Split: Signing up and keeping accounts on SDN

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

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:58 am

Wyrm wrote:If we are a cult, specifically of Star Wars ("Rabid Warsies," remember?), then why do we have a stickied thread-list of Sci-Fi universes that can ass-rape the Empire?
I think, that is a weak argument. I don't even know the most of these Sci-Fi universes. But everybody, even who is not a sci-fi fan, knows Star Trek and Star Wars. It is obviously, that the Star Trek vs. Star Wars debate is by far more important than any other comparison. SDN wouldn't have a whole thread for this, if it were otherwise. It would have a thread, in which all other Sci-Fi universes can be compared with the Star Wars universe and Star Trek would be only a part of this thread. But fact is, most pages out of the forum from SDN deal with Star Trek, respectivly with Star Trek vs. Star Wars. It is obviously, that SDN is (or was) centered around this topic and that this topic is still hot, only that the most people have no notion anymore to debate this topic at SDN because this is no place to debate this topic reasonable.



But why ban a member, who is stubborn or stupid or uneducated at all? If he has its own opinion and can't be persuaded otherwise, let him be. Nobody forces you to answer his posts. If you think, that his posts are stupid, let they stay for all to see and judge. Why ban him?
If he disturbs deliberately other debats or is unpolite or violates other, objective verifiable rules, nobody would say anything, if he is banned.
But if you ban him because he has allegedly violated rules, wich aren't even objective verifiable, and that in a proceeding like yours, it don't look righteous.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:40 pm

Wyrm wrote:If there's no new ground to cover, or people are bored with the topic, why should discussion continue?
Because of the desire to reinforce the belief. Why are so many threads on hyperspace charts allowed to keep cropping up and aren't locked, to name just one topic.
So you like to argue with scratched phonograph records?

To each his (perverted) own.
So, you really think anyone that's a long time debator is gonna be swayed at this point to the other side? What?!
Bullocks. He's answered your points. Just like I'm doing (God help me). He's demonstrating that he's engaged with you.
He continued to ignore the faults in the argument. Using SDN's standard, he should have been brought up in front of our sentate, if we actually had one.
The problem is that you don't seem to be engaging with him. Nothing seems to click.
And yet...he's the one that dropped out of the discussion...only because he thought we weren't understanding him. He stopped talking with me and WILGA. It wasn't the other way around.
It's very hard to have a discussion with someone when they don't seem to be absorbing your ideas. Takes two to tango, dude.
No, it takes only one to pack up and leave...which is what he did with the discussion.
Explain MKSheppard.
In what regard?
Again, explain MKSheppard. He's all, "Glass the Mohommedians" (his term for Muslims), and somehow earned the title 'Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger'. Whenever I see him cross swords with SirNitram... man, the fur! It FLIES!! Quite franly, I don't know how he earns his keep.
I can't follow everybody at SDN, so you're gonna have to give me more specifics to work with. I don't stalk you people.
That's because your guns are clearly empty. How is that contradicting anything I have said.
How you define 'empty' in the specific instances of the TvW debate is subjective.
You're right that you wouldn't get too far. I've experienced your debate strategy... it's not stimulating.
So, the idea was brought up of why does Wong have to come here? Why not I go there? If I wouldn't last long there and I got banned, what excuse would you people have if I say that only posting in places where I can't respond is cowardly because they can't say it to my face, on a board I can respond to?
Wrong. You don't have to participate in verses discussions. If the verses discussion isn't your speed, you don't have to participate. Some trolls never touch the verses discussion, or any of the sci-fi forums, and they still get banned. They get banned for being trolls, not Trekkies.
And yet, you dare speak out against wars beating trek enough, you will.
No. You may never win a single discussion in all your tenure on SDN, so long as you gracefully admit defeat.
In the TvW discussions especially, you don't convert, you won't last long.
Bull. I disagreed with one of the mods, Master of Ossus... cussed him out in fact, on the effectiveness of fingerprints. I won that discussion. Haven't been kicked yet.
Wow..................Fingerprints. It's not the same subject, as the TvW discussions, especially on what's canon.
Of course it's stacked against you if you're on the side of Trek.
At least, you can admit it. Pretty much everyone else that has the prevailing view of the upper tier of SDN membership cloaks it in 'if you don't follow the rules, we'll ban you'.
It's a weak position.
It doesn't matter if it's a weak position or not. I'd be banned just because I believed Trek could beat Wars. We don't do that here. The management here hasn't banned people, like Kane Starkiller or Poe because the majority of people here (the people I'm refering to are those that post either regularly or semi-regularly) feel that thinking Wars would win is a 'weak position'. We don't ban people just because the think Wars could beat Trek.
In Mobile Suit Gundam Vs. Star Wars, even though I find giant robots cool beyond words, I still realize that the Gundams would get their asses handed to them by the Empire. Should I be surprised if I get my ass handed to me if I argue Gundams > Empire on SDN? Of course, and rightly so.
And if those in the senate thought that you should be banned because you thought Gundam could beat Wars, should you be, just because you felt differently than them.
Now let's suppose... just suppose... that Trek really is weaker than Wars. Wouldn't an honest debate also come to that conclusion? So how do you decide the difference?
There are many ways a weaker opponent can beat a stronger one. There are many real world examples of that. Strength is not always who has the most powerful weapon.

