View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:04 am



Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Engaging SciFights 
Author Message
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
I haven't had a chance to finish up the blog post, but suffice it to say that after Brian shut down debate with Starshipdown and falsely dissed 359, I couldn't resist the urge to jump in at Youtube and unload on him.

While I was composing my initial foray Young walked back his attack on 359 claiming it was some-unidentified-one else who hadn't watched his videos, but this actually made my point for me given that he'd actually accused 359 of the same thing previously.

Beyond that, Brian basically claimed I was obsessed with him (snore), which was amusingly disproved by his own criteria. Further, he flatly refused to engage in any technical debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRvc1tCw0lA

I found that last part interesting so hit him again in the comments to another video. And indeed, we seem to get the same reaction, or lack thereof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzGlAHm3ZCk

That first video after the initial altercation is named "Behind the Gun" and features him holding and aiming a pistol. I'm trying not to read too much into that, but given his past associations ... ;-)


Thu May 14, 2015 5:41 am
Profile WWW
Jedi Master

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5730
Reply with quote
Like I've said before, I don't think Brian does more than a very cursory glance every now and then at SFJN. But given his (Brian's) thin skinned nature, I don't think he'll do more than that since to look at the huge volumes of discussion and accumulated data that disproves the work he, and the other ICSers did all those years ago would be just too much for him.

For all that Brian loves to get on his high horse and claim that he only "follows where the evidence leads", he is sure good at missing lots of important evidence that discounts a lot of his views.

Look at his discussion in the Gyroscope video with Starshipdown (SSD) over phaser pistol range. As I read it, SSD's point all along was that the phasers could reach across the 1,570 yard range, otherwise Kirk, desperate or not, was sending his men into serious harm's way for no good reason. But their final bit there was most telling in that and makes me wonder if Brian is really reading the commentary posts properly. Granted there are some grammar and spelling issues, but nothing so fatal that I couldn't understand SSD, and it is interesting that Brian kept arguing about the intervening high ground ( a reasonable point, but not relevant to the range issue) and claiming that SSD was saying Lang and Kelowitz could hit the Gorn from there, and other weirdness.

SSD kept making the point that the whole idea of what Kirk was hoping for was the use of cover fire to maybe make the Gorn think twice with some phaser fire hitting the near side of the mountain. I got that, so why did Brian keep thinking that SSD meant that Lang and Kelowitz would be hitting the Gorn directly?

Also, Brian never really addressed SSD's point about the Gorn disrupters (beam weapons separate from the obviously ballistic artillery) seen hitting poor redshirt O'Herlihy at the opening of the battle hitting a target all the way from that distance. Which brings me to another point SSD made, perhaps unclearly, that might have influenced Kirk sending the two men out to lay down cover fire. Disruptors mean that the Gorn have to occasionally poke up from behind the intervening high ground to attack, which means possible opportunities to strike back and nail the enemy as well as get a look at them.

On top of that, SSD brought up some very astute observations about the TOS phaser pistol and the little Type I hand phaser that is attached to them; the little hand phaser does indeed have a flip up grid with a clear piece behind it next to the setting dial:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Ty ... _2260s.jpg

Kirk with the Type II pistol and the flip up grid in action:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Ty ... ,_2266.jpg

A mini targeting system and display? And I should've remembered this as my Art Asylum replica of the TOS Type II has all those features in the accompanying Type I! This means that there is a targeting capability that is not dependent on old fashioned iron sights or scopes.

That implies by extension a more sophisticated targeting system on the TNG-era models.

So while it could be a case of miscommunication, I do think there is a real possibility that Brian is trying any way he can to ignore evidence of phaser capability.
-Mike


Thu May 14, 2015 7:37 pm
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
Those were the same pics I used on my blog post here:

http://weblog.st-v-sw.net/2015/05/moder ... haser.html

And many of the same concepts were in use by me and SSD:

http://weblog.st-v-sw.net/2015/04/phase ... -pt-i.html
http://weblog.st-v-sw.net/2015/04/phase ... pt-ii.html

Hence my being impressed with him, though I evidently missed some of the conversation given the points you note that I didn't catch.


Thu May 14, 2015 9:44 pm
Profile WWW
Bridge Officer

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 167
Location: A Beta Quadrant far far away
Reply with quote
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Look at his discussion in the Gyroscope video with Starshipdown (SSD) over phaser pistol range. As I read it, SSD's point all along was that the phasers could reach across the 1,570 yard range, otherwise Kirk, desperate or not, was sending his men into serious harm's way for no good reason.

SNIP

I got that, so why did Brian keep thinking that SSD meant that Lang and Kelowitz would be hitting the Gorn directly?


Looking at his core arguments, and paying special attention to Brian's word choice, this is the simplified translation I'm coming away with:

{{It's a beam weapon, so it may reach that far, but since a pistol can't aim that far, it's not worth bothering to look into, because it doesn't matter. They say they can't effectively engage the Gorn at that range, and we didn't see them hit any Gorn, so why does this failure keep getting brought up like it's proof of long range?}}

At least thats how I read it. And actually, I'd say that much is true, 1570 yards is too far to reliably hit a man sized target with a phaser pistol, but that doesn't mean 100 meters is the absolute max either, especially with the dialogue in Hide and Q.

I can't recall any other examples of phaser pistol range, either in dialogue or demonstration. In truth, I haven't put that much though into it. Considering that Federation personnel entering combat would probably have a type III rifle, I haven't really considered the pistols maximum range that critical. Given my own experiment with a laser pointer, I'd guess 100 meters isn't a bad guess for consistent, reliable performance against a man sized target (indeed more if there is some kind of fancy holo-zoom-retinal-tracking doodad) and about 600 meters against a Sherman tank sized target. Obviously though, even without a really fancy targeting system, using the Arena episode as a guide, you could take potshots with a phaser pistol all the way up to 1500 yards, probably more.


Mike DiCenso wrote:
Also, Brian never really addressed SSD's point about the Gorn disrupters (beam weapons separate from the obviously ballistic artillery) seen hitting poor redshirt O'Herlihy at the opening of the battle hitting a target all the way from that distance.


It's possible the Gorn disruptors are rifles, so that won't help the phaser pistols as an example.

Mike DiCenso wrote:
A mini targeting system and display? And I should've remembered this as my Art Asylum replica of the TOS Type II has all those features in the accompanying Type I! This means that there is a targeting capability that is not dependent on old fashioned iron sights or scopes.
-Mike


Very nice, any idea on the canon standing of those props? I doubt it would get much respect at any rate, but if those are one of those high end, careful reproduction of original "hero" props, it'd certainly be a boost beyond "that's just speculation" for a targeting system. I personally balk at an uber-targeting system providing super sniper performance given the number of times I've seen phasers miss. But the opposite extreme of phasers having a targeting system inferior to that of a flintlock pistol, I find even less viable, both from a logical standpoint, and from the number of very good targeting examples we've seen as well.

As an aside, while only the type III phaser has been stated to have gyrostabilization, I think it is likely the type II pistol would likely also have the same, or at least similar. That said, while checking Arsenal of Freedom, I noticed Tasha's beam wavered on the Echo Papa's shield at one point, which gave me some doubts. SFX issues limiting such small details as wavering beams being regularly shown did occur to me (a bit like the perfectly perpendicular cut in the wall in Too Short a Season, I don't think the "cut" setting has a magic jigsaw beam redirection feature). Ultimately though, I've come to agree, it is far more likely these aren't freehand "laser pointer" beams.


Fri May 15, 2015 3:17 am
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
The canon status of props is less relevant given that we see the 'sighting window' in use on-screen, just not the display. Wah Chang actually built it as a working little window that allowed sighting down the barrel, 'cause he was a badass.

As for phaser range, sure you can't aim precisely at a target you can scarcely even see. But they aren't trying to do surgical strikes against the Gorn. Hell, if it were me, I would open up the beam width just a wee tiny bit and hose the hillside until something screamed.


Fri May 15, 2015 5:54 pm
Profile WWW
Jedi Master

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5730
Reply with quote
Darth Spock wrote:
Looking at his core arguments, and paying special attention to Brian's word choice, this is the simplified translation I'm coming away with:

{{It's a beam weapon, so it may reach that far, but since a pistol can't aim that far, it's not worth bothering to look into, because it doesn't matter. They say they can't effectively engage the Gorn at that range, and we didn't see them hit any Gorn, so why does this failure keep getting brought up like it's proof of long range?}}

At least thats how I read it. And actually, I'd say that much is true, 1570 yards is too far to reliably hit a man sized target with a phaser pistol, but that doesn't mean 100 meters is the absolute max either, especially with the dialogue in Hide and Q.


Right, but even if that were Brian's position, it doesn't make a lot of sense since we know that there is more to a phaser, hand, pistol, or rifle, than meets the eye. But what I found interesting and Brian seemed to brush off, was the dialog of Kirk telling Lang and Kelowitz to lay down the cover fire on the coordinates that Spock gave earlier. So phaser pistols can be accurate enough for that purpose up to that distance, if nothing else, other wise it is once again a waste sending those two crewmen out there like that.

Darth Spock wrote:
I can't recall any other examples of phaser pistol range, either in dialogue or demonstration. In truth, I haven't put that much though into it. Considering that Federation personnel entering combat would probably have a type III rifle, I haven't really considered the pistols maximum range that critical. Given my own experiment with a laser pointer, I'd guess 100 meters isn't a bad guess for consistent, reliable performance against a man sized target (indeed more if there is some kind of fancy holo-zoom-retinal-tracking doodad) and about 600 meters against a Sherman tank sized target. Obviously though, even without a really fancy targeting system, using the Arena episode as a guide, you could take potshots with a phaser pistol all the way up to 1500 yards, probably more.


You forgot gyro stabilization and probably little to no recoil, all of which are big factors here in favor of the phaser that a modern real life combat rifle user has to contend with.

There's also another thing. As was pointed out in the YouTube commentary, there have been very few opportunities where long-range (hundreds of meters or multi-km) battles can be fought. In starship corridors? Nope, none there. In a canyon or winding ravines, like in "Friday's Child" Nothing good there and Kirk and Spock did not have phasers, only the Klingon. Nope. The Klingon had a little Type-I and he nearly nails Kirk (with rather explosive results for such a small weapon), but for the intervening high ground Kirk ducks behind, and every other time he nails one Capellan after another.

The only instance I can think of that should show high range is in "Rocks and Shoals" [DS9, S6]:

http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbna ... 40&page=18

There the hits aren't as effective as one might expect and the range engaged looks about like 100 or so meters. Even so, a Jem' Hadar hits and kills a concealed Starfleet guy who was behind a significant amount of cover.


Darth Spock wrote:
It's possible the Gorn disruptors are rifles, so that won't help the phaser pistols as an example.


True, but even still the hit on the redshirt from that far away is still pretty damn impressive.

Darth Spock wrote:
Very nice, any idea on the canon standing of those props? I doubt it would get much respect at any rate, but if those are one of those high end, careful reproduction of original "hero" props, it'd certainly be a boost beyond "that's just speculation" for a targeting system. I personally balk at an uber-targeting system providing super sniper performance given the number of times I've seen phasers miss. But the opposite extreme of phasers having a targeting system inferior to that of a flintlock pistol, I find even less viable, both from a logical standpoint, and from the number of very good targeting examples we've seen as well.



The shooting props or the Art Asylum reproductions? The Art Asylum reproductions were so good that some were used in the ST:ENT episodes "In a Mirror, Darkly, 1 & 2" within only slight modification. But as RSA pointed out, the actual "hero" props were shown using those features on a few occasions.

Darth Spock wrote:
As an aside, while only the type III phaser has been stated to have gyrostabilization, I think it is likely the type II pistol would likely also have the same, or at least similar. That said, while checking Arsenal of Freedom, I noticed Tasha's beam wavered on the Echo Papa's shield at one point, which gave me some doubts. SFX issues limiting such small details as wavering beams being regularly shown did occur to me (a bit like the perfectly perpendicular cut in the wall in Too Short a Season, I don't think the "cut" setting has a magic jigsaw beam redirection feature). Ultimately though, I've come to agree, it is far more likely these aren't freehand "laser pointer" beams.


