Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Post by Lucky » Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:27 am

I was reading through this thread: http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=180812

I'm rather shocked anyone would argue that fighter would stand a chance given their showing in T-and G levels of canon.
Leo1 post 183 wrote: Indeed. Also, humans in Star Wars naturally have cybernetic implants in their skeletons (a claim he now emphatically denies ever making, even though it is preserved for all time), and you can argue canon with the Paramount employee in charge of canon and win.
When asked for a link Leo1 gave this page: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/

Given you have to be a member to see the full threads I have to wonder how much is quotes taken out of context? Does anyone have the full quotes? It would be the first time I found inaccurate(as in completely wrong) information on the site.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:29 am

Lucky wrote:I was reading through this thread: http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=180812

I'm rather shocked anyone would argue that fighter would stand a chance given their showing in T-and G levels of canon.
Leo1 post 183 wrote: Indeed. Also, humans in Star Wars naturally have cybernetic implants in their skeletons (a claim he now emphatically denies ever making, even though it is preserved for all time), and you can argue canon with the Paramount employee in charge of canon and win.
When asked for a link Leo1 gave this page: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/

Given you have to be a member to see the full threads I have to wonder how much is quotes taken out of context? Does anyone have the full quotes? It would be the first time I found inaccurate(as in completely wrong) information on the site.

"Of course, given that we have nothing to compare it to, it may simply represent the natural order of the dominant humanoids of the SW galaxy."

That comment merely poses the possibility of it being such rather than making a definitive claim.

User avatar
Trinoya
Security Officer
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am

Re: Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Post by Trinoya » Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:48 pm

It's quote wildly used out of context (and by out of context I mean people don't even attempt to post what he actually said and just make a general statement that darkstar "believes they have implants naturally!"). It was the nail in the coffin that made me determine that while Darkstar and I may disagree, he's a lot more reliable as a source than about 95% of SDN.


Anyone reading it would know what he was saying was a theoretical musing on the concept of evidence, rather than a statement of belief.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:13 pm

Oh pink jeezy, that's the damn legendary line ?? THAT ????!!!!

...

o_o

...

That's not out of context. It's worse than that. It's beyond that. It's warping reality on itself, denying the very existence of the concept of context forever.
Dividing by zero pales against that.

So nearly the whole of SDN's Vs horde ran with that for, what? A decade?
Good god. Words fail me.


PS: Could someone turn the page into a PDF plueez?

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Post by 2046 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:00 am

It never ceases to amaze me when they repeat that lie from 2002. I mean, I know how bad they are so I should be used to it, but it's just such a brazen act of dishonesty and absurdity that it's always a little shocking.

In any case, I deny making the claim because I didn't make the claim . . . the claim was created entirely by SDN poster "Spanky the Dolphin" out of his own imagination, and falsely attributed to me since I'd used the word "it" when describing something. He turned "it" into a metal-in-the-neck claim.

Therefore, I rightly consider it to be their claim. It is certainly not mine.

As I said in 2004: "I was once embroiled in a nine day, multi-dozen-page tour de force thread on SD.Net's board (not counting the other threads I was involved with at that point), as just about every active member tried to attack just about every page I had at the time. In the midst of the conflagration, Warsies were claiming that Vader's spine was artificial just like Worf's. The story is recounted here*. The thread has been edited and modified since the events occurred (at least three pages are missing, and Ossus stupidly added replies well after I was banned, as if it to make it look like I didn't respond to his words), but can be found at http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=1183.

That was from 2004 . . . and if you'll note, you don't generally see them giving the link to the actual thread. Even in the modified thread, you still won't be able to find me saying there's metal reinforcements naturally in the neck of Star Wars humans, because I never said it.

What I did oppose were the claims they were making, which were that (1) force lightning is just like x-rays and (2) that any brightness differences among different internal part visible during force lightning events had to (a) be true density differences and (b) be of unnatural origin.

Spanky basically ignored what I'd been saying, and took his own assumption of force lightning showing up like developed x-ray film and ran with it, so that I somehow had to be saying there was metal in the neck.

*http://www.st-v-sw.net/BB/BBcompare.htm ... antagesUFP
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... &start=291

Oh crap, you were saying you can't see the thread. Hmm. Okay, here:
DarkStar wrote:
Bob The Great wrote:
DarkStar wrote: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that she was unable to regenerate Worf's back when it was crushed,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Has this ability been demonstrated in the SW canon?
Well, I don't participate in these type of debates much (they're fun to read though :D), but this is something that I have to respond to.

There is an excellant analysis of Darth Vader's injuries here.
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/injuries.html#skeleton

Part of this analysis shows that the upper portion of Vader's spine had been crushed or otherwise damaged, resulting in the complete cybernetic replacement of his first 3 or 4 vertebrae, and probably some artificial nerves as well.

This picture (ROTJ screenshot) shows fairly clearly that Vader's upper vertebrae are not natural.
Image
Here's a pic of what that would look like if he were your average human:
http://www.kleinlyons.com/imagery/x-ray.jpg

Even if we assume that this is an accurate, X-ray-like representation of his bone structure via the use of Force Lightning, it would not preclude the possibility of something simply covering (reinforcing) the relevant bones.

Of course, given that we have nothing to compare it to, it may simply represent the natural order of the dominant humanoids of the SW galaxy.
Spanky quoted that last sentence ten minutes later, then said "What the f*** is that suppost to mean? That SW humans naturally have materials denser than bone in their third and fourth vertibrae?"

Several posts and a mere two hours later, with no response from me (since, as I noted in the thread, I was getting whole pages of replies within the space of 90 minutes) Spanky then expanded upon his claim, making reference to "DorkStar's comment concerning Vader's vertibrae (where he idiotically posits that SW humans naturally have a couple metal vertibrae, including braces) {...}"

After that it went straight to echo-chamber mode, with Stravo quoting Spanky as if it were my statement, and from there it was off to the races as they all commented about what I'd supposedly said, even adding quotes around it as if they were quoting me.

So, it was entirely their own creation. I didn't even pay any attention to it at first, because it was so silly . . . it was a couple-three pages later before I bothered to correct someone for saying that. Unbeknownst to me, then, it would become one of the central Rabid Warsie myths, one of those religious beliefs they have to proclaim to be a part of that subculture.

For people so averse to facts, they need myths . . . but man, it just amazes me how off-the-wall this one is.

And there you have it . . . probably the longest response to that crap ever.

Everyone bookmark this post for easy reference in the future. ;-)

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Post by Who is like God arbour » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:52 am

  1. What I do not understand is why it was assumed that what we see one that two dimensional image is supposed to be something at the vertebrae. It could be as well something from his suit or helmet. There is a reason why one is supposed to be unclothed where one is x-rayed. And Vaders suite and his helmet does not consist of cotton or silk.
  2. We know at least that the vertebrae was not broken in the duel with Kenobi on Mustafar. If the neck were broken, Anakin would have been unable to move his torso and arms. But he was able to do exactly that. Ergo: If we assume that this is indeed something at his vertebrae that was put there because the vertebrae was broken, then it was broken either before or after that duel or before or after he became Darth Vader.
  3. Furthermore: Even if it is something that was pit at the vertebrae, what is so interesting with this? It's not as if this is a medically miracle. From here:
          • Image
              • Image

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:58 am

Admittedly, a single smiley would have made a huge difference.
Clearly, this was just a random thought about the intricacies of evidence, but I guess it wasn't obvious enough.

Next time, add : j/k lol rofl =) :) :-) :o) ;) ;) *wink* lol [sarcasm] [/sarcasm]

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Post by 2046 » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:37 am

Why would I add a smiley? The point was simply that even if we simply assumed their whole "it's just like an x-ray!" theory, even then we don't know what we're seeing, because we don't know that higher bone density in that spot isn't normal for SW humans. The assumption that they are just like us is, after all, merely an assumption.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Post by 2046 » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:40 am

WILGA wrote:
  1. What I do not understand is why it was assumed that what we see one that two dimensional image is supposed to be something at the vertebrae.
That was another point I made at some point, based on the front view of him as he's falling against the barrels or whatever. Some doodads showing up around the neck are literally around the neck, not in it.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:33 am

2046 wrote:Why would I add a smiley? The point was simply that even if we simply assumed their whole "it's just like an x-ray!" theory, even then we don't know what we're seeing, because we don't know that higher bone density in that spot isn't normal for SW humans. The assumption that they are just like us is, after all, merely an assumption.
It's rather obvious. Your sentence either was too short or didn't convey the tongue in cheek spirit. In other words, you let the door wiiiide open. A very simple "firewall" in the form of a smiley or a few more words would have foolproofed your position, in that it would have made the dishonesty literally impossible to stick. There, I can see how they could spin that the way they did. If you take the sentence for what it says, which is the dishonest way, then they can quote it everywhere and they win. You need to get the not so subtle context to eventually see where you were going with your statement. All this mustache twirling would have been totally avoided with a mere indication that you were making a smart statement, not a raw one.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:38 pm

Actually, you could see their dishonesty right off the bat.
You see, they said the first 3 or 4 vertebrae had to have been replaced, because "Brighter = denser" in their world.
Well then, in that case, most of Vader's skull had also been replaced, because you'll notice that most of his skull, especially in the front, is just as bright as the "replaced vertebrae"...
While I think we be seeing the actual armor and helmet, and that these may be causing some sort of distorsion of the image, please, Warsies, don't let that stop you , and consider that Vader's entire skeleton was likely replaced, as the X-Ray clearly shows... :)