But, even if you still thought that there was a way for the weaker opponent could beat the stronger one and it essentially ended up being a discussion where'd you'd have to agree to disagree, should you still be banned or should the question of banning even come up...just because you had a different opinion?
So, if it really is an Us Vs. Them situation...
and they let the Time Lords and the Daleks win over the Empire...
THEN THEY MUST NOT BE WARSIES — They're WHOVIANS!!!
Your attempts to sidestep this point did not go unnoticed when I clearly wrote it's based on the TvW discussions primarily.
Why the fixation on Trek? Why not go for the whole enchalada and start crushing us Whovians with the same zeal? Why crush only Trek and not Gallifrey, or Skaro, or the Culture, or the Xeele.
See above about the TvW discussions focus. Besides, each one of those are god-like, uber civilizations that all provide wanked out and limited info on tech. It's much easier to spin something when there's more stuff to work with, like Trek. So, don't act like that's the same.

coyote
Redshirt
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:25 am
Location: 321st EN BN.

Post by coyote » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:13 pm

GStone wrote:But, even if you still thought that there was a way for the weaker opponent could beat the stronger one and it essentially ended up being a discussion where'd you'd have to agree to disagree, should you still be banned or should the question of banning even come up...just because you had a different opinion?
It's not that someone has a "different opinion". It's that someone tries to insist that their "different opinion" is the correct one, yet cannot provide good evidence to support that claim.

If someone tried to say that "Battletech could beat Star Wars because... 'mechs are cool" then that is not a good argument and they will get hammered.

OTOH, someone could simply say, "I understand, looking at the logic and comparisons and calculations, that Star Wars would eat Battletech alive, but I still dig Battletech more because I'm just a long-time fan of the universe, I play Mechwarrior on weekends, and I just dig it." --that is a different opinion that doesn't challeneg common sense.

Bear in mind that these observations about destructive power comparisons are extrapolated as much as possible (considering we're dealing with science fiction, of course) and applied as logically as possible under the circumstances.

The asteroid destruction calcs are one example:
We know from real-life observation what an asteroid is.
We see in the movies how big a Star Destroyer is (sizes of windows, size of TIE fighters, the Falcon, etc.
We see a bolt of energy vaporize an asteroid of a certain size and ask, "what would it take to actually do that?" and, based off what we know of real life asteroids, come up with a conclusion.

That is an example of figuring out an ISD's destructive power based on deductive reasoning and logical application-- not just because "star desdtroyerz are t3h kewlest".