Well, yes, FX and other production issues have made this hobby more...interesting... But they have also lead to the "off-axis" firing phenomena that can only be explained away with auto targeting.
-Mike


Fri May 15, 2015 10:55 pm
Profile
Bridge Officer

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 167
Location: A Beta Quadrant far far away
Reply with quote
2046 wrote:
The canon status of props is less relevant given that we see the 'sighting window' in use on-screen, just not the display. Wah Chang actually built it as a working little window that allowed sighting down the barrel, 'cause he was a badass.


Mike DiCenso wrote:
The shooting props or the Art Asylum reproductions? The Art Asylum reproductions were so good that some were used in the ST:ENT episodes "In a Mirror, Darkly, 1 & 2" within only slight modification. But as RSA pointed out, the actual "hero" props were shown using those features on a few occasions.


Cool. I can appreciate the props, and certainly the replicas wouldn't actually have "canon" status, but even if you can't normally see it during normal viewing, if the originals actually worked or are identified at some point as a targeting sight, it's easier to dismiss the "well that could be a status screen" or other potential write-offs.

2046 wrote:
Hell, if it were me, I would open up the beam width just a wee tiny bit and hose the hillside until something screamed.


Heheh. I don't wanna have a shoot out with you, you don't fight "sportingly" like the script! But, like I said in one of the video comments, it's hard to draw a balance between what the equipment should be able to do and what the show inevitably has the cast actually do. Heck, as an intelligent viewer, not bound by the power of plot, I would/could do a lot of things differently with the equipment available, as would most anybody, as you just noted.

2046 wrote:
As for phaser range, sure you can't aim precisely at a target you can scarcely even see. But they aren't trying to do surgical strikes against the Gorn.


Mike DiCenso wrote:
But what I found interesting and Brian seemed to brush off, was the dialog of Kirk telling Lang and Kelowitz to lay down the cover fire on the coordinates that Spock gave earlier. So phaser pistols can be accurate enough for that purpose up to that distance, if nothing else, other wise it is once again a waste sending those two crewmen out there like that.


Mike DiCenso wrote:
You forgot gyro stabilization and probably little to no recoil, all of which are big factors here in favor of the phaser that a modern real life combat rifle user has to contend with.


Definitely the phaser pistol can emit a deadly beam to coordinates 1500 yards away, I think Brian has acknowledged that as well, its the idea that the "pistol" can't be "aimed" that far that seems to be the big focus. Phaser rifles like seen in Rocks and Shoals can do it, I'd guess the range there to be well over 100 meters even, and they are "rifles" with "multiple-target acquisition," Sisko even said they had phasers "locked on" before the Jem'Hadar charge. But that seems to be the big fall back, the idea that the Fed's will be stuck with pistols 9 times out of 10. I don't buy that, but that focus has made the pistol's targeting mechanism a major issue. Even with the benefits of a recoilless, stabilized beam weapon, without stronger evidence of the type II having either some kind of discrete zoom function or assisted targeting, it's a hard sell to suggest effective targeting on a man sized object that's getting pretty small by the time he's 200 or 300 meters out.

That's a sidetrack though. For the immediate topic at hand, an armored vehicle like a Sherman tank is easily 6 times as big, and just as easy to hit at 6 times the range. On top of that, the phaser wielder shouldn't be engaged in the same "raise from cover and take a quick shot" style of combat, raising the accuracy bar even further. Like you said though 2046, you need to be able to see you target. Judging by my laser pointer experiment, and assuming the laser dot serves as a comparable sighting mechanism to whatever is employed by the phaser, a tank should be pretty easy to tag even at 600 meters, but even assuming gyro-stabilization, at that range I'd think hitting it at all is about all I could hope to accomplish. Past 1000 meters even a honking big tank is getting pretty small, and again, unless there is some sort of target-assist, I may even miss the big beast.
I guess that's where I'm getting stuck, I'm not sold on the idea that the type II can pick off targets at such range, after all, if the "pistol" already has enough gadgetry to perform as a sniper's implement, why do they even make the type III? But definitely I agree, even limiting things to a manually targeted type II, I think Brian is severely underestimating it's effective "dangerous" range, especially against such a large target, even if accuracy does begin to trail off.

