I find this thread at SB.com particularly amusing, all things considered ... this is why, of course. The fellow is asking whether an act of planetary destruction is more phaser-like, or more superlaser-like, when the two weapons in fact seem to share the key principles of operation being questioned.
I suppose I could have posted this in the Rules of Evidence, but I always find it interesting when unquestioned assumptions are used so broadly. Using a contention as an assumption in other arguments is a very sneaky way to try and get it accepted by a wider audience.
Funny thread at SB.com
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact: