Re: Another Blow to Hypermatter Fuel's Existence?

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

Re: Wong & SDN

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:18 am

That said, Breetai, could you please bother with that lacking punctuation? It's getting tiring and quite disrespectful of all those who take the time to make appropriately structured sentences.
Thanks.

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1813
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Wong & SDN

Post by Admiral Breetai » Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:29 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:That said, Breetai, could you please bother with that lacking punctuation? It's getting tiring and quite disrespectful of all those who take the time to make appropriately structured sentences.
Thanks.
this is me trying my best

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: Wong & SDN

Post by Khas » Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:27 am

His grammar still beats Jason's by a long-shot.

And, amusingly enough, Jason has shown up on SDN.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Wong & SDN

Post by mojo » Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:42 am

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Sothis wrote:There is a difference between attacking someone's argument and attacking them. You might argue that Mike attacks the man; I would suggest he attacks the argument, and only flames his opponents after they flame him, or if they ignore the warnings on his site about reading the site.
Well, there's one way to try to measure how much time he spends attacking the argument and how much time he spends attacking the person behind the argument. I would suggest that you pay attention to how much time, and posting volume, he spends on talking about people.

Count it up, word by word - open three documents. Copy everything Wong said into the first file, and then start going through it.

Every line that's talking about how his opponent must be stupid for disagreeing with him, every line that's spent talking about how his opponent doesn't have a real degree or an important job (or, conversely, Wong talking about how successful he is IRL, how his degree is real, how he's taking valuable time to respond, et cetera), every insulting aside, such as "you moron," every trolling "Concession accepted!" that's just there to provoke his opponent - put those in the second file.

Everything that's pure impersonal argument, just plain facts and logic, the sort of thing that I would offer in a formal debate, put that in the third file. Then look at the second and third files and compare them. Which is longer? Which is more interesting to read? Which one is more repetitive?
someone needs to do this!

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

Re: Wong & SDN

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:55 am

mojo wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Sothis wrote:There is a difference between attacking someone's argument and attacking them. You might argue that Mike attacks the man; I would suggest he attacks the argument, and only flames his opponents after they flame him, or if they ignore the warnings on his site about reading the site.
Well, there's one way to try to measure how much time he spends attacking the argument and how much time he spends attacking the person behind the argument. I would suggest that you pay attention to how much time, and posting volume, he spends on talking about people.

Count it up, word by word - open three documents. Copy everything Wong said into the first file, and then start going through it.

Every line that's talking about how his opponent must be stupid for disagreeing with him, every line that's spent talking about how his opponent doesn't have a real degree or an important job (or, conversely, Wong talking about how successful he is IRL, how his degree is real, how he's taking valuable time to respond, et cetera), every insulting aside, such as "you moron," every trolling "Concession accepted!" that's just there to provoke his opponent - put those in the second file.

Everything that's pure impersonal argument, just plain facts and logic, the sort of thing that I would offer in a formal debate, put that in the third file. Then look at the second and third files and compare them. Which is longer? Which is more interesting to read? Which one is more repetitive?
someone needs to do this!
Why, thank you for volunteering mojo, it's quite thougthful of you... :)

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

Re: Wong & SDN

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:19 am

Khas wrote:His grammar still beats Jason's by a long-shot.
Please. Any chimp shines like Shakespeare when compared to Jason.
And, amusingly enough, Jason has shown up on SDN.
Oh boy...

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Wong & SDN

Post by Picard » Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:27 am

Oh boy...
Unstoppable Wank meats unmovable Wank... one of very few things with potential to destroy universe.

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1813
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Wong & SDN

Post by Admiral Breetai » Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:05 am

so who's this Jason?

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Wong & SDN

Post by Picard » Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:24 am

Trekkie wanker from ASVS. SWST would like him. Once claimed that E-D will chew up Death Star with phasers - maybe not that stupid when I think about it, but Death Star should be able to produce at least as much power as Big E, with its ~100-1000 times larger reactor - fusion gives 156 times less energy than M/AM reaction for same amount of fuel used; so if E-D has fleet supporting it, dropping shields might be possible. Plus NDF... but I still think that Death Star is just too damn massive for E-D to do it in any reasonable timeframe (less than few months or years, that is. Or maybe centuries - I never did calculations for that). Drilling hole right to reactor is way smarter option, and way more plausible. Unless NDF can multiply firepower by factor of 1 000 000 to 1 trillion, which it can't.

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1813
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Wong & SDN

Post by Admiral Breetai » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:07 pm

why wouldn't the Big E not be able to do lethal damage to the DS if it can life wipe a planet faster then a connie and all and pulverizing a moon was seen as absolutely easily doable

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: Wong & SDN

Post by Khas » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:47 pm

We don't mean just damage it. We mean "make it look like Swiss cheese". Also, the DS was made of tougher materials than a moon it's size, and had a powerful-as-hell deflector shield.

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

Re: Wong & SDN

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:05 pm

Picard wrote:Trekkie wanker from ASVS. SWST would like him. Once claimed that E-D will chew up Death Star with phasers - maybe not that stupid when I think about it, but Death Star should be able to produce at least as much power as Big E, with its ~100-1000 times larger reactor - fusion gives 156 times less energy than M/AM reaction for same amount of fuel used; so if E-D has fleet supporting it, dropping shields might be possible. Plus NDF... but I still think that Death Star is just too damn massive for E-D to do it in any reasonable timeframe (less than few months or years, that is. Or maybe centuries - I never did calculations for that). Drilling hole right to reactor is way smarter option, and way more plausible. Unless NDF can multiply firepower by factor of 1 000 000 to 1 trillion, which it can't.
You accuse Jason of being a wanker, but I don't really consider your figures to be anything short of wank.
I mean... the Death Star perhaps able to produce as much power as the Big E ?
Isn't that really absurd, somehow?

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Wong & SDN

Post by Picard » Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:24 am

Fusion produces 156 times less energy than same amount of matter/antimatter mix. And I don't think DS's fusion reactor is any more than 1000 times larger than E-D's warp core - althought I never did scaling, so I wouldn't know.

And please, read what I wrote, f*** it. I said that Death Star should at least be able to produce as much power as E-D. It is lower limit, not upper one.

EDIT: Besides, do we know how long it took for Death Star to go from Alderaan to Yavin? It might tell us something about its low-end power production.

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1813
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Wong & SDN

Post by Admiral Breetai » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:22 am

Khas wrote:We don't mean just damage it. We mean "make it look like Swiss cheese". Also, the DS was made of tougher materials than a moon it's size, and had a powerful-as-hell deflector shield.
it did? fighters passed through it just fine and the second one required a shield that had to be generated for it. I see no reason why the big E alone couldn't eventually Swiss cheese it..providing of course the DS just stood there for the half day it would take for a lone trek ship to pulverize it with out firing back or anything which is unlikely

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

Re: Wong & SDN

Post by Praeothmin » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Yeah, if X-Wings can blow up good portions of its outer hull, then no ST ships would have any trouble at creating huge holes in it...

But, as has been mentioned by many, the DS wouln't just let it, and would most likely use all TLs to fire at it, and try it with the SL too, then bye bye big E...

Post Reply