Mike DiCenso wrote:
Well, yes, FX and other production issues have made this hobby more...interesting... But they have also lead to the "off-axis" firing phenomena that can only be explained away with auto targeting.
-Mike


Interesting, yes. A production limitation turning into a huge technological feature makes me nervous. Although in a case such as that, the effect is so prevalent, and auto targeting so beautifully explains the weird effect, it's too perfect to write off. But it has to stop somewhere, or we end up with things like psychic doors. (Yes, I've read the Nitpickers Guide too.) From there, your in a position of explaining why particle beams travel more slowly than bullets and end up needing auto targeting to compensate for discharges that mere mortals can can dodge Neo style, à la Picard in TNG Conspiracy. Whew. Enough rant. You see may hesitation though. Hand phasers are way too accurate to be dumb fired vacuum cleaners, but miss often enough that I'm not sold on either the existence, or overall effectiveness of any auto targeting system.


Sun May 17, 2015 2:22 am
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
As I said on my blog: "Here is my thought as to the UI. When the trigger is pressed it shoots where you are looking, and stays pointing the same direction unless you move your hand. This explains the semi-auto nature of most shots we see and has other explanatory benefits, besides. Brian's claims have none."

This means it is possible to miss with an ill-timed blink or if your eyes cut over to something shiny or if you try to fire while scanning the room, et cetera. All are detrimental, but given how misses can occur with modern weapons based on issues of short sight radius, breath control, shaky hands, et cetera, these detriments seem acceptable as a better starting point for new shooters.


Sun May 17, 2015 2:25 pm
Profile WWW
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
Quote:
Heheh. I don't wanna have a shoot out with you, you don't fight "sportingly" like the script!


As they say, "if you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck."


Tue May 19, 2015 2:29 pm
Profile WWW
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
Heh, I just saw that he banned me.

In fairness, I wasn't holding back (i.e. sugar-coating for fear of being blocked as most of his opposing commenters know to do) after his 'you're obsessed with me!' crap. I wasn't flaming him outright, but I peppered him by happily pointing out his analytical flaws and their underlying bases, in my view, while he basically avoided anything topical in response, keeping things on a personal level. Telling, that.

Still, I am amused at how he dishes it out to folks like Starshipdown (the so-called fanatic bullshitter) but can't take it, all while claiming that SFJ folks are bad and fanatics and sissies and liars because, among other claimed flaws, we're supposed to ignore what's dished our way and focus on the topic.

To summarize, then, his hypocrisy was on full display, and I have no qualms about cathartically having delivered the well-deserved shaming of the most active and unapologetic inflationist charlatan. I know it is not 100% proper Vulcanoid emotionless debating, and I am not claiming pride, but given that he can hardly complain I have, at worst, made us even.


Wed May 20, 2015 6:27 pm
Profile WWW
Jedi Master

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5730
Reply with quote
Not a surprising outcome given Brian's thin skinned nature. Do you have a copy of the final commentary post? I doubt it was anything really ban-worthy, but it still is fun to have a look.
-Mike


Tue May 26, 2015 1:46 am
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
This came as he was trying to argue all sorts of weird stuff across multiple videos and comment threads instead of acknowledging something that might indicate greater range than 100m for phasers, part of his larger campaign to defend the AT-ST (and its Sherman stand-in). In this case he had been caught dead to rights in the matter of the old Phaser One sporting a sight.

He fought it hard, calling the pic of it in use too dark and distant, proclaiming the translucent pop-up piece to be metal, and even denying the existence of the pop-up part at one point, arguing that it was just the dials further back and everyone else was misidentifying it due to wishful thinking. He then 'found' the pop-up and posted a video where he claimed it to be a pretty useless shark-fin sight (which would offer a sight radius of like an inch, which I would presume would put aiming it it on par with aiming an NAA Pug).

