19 03:38pm by Who is like God arbour at SFJ
4. Posted: 2010-06-19 01:04pm by Serafina at SDN
5. Posted: 2010-06-21 06:56am by Who is like God arbour at SFJ
6. Posted: 2010-06-21 03:41am by Serafina at SDN
   
   and
   
   Posted: 2010-06-21 09:02pm by Batman at SDN
7. Posted: 2010-06-22 06:00am by Who is like God arbour at SFJ
   
   and
   
   Posted: 2010-06-22 08:26am by Who is like God arbour at SFJ
   
   and
   
   Posted: 2010-06-22 08:51am by Who is like God arbour at SFJ
8. Posted: 2010-06-22 05:37am by Serafina at SDN
   
   and
   
   Posted: 2010-06-22 06:43am by Serafina at SDN
   
   and
   
   Posted: 2010-06-22 07:27am by Serafina at SDN
9. Posted: 2010-06-23 04:39am by Jedi Master Spock at SFJ
   
   and
   
   Posted: 2010-06-23 05:05am by Who is like God arbour at SFJ
10. Posted: 2010-06-23 05:36am by Serafina at SDN
    
    and
    
    Posted: 2010-06-23 02:32pm by Wyrm at SDN
    
    and
    
    Posted: 2010-06-23 02:51pm by Wyrm at SDN
    
    and
    
    Posted: 2010-06-23 03:15pm by Serafina at SDN
11. Posted: 2010-06-24 05:00am by Who is like God arbour at SFJ
12. Posted: 2010-06-24 03:14am by Serafina at SDN
    
    and
    
    Posted: 2010-06-24 07:40am by Wyrm at SDN
13. Posted: 2010-06-25 4:57am by Who is like God arbour at SFJ

Now everyone can see what happened here and everyone can decide for oneself.

The time difference between SFJ and SDN is 4 hours. When it is 10:00 o’clock at SFJ, it is only 06:00 o’clock at SDN.

If the links to SDN don’t work anymore, than it is further evidence for their dishonesty. If they were really interested in the truth, they wouldn’t move that thread and let it stay where everyone can read it.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Who is like God Arbour has requested a topic split to make reading and reviewing the off-site debate slightly easier. I feel it's worthwhile.

Let me know if I missed any posts that belong more in this specific vein of discussion.

Whom are you addressing with that post?

I hope not me because I agree with that sentiment.

I have only referred to my Abitur because Serafina has insinuated that I slept through my biology lessons and that she had learned all the discussed stuff already in her 10th class.

If she hadn't done that, I would never had brought my education into that debate.

Serafina offered an ad hominem attack to try to distract from the discussion at hand, and it worked - you responded to the attack with details about yourself. Calling someone uneducated is both a good distraction and a good way to fish for more information.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Anyway - you are a moron.

The moron here is YOU, and not only are you the moron but you are a arrogant moron who it too stupid to understand how moronic you are.

EVERY calculation you have done you havev screwed up, every bit of material you have posted is from another person OR shows the opposite of what you actually ibntended.

But like the raving obsessed idiot you are you continue to berate me and others claiming we are the very thing you are.

You are quite simply a living breathing text book example of the Dunning–Kruger effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

READ THOSE LINKS CAREFULLY AND TAKE A DEEP BREATH BECAUSE IT DESCRIBES YOU PERFECTLY.

Why yes, actually i should, because i understand the psychological process of denial, both by first- and second-hand experience.

You lies about being in transition are pitiful and just a excuse to spit venom at those it baits into making a negative or sarcastic comment....see above for the level of sophistication your ploy has.

You can not discuss without a theory to defend.

YET AGAIN, il mention that il discuss anything i damn well please when i please and do not require the permission of a arrogant liar who cannot even get his own math right while berating others about how SIMPLE it is.

Please refer back to the top of the post for a explanation why.....

you are supposed to give us a scene to look at and explain what we see. Is it really that hard?