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:08 pm

coyote wrote:
GStone wrote:But, even if you still thought that there was a way for the weaker opponent could beat the stronger one and it essentially ended up being a discussion where'd you'd have to agree to disagree, should you still be banned or should the question of banning even come up...just because you had a different opinion?
It's not that someone has a "different opinion". It's that someone tries to insist that their "different opinion" is the correct one, yet cannot provide good evidence to support that claim.

If someone tried to say that "Battletech could beat Star Wars because... 'mechs are cool" then that is not a good argument and they will get hammered.

OTOH, someone could simply say, "I understand, looking at the logic and comparisons and calculations, that Star Wars would eat Battletech alive, but I still dig Battletech more because I'm just a long-time fan of the universe, I play Mechwarrior on weekends, and I just dig it." --that is a different opinion that doesn't challeneg common sense.
And you side step the issue here. I'm not talking about someone saying they think one franchise would beat another because they are cool and getting banned for that insistence.

I'm talking about saying one franchise would beat another because of the feeling of what they think what the canon actually is and eventually getting banned for that, even when it's in the thread marked specifically about determining canon and while still following the canon rules of the board in all other threads.

When using me as an example of the one that questioned the board policy, if I did that, Wong would probably ban me after just a short while, even though the thread's purpose is a discussion of determining board policy on the canon. I'd be accused of wall or ignorance, broken record, etc. and I probably wouldn't be brought before the senate, either.

But, then, the SDN community would have no response to me not signing up for an account over there so they could talk with me because I would be banned and couldn't get back to the board. They'd probably skirt the issue of using AVSV or SB.com, too, and not bring it up.

That is the problem.
The asteroid destruction calcs are one example:
We know from real-life observation what an asteroid is.
We see in the movies how big a Star Destroyer is (sizes of windows, size of TIE fighters, the Falcon, etc.
We see a bolt of energy vaporize an asteroid of a certain size and ask, "what would it take to actually do that?" and, based off what we know of real life asteroids, come up with a conclusion.
And Wong's asteroid calculator is off. He uses solid metal when asteroids are mainly loosely held together clumps of dirt and I think he used a very strong metal, too, as the basis, which is insane in its own right. His references from real life are off before he starts the math.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:32 pm

coyote wrote:
The asteroid destruction calcs are one example:
We know from real-life observation what an asteroid is.
We see in the movies how big a Star Destroyer is (sizes of windows, size of TIE fighters, the Falcon, etc.
We see a bolt of energy vaporize an asteroid of a certain size and ask, "what would it take to actually do that?" and, based off what we know of real life asteroids, come up with a conclusion.
GStone wrote:
And Wong's asteroid calculator is off. He uses solid metal when asteroids are mainly loosely held together clumps of dirt and I think he used a very strong metal, too, as the basis, which is insane in its own right. His references from real life are off before he starts the math.

That's only one of many objections to the Brian Young/Mike Wong assumptions about the TESB asteroid destruction scene. Among others the scaling of the asteroids are at question; an alternative I developed uses the width/height of the asteroids, not their length, which in turn leads to a more accurate measurement. Another issue is that several scenes in both TESB and AoTC are claimed by some to show asteroid vaporization, but instead have been discovered as just sim[ple flack bursts (the TESB flack bursts have been not only misidentified as asteroid vaporization, but have lead to some wildly inaccurate asteroid scalings and power calcs as well).

There are lots more to go over, but the real point here is that if anyone were to go over to SDN and use the alternative methods or observations, we'd likely wind up banned, no matter how logical or well-presented.
-Mike

User avatar
AnonymousRedShirtEnsign
Jedi Knight
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Six feet under the surface of some alien world

Post by AnonymousRedShirtEnsign » Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:15 am

Coyote, here is the deductive process used to find ISD firepower.

Major premise: An ISD's TL batteries vaporized* a solid metal asteroid* that is 40m in diameter*.

Minor premise: It takes 1000-2000 TJ depending upon the metal to preform the feat in the major premise.

Conclusion: An Imperial Star Destroyer's Turbolasers can produce at least 1000-2000 TJ.

The problem is that the vaporization, the composition of the asteroid, and the size of the asteroid are in dispute. As is MW's claim about the power out put of HTLs, since we don't know the size of the turrets that destroyed the asteroid it is impossible to make a direct size comparison between the two guns. Deductive reasoning is supposed to determine an absolute and indisputable conclusion, but it relies on the premises being correct.

coyote
Redshirt
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:25 am
Location: 321st EN BN.

Post by coyote » Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:09 pm

But what I'm wondering is this-- it's not the particular numbers in the calcs themselves. It doesn't matter if the asteroids are made of styrofoam; in one scene we see an ISD vape one in seconds, in a Trek scene, IIRC, the characters admit it takes all their photon torpedoes or phaser power or something to vape an asteroid.

Considering an ISD is 1600 meters long and a purpose-built heavy war vessel, whereas the Enterprise-D is a 600-meter long exploration, science and colonization vessel, I don't understand why people get all defensive when it is suggested that in a fight, an entire galaxy full of ISD type ships would be able to eat up a mere Quadrant's worth of 600-meter long explorer ships.

It doesn't make Trek an "Inferior" setting, 'verse, or anything else. It exists on a completely different scale and power curve because of its dramatic requirements. If Star Trek were a war story, rather than Gene Roddenberry's stated "wagon train to the stars" idea, it would probably be an ass-kicking realm able to go toe-to-toe with a lot of other combat universes out there. Roddenberry specifically designed a universe where combat was falling out of fashion and resorted to rarely and with distaste.

Picture this-- the early British Empire was sending out its best, new sailing ships to start exploring and colonizing the world. They're part Navy, part tradesmen, part mappers & explorers. Their ships are armed but they're not necessarily conquerers. It's one kind of story-- a romantic age of exploration and new travels.

Suddenly, a wormhole in time opens up and somehow, the Imperial Japanese Navy just prior to the Battle of Midway slips through into this early era of exploration and trade.

To even pretend than the British explorers-- much as I love stories set in that era-- would stand a ghost of a chance is to abandon logic and take leave of one's senses entirely.

Believe it or not, but many of us at SDN enjoy Star Trek. Even Mike Wong admits he's fond of the original series. We don't have some personal thing against Trek-- we just feel it is illogical to assume that Star Trek could beat Star Wars, or even battle them to a standstill, and that any presumption otherwise is illogical and indefensible. It's a mismatch. The two don't really belong together for so many different reasons it shouldn't even be an issue.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:58 pm

coyote wrote:But what I'm wondering is this-- it's not the particular numbers in the calcs themselves. It doesn't matter if the asteroids are made of styrofoam; in one scene we see an ISD vape one in seconds, in a Trek scene, IIRC, the characters admit it takes all their photon torpedoes or phaser power or something to vape an asteroid.
But, shouldn't the calulations matter? Shouldn't the numbers used in the referencing to start the calculations matter? Shouldn't the fact that it was a tiny asteroid in ESB and the one in Pegasus was many kilometers in diameter matter?
Considering an ISD is 1600 meters long and a purpose-built heavy war vessel, whereas the Enterprise-D is a 600-meter long exploration, science and colonization vessel, I don't understand why people get all defensive when it is suggested that in a fight, an entire galaxy full of ISD type ships would be able to eat up a mere Quadrant's worth of 600-meter long explorer ships.
Typical trek-wars debating boils down to movie canon of wars and show/movie canon of trek. That 'galaxy full of ISD' bit is EU is not of the films only continuity that's being passed off as films only related stuff. That is the problem.

There are other types of debates, which include the trek show/movie canon against the wars films and eu canon, but the primary debate is the films only canon of wars against the show/movie canon of trek.