I replied thusly:

Quote:
Gotta hammer you again, here, because this whole affair, both specifically about the phaser pop-up and more broadly about phasers lately, including your comments to "Behind the Gun", is the sort of bad, cursory-grade analysis that led me to point out that you should perhaps leave Trek and Wars to the experts. I mean, you say you're done with them, what with having made a conclusions video after a year or two, so the continued fixation is unnecessary, one would think. Some might even say it belies an agenda.

To this specific point, the shark fin sight of yours does not exist, as noted in my comments on that last video. That is the "pop-up thing" of the Phaser One, which does not in fact cover the whole width of the top as you claim. If you were to look carefully at Kirk in my HD cap you would see the translucent tubular piece at the rear and be able to recognize the same shape of the Phaser One pop-up's triangular side and longer top piece. The space you claim to exist is present, but looks grander due to the light reflection off Phaser One's upper curve ... note the angle of light on Phaser Two's silver barrel, which matches.

Early TOS phasers underwent a few paint job changes. This is the early white-handled mostly-black version IIRC. Later paint schemes favored gray hues for the main body of Phaser Two with brown or black handle and called out the pop-up on Phaser One with a metallic silver grill finish, but Wah Chang's design which included a sighting window with a tubular-shaped translucent piece in the rear remained unchanged. See it also in the middle of "The Enemy Within", up for no obvious reason in a brief shot of evil Kirk's phaser, noting also that the body of the Phaser One extends beyond that in width. I have posted a pic slideshow on my channel, since you choose not to read my blog where all this was covered already. Such perusal might've helped you avoid claiming that Kirk's phaser piece was too dark and distant and just showing the dials, and now that it's some sort of shark fin.

Cursory Googling might've also led you to learn this is somewhat replicated in the Diamond Select phasers (albeit with a flat window) along with the paint variations. You might also learn that the Phaser One trigger is on the bottom, not the pop-up as claimed, which was odd to say anyway given McCoy firing with his thumb on the dial.

Don't even get me started on Han's blaster props.

In any case, since you have suggested this is a sensor display, I might suggest you also peruse items 1-3 on my blog post as linked to from the slideshow video. This might help you avoid similar claims about the TNG weapons as you have already made about the TOS ones that the evidence doesn't support. After all, while no known weapon hits dead-on 100% of the time, I have to point out that it's pretty gallsy for a Star Wars tech inflationist to try to deride the accuracy of any other franchise ever. :-)


Brian replied:

Quote:
Darkstar, this will be your only warning. Cool it with the personal attacks. Don't make me block you


I laughed as follows:

Quote:
I'll resist the urge to respond as defiantly as I did to Wong's ban threat many moons ago. Besides, the way Youtube commenting works, we're all half-banned anyway. Still, though, there is indeed little to be gained here. After all, you are studiously avoiding any topical debate with me or even evidence provided by me, and now feigning wounds from barbs far more mild than you have recently dished (e.g. you vs. Starshipdown in comments to Phaser vs. Tank), ... frankly, that tells me what I need to know about your strategic priorities regarding our exchanges.

But first, Brian, no, this is not personal, though I know you desperately want it to be given your fantasy wherein I have some obsession with you that even your own criteria did not support, a fantasy you have insisted on maintaining even when I gave you a chance to move beyond such silliness, and a fantasy you'd concocted as far back as last February's first public exchange between us. That's when I gave my solicited opinion of your work to a vitriolic fan of Wong's and yours, to which you explicitly fantasized that I was spending all my time poisoning your well. You weren't a blip on my radar, then.

It's your feud, Brian, but you can still change. My disdain is professionally-based inasmuch as this mutual hobby is concerned, and it is about you misleading your audience in the same ill-considered direction every single time.