What part of "they STOP, they move sideways and take cover, then THEY RETREAT/MOVE BACKWARDS".....was too difficult for you to understand??????????.

But then you know i said that and it has liklely filtered through even your skull that the video shows exactly that so instead of trying to defend it you attack me.......pitiful, obvious and lets face it TOTALLY predictable from a warsie SDN member.

Please refer back to the top of the post for a explanation why.....

1: Mr X speaks 15,000 times in the Trek verse.
2: Mr X got something extremely simple very wrong on numerous occasions.
3: Therefore, we do not know whether he is correct on more complex things.

Where does it presume that Mr X is wrong on every occasion?
NOWHERE!

Concession accepted.

i heard running away is the new way to winning a debate now.

From what i can see adding rules making demands and claiming that a debate was agreed to or in progress, then acting like the rules ect have been broken and calling it a win is the new warsie tqactic?

I have heard of moving the goal posts but creating the game, setting the rules and building the goal posts and demanding that a player is already half way through a game is a all new level of arrogance for thinking it would not be noticed and stupidity for thinking it would be tolerated.

But then the Dunning–Kruger effect pretty much explains why you do all that.

Fine then, go ahead, explain the difference between a debate and an discussion.

All those rules you bleat on about for starters.

You have done nothing but make yourself look like a arrogant idiot with the emotional control of a child.



@JediMasterSpock

While doing so, the topic is no longer about Wong's claims or Kennedy's claims. I agree with Roondar here; even though I would be surprised if an objective comparison of credentials between W.I.L.G.A. and Serafina would fail to favor W.I.L.G.A. by a large margin (simply having gotten an Abitur would put W.I.L.G.A. on par with the average SDN resident, and W.I.L.G.A. has rather more than that), it's generally not a productive line of discussion.

The math and science sefrina preaches about being "so easy" and calls others idiots for not showing are not supprisingly BEYOND HIS abilities even when referancing text books because both times HE has done what HE calls "SIMPLISTIC" calculations with them HE has screwed them up and come to faulty conclusions (in favour of the wongite view obviously)...

I merely mocked AVOCADO for his ignorance of things he should have learned back in school.

Hippocracy of the highest level considering your screwups on what you refer too as "basic math".

I don't favor it because of the amazingly large quantity of rock that becomes involved, thanks to the visible disc of sky.

Closer examination of the light clearly shows that it is not blue sky.

Serafina: "you have to provide and explanation"

TRANSLATION:

You have to provide a explanation that i will accept and il never accept anything that does not serve my bias, do not forget that i am so arrogant i think my opinion can over ride canon and so stuid i fail at the basic math i berate and insult others about......

[Who is like God arbour]

Serafina offered an ad hominem attack to try to distract from the discussion at hand, and it worked - you responded to the attack with details about yourself. Calling someone uneducated is both a good distraction and a good way to fish for more information.

You are right. I should have seen through that cheap trick.

[Who is like God arbour]

I just read Serafina's response to my last post.

It is ludicrous.

I think that indeed each of his arguments were already addressed in my prior posts.

I couldn't find anything to which I would have to do more to address it than to quote something already written.

If you see something in his last post that was not addressed already by me in one or several of my prior posts or something where you think that Serafina might have a point which I ignored or might have overlooked, please inform me.

I'm more than willing to resolve each misunderstanding there might be.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Seriously this trans-board discussion is the most tiring shit I've seen in ages.

Well, then stop reading the thread. At least it's not Jason-bashing like on ASVS.
-Mike

Seriously? Yep, didn't read much of it, can't be bothered unless both sides decide to settle for some KISS or 5 rounds focused debate, and people should be asking for this. It's about time this junk gets tided up so we can actually read it in some comfortable way.
I tried reading that mess of a thread, because some points seemed worth looking at, but what can you do? It's seven pages long of a tireless ping pong between two different boards. I can tolerate long exchanges when they takes place on the same forum, but there, this is just painful. And good god, it has evolved into a talk about is he now a she or is she still a he . . .