You're acting like you can't grasp this when it is evident that you are capable of understanding.
Believe it or not, but many of us at SDN enjoy Star Trek. Even Mike Wong admits he's fond of the original series. We don't have some personal thing against Trek-- we just feel it is illogical to assume that Star Trek could beat Star Wars, or even battle them to a standstill, and that any presumption otherwise is illogical and indefensible. It's a mismatch. The two don't really belong together for so many different reasons it shouldn't even be an issue.
And that is where I'd be kicked off the site just because I viewed things differently, even though I played by the rules in all the other threads except for the one that is supposed to be about what is sw canon.

You have now admitted that the way people can keep an account at SDN is if they prescribe to the prevailing view of SDN in the trek-wars debate. That's what it boils down to. That's why I said there's an 'us v them' mentality over there. That is what makes it cultish.

So, tell me again why I would want to sign up over there.

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

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:07 pm

Coyote wrote:
Picture this-- the early British Empire was sending out its best, new sailing ships to start exploring and colonizing the world. They're part Navy, part tradesmen, part mappers & explorers. Their ships are armed but they're not necessarily conquerers. It's one kind of story-- a romantic age of exploration and new travels.

Suddenly, a wormhole in time opens up and somehow, the Imperial Japanese Navy just prior to the Battle of Midway slips through into this early era of exploration and trade.
The problem with this example is, the British and Japanese ships are not from the same technological era, and thus even the heaviest armaments the British have will likely be way to weak to do anything.
whereas the Enterprise-D is a 600-meter long exploration, science and colonization vessel,
And, at the time of TNG, was also the most heavily armed and combat ready vessel of the Federation, equipped with all its latest technology, and its most powerful weapons.
But what I'm wondering is this-- it's not the particular numbers in the calcs themselves. It doesn't matter if the asteroids are made of styrofoam; in one scene we see an ISD vape one in seconds, in a Trek scene, IIRC, the characters admit it takes all their photon torpedoes or phaser power or something to vape an asteroid.
And this, IMO, examplifies the Pro-Wars side at its best (and I really do not want to insult you Coyote, I'm simply expressing something I have observed time and again):
Take one of the highest examples onscreen of Wars power, and one of the lowest onscreen example of Trek.

And that is the problem with most of SDN's views on ST, specifically with Mike's analysis, the highest fire power examples for Wars are always compared to the lowest for Trek.

And if you accept anything at face value for Wars, of course you have to fight tooth and nails for the same kind of phenomenon to be accepted for Trek.
Best example:
Stormtroopers vs Redshirts. Pro-wars debaters will say anything, and I mean anything (just look at any debates about Stormtroopers on SB.com), to defend the onscreen stupidity from the Stormtroopers, but as soon as a Redshirt makes a mistake, then they're all considered incompetent fools, and no excuse will be allowed to explain things from the Trek side.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:50 pm

coyote wrote:
But what I'm wondering is this-- it's not the particular numbers in the calcs themselves. It doesn't matter if the asteroids are made of styrofoam; in one scene we see an ISD vape one in seconds, in a Trek scene, IIRC, the characters admit it takes all their photon torpedoes or phaser power or something to vape an asteroid.


It's obvious that what you lack here is good information, Coyote. Not suprising since you have been participating beforehand on a website with members who have made it a standard practice in their time of leaving out critical information that can prove very damaging to their case of Wars firepower superiority over Trek.

The context of what you state here is also very critical:

1.) Assume for the sake of arguement that the compostition of asteroids in ST and SW is exactly the same; e.g. solid elemental iron or granite, ect.

2.) Once issue #1 is established, what are the sizes of the asteroids in question? Certain pro-Wars types claim that the TESB asteroids being "vaporized" (another claim that needs examining in close-up) are 20-100 + meters wide, while they in turn claim that the "The Pegasus" [TNG7] asteroid (the Trek asteroid you referenced there without any knowledge of what episode it is was from or any real unbiased data about it) is between 5-8km wide, while n the other hand, some pro-ST debaters have scaled the TESB asteroids downward to 1-8m, and the "The Pegasus" asteroid to 30-40km. That's a huge difference there. Also, the statement made by Riker in "The Pegasus" was that it would take "most of our photon torpedoes", not all of them to destroy the large asteroid. How much is "most of"?