That alone might not annoy, but add to the bias the claim of objective evidence-man status, along with the smug pretense of a new moral high ground while still abusing others as "fanatics", "obsessed", "sissies", "bullshit"ters, et cetera, plus threatening to ban me as a meanie ... well, I just don't react well to hypocrisy, Mr. Stephanopoulos. I still believe you can improve, but you have to recognize problems to solve them.

You occasionally make good points against my old work, such as regarding phaser power calculability from "The Galileo Seven", but more often your partisanship and obsessive feud lead you astray. Case in point, you've been fixated on my phaser vs. AT-ST point (with the Sherman as my perhaps-generous stand-in) now for three months, defending inflated Imperial ground weapons from simple hand phasers.

A full 50% of your videos since and including "Phaser vs. Tank" deal with that topic, whether to nerf phasers or to present other vehicles as superior as a fallback. Despite this fixation, you refuse to go look at sites where your claims are critically reviewed. Such bubbles frequently burst, as you've so helpfully and consistently demonstrated.

It has taken a withering assault from multiple parties over this time to force you to acknowledge, in the TOS phaser case, a known object. Even after this embarrassment which featured rejecting clear evidence as dark and distant and even creating a shark fin to avoid the reality, you're still maintaining it as 'lost tech' to try to nerf TNG phasers as being less capable. (Were it Imperial tech, I wager you'd make yet another reference to a "mature galactic civilization" and include it, to be consistent.) Elsewhere, you have been forced to acknowledge ranges (at least in part) and capabilities proving my initial point, yet you continue to argue.

You already know you don't have to dig in your heels on every single point to get Wars to win, which is why you let things through like warp strafing and such. All I'm saying is that Wars already has a veritable magic bullet insofar as numbers, by your view, so you might as well honestly assess the evidence instead of knee-jerking in defense of the Empire, even if the knee-jerk is against something I said.

Banning and ignoring folks like Mike DiCenso and I as big meanies, or threatening it to folks like StarshipDown, won't solve your problems. These young'uns coming up are sharp as darts and twice as fast as old-timers like me & thee, and while you can ban 'em all and go full bubble-boy you'll still find more to whom the current aw-shucks sleight-of-hand routine won't play well.

When you're ready to grow up, you know how to reach me.


(The young'uns I was referring to were 359, StarshipDown, and Darth Spock, but somehow specific naming didn't make it through editing.)

I then later found:

Quote:
Darkstar has been blocked. Don't make it personal people. We're all just here to enjoy the same hobby. I won't tolerate character assassinations and personal attacks.


But he can sure dish 'em out! Isn't that right, Mike Disco, bullshitter SSD, et al.?


Wed May 27, 2015 12:57 pm
Profile WWW
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6860
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
How many people would you consider to be siding with Young's arguments or simply his style most of the time?
This Stephanopoulos' life seems dull that having SW win and most of all having ST lose for any possible reason appears to reach far beyond the mere needs of some random hobbyist. In other words, without his online personna in versusdom, he's nothing. He once made a choice about who he'd prefer to side with and hasn't reclined this move since then. It's damned sad, really.


Wed May 27, 2015 8:50 pm
Profile
Jedi Master

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5730
Reply with quote
I don't think more than a modest number of people actually agree with Brian on any one Versus subject matter.

I mean look at the low number of views his YouTube videos have. I think the Starshipdown inspired ones are among his highest and in the shortest time precisely because it got people involved who actually debated and kept coming back.

But since Brian is actively banning folks, that will probably prove to be the exception, not the rule as people will not be willing to debate him, and will only look in at his videos once or twice to find out what he's saying. Also look at the number of likes on his videos. I don't really recall his videos getting more than 5-6 likes, and you can guess which six people those are from.
-Mike


Mon Jun 01, 2015 5:02 pm
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6860
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
LOL, I give such little sh*t about his videos that I think I'm yet to click one link, and won't. It would already be too generous of me. Considering the silly material from him I already had to deal with, plus what I read about him and his deplorable attitude, I'm not going to waste my time.
There may be better discussion to be had elsewhere, on nascent vs forums or more specialized boards that, from time to time, happen to go hardcore on the technical analysis.


Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:36 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.