Aw dang. Pointing out that the second calcs were done with a small DSII (160 km wide, which is now the width of the DSI in the EU).

That's not a problem since we can easily derive a 120 and 160 km diameter size for the Death Stars as detailed on RSA page here and Sarli's rebuttal to Saxton here. Both seperately coming to the same conclusion and tying in with Saxton's own averaging for the Death Star sizes before he arbitrarily goes the with 160km and 900 km numbers. The Death Star EU novel even stated that the differences are the result of different people using different measurements.

Surely it's interesting, because now we know for a fact that there are two different meter units in SW.
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 15&start=0
Bumped the thread to offer my own interpretation of the difference between both units.

And the EU clearly states that Alderaan had no shield. Period (yeah, that would have been covered years ago if Warsies had the honesty to provide that quote).

Is that in the Death Star EU novel? Can you provide trhe quote?
-Mike

Instead of weakening a shield, the superlaser is able to pierce through it by using a coupled neutrino charge. This neutrino charge not only plunges through the shield, but it penetrates the mantle and lower levels of the planet. Great chunks of the crust can be vaporized, sometimes sending the surface exploding outward with enough force to shatter the world.
[...]
Alderaan had no shields of any kind, so it was utterly vaporized. A shielded planet that is overcome by a superlaser may "merely" have its entire surface burned off or split into several pieces. Note that planets don't have to be destroyed to be rendered uninhabitable.

An obscure sourcebook, so much that the warsies would never pick that up?

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Maybe indirectly Serafina and Who is like God arbour have solved the Data "fish or Amphibian" issue or at least come up with a new possible theory.

Serafina you DEMANDED that somebody show physical biological proof that Data was right and a Fish is somehow an Amphibian right?....but what if that is not needed?.

Maybe it is just that Data thought the fish "wanted" to be an Amphibian and was not only respecting its wishes but was also worried about hurting its feelings by calling it a "Fish" even though physically it actually was a Fish?.

Congratz on putting that issue to bed :).

[Who is like God arbour]

The challenges of Wyrm to provide a solitus curve are getting more stupid and absurd each time he repeats them.

If he is too stupid to read what was already quoted by Serafina or to come here and read what I have written, I can't help him.

Please take not that he demanded the first time that I produce a solidus curve at 2010-06-24 11:40am.

In my next post (2010-06-25 04:57am) I wrote:

• • • • »A fortiori I will not debate with Wyrm who seems to be too lazy to go and read for himself what I have written. To participate in this debate but to read only what Serafina has quoted from me is without doubt not a method any serious scientist or even any intelligent person would apply.
        
        He doesn’t even seem to be able to look for the simple term solidus curve himself and demands from me to produce this curve, with its legend. If he would be so clever as he likes to pretend, he could as easily as I have found this page from the Center for Isotope Geochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley. There it is explained that even a kindergarten child could understand it.
        
        But probably the experts from the Center for Isotope Geochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley are wrong too. After all, according to their solidus curve, at the depth of 200 km not even a temperature of 1.700 °C would be enough to melt the mantle rock. But that can’t be right, when it is contradicting the substantiated and well developed opinion of Serafina and Wyrm that the mantle is not solid but liquid.«

And believe it or not, Serafina quoted that part (2010-06-25 10:02am).

It's unfortunate that she hasn't copied the link too.

Since then, Wyrm demanded from me to produce the solitus curve at 2010-06-25 09:54pm, at 2010-06-25 010:57pm, at 2010-06-25 13:06pm and at 2010-06-26 13:19am.

Can he becomes even more pathetic?

But this shows exactly what I have written: Wyrm is too lazy to go and read for himself what I have written and he participated in the debate but read only what Serafina had quoted from me (if at all) and never what I have written.

Why shall I discuss with such an dishonest person anything?

[Mr. Oragahn]

I believe there's already been a thread here, not so long ago, where Inheritance was addressed, no? One with nice drawing, and we talked about rock pressure, depth, light, heat and so on and so forth. I pointed out the odd things going on, the planet's core cooling, etc.