3.) Assuming all is equal in that the turbolasers are vaporizing the TESB asteroids, and that the E-D photon torpedoes are vaporizing chunks of respective asteroids.

4.) In ST there have been asteroids mostly vaporized by phasers and disruptors from hundreds of thousands of km ("Return to Grace" [DS9]) by a relatively weak military freighter, while the ISD in TESB is virtually point-blank at a few km.

Alter the above contexts in any way, and you can change the outcomes of any math you do.
Considering an ISD is 1600 meters long and a purpose-built heavy war vessel, whereas the Enterprise-D is a 600-meter long exploration, science and colonization vessel, I don't understand why people get all defensive when it is suggested that in a fight, an entire galaxy full of ISD type ships would be able to eat up a mere Quadrant's worth of 600-meter long explorer ships.


Did you know that other people have provided scalings of the ISD and the E-D that do not correspond to the stated backstage sizes? By the way, the E-D was designed by Andrew Probert to 642.5 meters, not a mere 600. The Probert backstage size can be more-or-less varified by scaling the E-D from it's given on-screen canon deck height of 42 decks (minimum 2.8 m deck height and a maximum of 4 meters) for a rough average of 650 meters overall length for the E-D.

Also, the old "Star Trek ships are explorers and Star Ships are warships" argument doesn't hold up as we've seen the E-D face off with large, well-armed adversaries' warships on many occasions ("The Defector", "The Enemy", ect).
It doesn't make Trek an "Inferior" setting, 'verse, or anything else. It exists on a completely different scale and power curve because of its dramatic requirements. If Star Trek were a war story, rather than Gene Roddenberry's stated "wagon train to the stars" idea, it would probably be an ass-kicking realm able to go toe-to-toe with a lot of other combat universes out there. Roddenberry specifically designed a universe where combat was falling out of fashion and resorted to rarely and with distaste.
Uh, no. Our Heros [tm], in TOS were clearly prepared to go to war, if need be, as was the case in late TNG, and especially in DS9. The fact that the Federation and it's Starfleet prefer a policy of non-aggression and peaceful contact and exploration does not leave it necessarily weak by default.

Picture this-- the early British Empire was sending out its best, new sailing ships to start exploring and colonizing the world. They're part Navy, part tradesmen, part mappers & explorers. Their ships are armed but they're not necessarily conquerers. It's one kind of story-- a romantic age of exploration and new travels.
Suddenly, a wormhole in time opens up and somehow, the Imperial Japanese Navy just prior to the Battle of Midway slips through into this early era of exploration and trade.

To even pretend than the British explorers-- much as I love stories set in that era-- would stand a ghost of a chance is to abandon logic and take leave of one's senses entirely.

Believe it or not, but many of us at SDN enjoy Star Trek. Even Mike Wong admits he's fond of the original series. We don't have some personal thing against Trek-- we just feel it is illogical to assume that Star Trek could beat Star Wars, or even battle them to a standstill, and that any presumption otherwise is illogical and indefensible. It's a mismatch. The two don't really belong together for so many different reasons it shouldn't even be an issue.
I would agree about the themes issues for the most part, however, I would turn the rest of that back on you and say that most of us here have used logic and scientific deduction to reach a signficantly different conclusion that you have. That we all disagree is fine. All the better, Coyote, however Mike Wong and others who have flocked to his banner have often abandoned the scientific process, and are arguing almost religiously for only one possible conclusion, and one that is based often on out-dated assumptions and data. Sometimes quite willingly so. That they have managed to blind some good people to that with various tricks and nastiness makes it no less wrong.

I would urge you, Coyote, to particpate here on this forum with a fresh, open point of view, and not rely on running back to the SDN fold when someone here brings up a point about a newly discovered SW weakness or that SW firepower isn't what some people have hyped it up to be.
-Mike
Last edited by Mike DiCenso on Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

coyote
Redshirt
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:25 am
Location: 321st EN BN.