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:38 pm

That as well, but as far as I'm concerned, I never really bothered too much with that. We've seen Palpatine do the X-ray thing on Windu as well.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Post by 2046 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:31 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
2046 wrote:Why would I add a smiley? The point was simply that even if we simply assumed their whole "it's just like an x-ray!" theory, even then we don't know what we're seeing, because we don't know that higher bone density in that spot isn't normal for SW humans. The assumption that they are just like us is, after all, merely an assumption.
It's rather obvious. Your sentence either was too short or didn't convey the tongue in cheek spirit. In other words, you let the door wiiiide open. A very simple "firewall" in the form of a smiley or a few more words would have foolproofed your position, in that it would have made the dishonesty literally impossible to stick. There, I can see how they could spin that the way they did. If you take the sentence for what it says, which is the dishonest way, then they can quote it everywhere and they win. You need to get the not so subtle context to eventually see where you were going with your statement. All this mustache twirling would have been totally avoided with a mere indication that you were making a smart statement, not a raw one.
I can't figure out why you think there was anything jocular there, and I certainly can't figure out why you go on to suggest that their lie could possibly be even remotely defensible.

In other words, why couldn't I seriously posit that there is higher bone density in their necks? The whole point was that we have nothing to compare it to (i.e. no actual x-ray images), because the assumption of SW humans equalling ourselves is merely an assumption.

Where's the joke?

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:05 am

2046 wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
2046 wrote:Why would I add a smiley? The point was simply that even if we simply assumed their whole "it's just like an x-ray!" theory, even then we don't know what we're seeing, because we don't know that higher bone density in that spot isn't normal for SW humans. The assumption that they are just like us is, after all, merely an assumption.
It's rather obvious. Your sentence either was too short or didn't convey the tongue in cheek spirit. In other words, you let the door wiiiide open. A very simple "firewall" in the form of a smiley or a few more words would have foolproofed your position, in that it would have made the dishonesty literally impossible to stick. There, I can see how they could spin that the way they did. If you take the sentence for what it says, which is the dishonest way, then they can quote it everywhere and they win. You need to get the not so subtle context to eventually see where you were going with your statement. All this mustache twirling would have been totally avoided with a mere indication that you were making a smart statement, not a raw one.
I can't figure out why you think there was anything jocular there, and I certainly can't figure out why you go on to suggest that their lie could possibly be even remotely defensible.

In other words, why couldn't I seriously posit that there is higher bone density in their necks? The whole point was that we have nothing to compare it to (i.e. no actual x-ray images), because the assumption of SW humans equalling ourselves is merely an assumption.

Where's the joke?
Who spoke of a joke? Their attack solely worked because the sentence, when pulled out of its context, could be misunderstood, and would easily confuse the reader about your true position at that time, and what you were trying to get at : we're not supposed to guess what you were thinking or what you said then.
This out of context method would have been simply impossible if your reasoning had been presented slightly differently, to make sure that even when solely quoting the sentence, and without needing to know anything about you, the intent would be clear (intent as described by Trinoya among other things).
To make things even more simpler, there's no way for a random reader to think that you're not a Ricecry level of ret*** who really said something that stupid, in the middle of a heated debate, and that you bothered defending this statement after being really serious about it. Remember that they never spun your statement into having you claim that bone density would be greater for humans in SW, but that humans in SW naturally grew a metal spine in their body.
Even with context, it's quite clear that the point of your post was about metal elements, and if there's a moment when you switched to a musing about bone density, it's nowhere clear enough to easily be spotted. What is clear is that you had absolutely confirmed that the vertebrae were not natural, and your last musing in light of this observation is largely confusing without context.
Heck, even with context, the structure of your post isn't particularly good if you were talking about bone density, if only for the fact that it's not even mentioned once.
People are not supposed to read minds.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Wars starfighters vs Star Trek starships

Post by 2046 » Sat Jan 22, 2011 5:52 pm

Even with context, it's quite clear that the point of your post was about metal elements
Good grief, now you're doing it, too. Nowhere is "metal" even in those posts. Good job, Spanky.
What is clear is that you had absolutely confirmed that the vertebrae were not natural
That's ridiculous. What part of "Even if we assume" did you not understand? And what part of a separate paragraph didn't strike you? If it helps you, put the last paragraph between the 1st and 3rd:
Here's a pic of what that would look like if he were your average human:
http://www.kleinlyons.com/imagery/x-ray.jpg

Of course, given that we have nothing to compare it to, it may simply represent the natural order of the dominant humanoids of the SW galaxy.

Even if we assume that this is an accurate, X-ray-like representation of his bone structure via the use of Force Lightning, it would not preclude the possibility of something simply covering (reinforcing) the relevant bones.
The meaning is unchanged, but your understanding might be. However, how you managed to misread "metal" into that is beyond me anyway.
Heck, even with context, the structure of your post isn't particularly good
Funny, everyone who is *not* intent on misunderstanding it seems to get it just fine. Why don't you?

And y'know, I really dislike when you occasionally decide it's "Attack Me" week and throw reason out the window. I don't know if it's some Bill O'Reilly thing where you occasionally agree with the other side to appear impartial even though it flies against all reasoning you've made to date or what, but it's annoying. It makes it hard to cheer you on the rest of the time when you're being normal.

Post Reply