Post by coyote » Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:52 pm

GStone wrote:...shouldn't the calulations matter? Shouldn't the numbers used in the referencing to start the calculations matter?...
Not if we want to stay on topic for this thread. I'm not interested in a go-round on the numbers themselves; it's how they are used and interpreted on the different boards that's important.

Typical trek-wars debating boils down to movie canon of wars and show/movie canon of trek. That 'galaxy full of ISD' bit is EU is not of the films only continuity that's being passed off as films only related stuff. That is the problem.
Here we have a discrepancy regarding what is canon and what isn't. If you want to go strictly with the movies and nothing but, there is the scene in Attack of the Clones wehere Kenobi is looking at the map of the galaxy and noting how his commo signal is just out of range for Coruscanr but Anakin at Tatooine should be able to pick it up and retransmit it to the Jedi Council...

GStone wrote:
Coyote wrote:Believe it or not, but many of us at SDN enjoy Star Trek. ...we just feel it is illogical to assume that Star Trek could beat Star Wars, or even battle them to a standstill, and that any presumption otherwise is illogical and indefensible. It's a mismatch. The two don't really belong together for so many different reasons it shouldn't even be an issue.
And that is where I'd be kicked off the site just because I viewed things differently, even though I played by the rules in all the other threads except for the one that is supposed to be about what is sw canon.
I don't believe I was there for that eschange, so I really can't comment on it.
You have now admitted that the way people can keep an account at SDN is if they prescribe to the prevailing view of SDN in the trek-wars debate. That's what it boils down to. That's why I said there's an 'us v them' mentality over there. That is what makes it cultish.
No, what I've admitted to is that the prevailing view at SDN is backed up by deduced evidence based on what is known about asteroids.

Here's the part that you seem to be having a hard time with-- realizing that we don't adhere to these numbers because of "SDN ideology"... but because they're based on evidence. Had Mike Wong, Dr. Curtis Saxton, Leland Chee, etc, never been born, much less set up any websites or commentaries, the physics would still be there for someone else to comment on.
So, tell me again why I would want to sign up over there.
If you are under the impression that we have cooked up and adopted evidence simply to suit an ideology, then yes, there's not much that can be done about it. If you recognise that ST and SW exist for completely different reasons and there's not some "inherent flaw" implied just because Trek is on a lower power curve, then you can discuss things and gain some interesting insight.

coyote
Redshirt
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:25 am
Location: 321st EN BN.

Post by coyote » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:01 pm

Praeothmin wrote:The problem with this example is, the British and Japanese ships are not from the same technological era, and thus even the heaviest armaments the British have will likely be way to weak to do anything.
But really, neither are the SW ships: they are from "a long, long time ago and a Galaxy far, far away". The IJN in my example represents a developed war technology on a world that is largely explored. The ST ships in my example represent a still-evolving technology in a setting that is still about mystery and frontiers.
...at the time of TNG, was also the most heavily armed and combat ready vessel of the Federation, equipped with all its latest technology, and its most powerful weapons.
And the frigate USS Constitution, "Old Ironsides", was once the premier technology in sailing ship warfare. But it would not last long against the USS Nimitz.

And this, IMO, examplifies the Pro-Wars side at its best (and I really do not want to insult you Coyote, I'm simply expressing something I have observed time and again):
Take one of the highest examples onscreen of Wars power, and one of the lowest onscreen example of Trek.
If you mean the asteroid calcs, I don't recall any analysis of the asteroids given in the ESB example of the Star Destroyer vaping an asteroid. I'm sure there was an analysis given of the composition of the asteroid in Phoenix, but I don't recall what it is.

Best example:
Stormtroopers vs Redshirts. ....
Well, I personally am one of the folks who feel both are ill-considered cannon fodder. I think that bad writing serves both poorly. I woudn't send any troops into battle with either bright red or shiny white outfits, so I'm not really going to offer much of a point-counterpoint here! ;-)

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

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:17 pm

Coyote wrote:
But really, neither are the SW ships: they are from "a long, long time ago and a Galaxy far, far away". The IJN in my example represents a developed war technology on a world that is largely explored. The ST ships in my example represent a still-evolving technology in a setting that is still about mystery and frontiers
Although I will agree that the settings are different, just because the SW galaxy has been fully explored by its civilizations, which, according to all the sources we could gather (novels set in the past,thus part of the EU, games like Kotor and Kotor II) haven't made any significant advances in technology in the last few thousand years (in some areas appearing even to regress - personnal shielding), I really don't agree with automatically assuming that their technolofy is intrinsically superior to that of the Feds.

If ST had had Hyperdrives, its galaxy would have been explored a lot faster too, without the need to change anything else as far as the other "Treknology" is concerned.
I woudn't send any troops into battle with either bright red or shiny white outfits, so I'm not really going to offer much of a point-counterpoint here! ;-)
Well, they make excellent diversions... :)

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

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:45 pm

If age of a galaxy spanning civilisation, group of civilisation, empire or whatever alliance was always proportionnal to their power and awesomeness, wouldn't the old races in B5 kick Wars or Trek?

Wouldn't Stargate's forces curbstomp even groups ICS flavored Wars couldn't' even hope to tickle?

The age argument doesn't hold water, and as people have said, it's been pretty stagnant in Wars. They've reached a plateau, and with the EU incorporated, it's even less glorious.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:21 am

coyote wrote:Not if we want to stay on topic for this thread. I'm not interested in a go-round on the numbers themselves; it's how they are used and interpreted on the different boards that's important.
Dude, you just said it didn't matter if the asteroid was made of styrofoam. That's insane. IT MATTERS. If the facts don't matter, there's no point in the debate.
Here we have a discrepancy regarding what is canon and what isn't.
The often recently touted Chee and his quotes are not combined with him saying there are 2 continuities. There's no discrepency for him, not for Lucas. The loudest voices are those on the pro-wars side that are saying the opposite to Lucas and Chee.
If you want to go strictly with the movies and nothing but, there is the scene in Attack of the Clones wehere Kenobi is looking at the map of the galaxy and noting how his commo signal is just out of range for Coruscanr but Anakin at Tatooine should be able to pick it up and retransmit it to the Jedi Council...
There is a thread on the size of the SW galaxy, where I posted an analysis on the size based on the image Kenobi was looking at in the archive library.
Coyote wrote:I don't believe I was there for that eschange, so I really can't comment on it.
It was a hypothetical of what could happen, if I signed up there. I've never signed up there.
No, what I've admitted to is that the prevailing view at SDN is backed up by deduced evidence based on what is known about asteroids.
You have admitted the facts don't matter, saying it doesn't matter if the asteroid was made of styrofoam or not.
Here's the part that you seem to be having a hard time with-- realizing that we don't adhere to these numbers because of "SDN ideology"... but because they're based on evidence. Had Mike Wong, Dr. Curtis Saxton, Leland Chee, etc, never been born, much less set up any websites or commentaries, the physics would still be there for someone else to comment on.
And, if none of these people existed, asteroids would still never be made out of solid, very tough metal, they would never be made of styrofoam.

These are fundmanetal laws of asteroids.

THAT is evidence. You say it doesn't matter if they're made of styrofoam. Of couse, it matters if they are.
If you are under the impression that we have cooked up and adopted evidence simply to suit an ideology, then yes, there's not much that can be done about it.
Which is fact. Your 'facts don't matter' view is all that's required.
If you recognise that ST and SW exist for completely different reasons and there's not some "inherent flaw" implied just because Trek is on a lower power curve, then you can discuss things and gain some interesting insight.
Why they exist is not a part of the typical debate analysis, which is viewing them in science terms and finding out who would whoop whose ass. The real life cultural impact/philisophical debate is different.

Post Reply