Starfleet Jedi

http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=107937

That was a really nice thread about all the crappy and incomprehensible pieces of canon out there in various universes. Most of the focus is on SW, though a lot of BS happened in nearly every sci-fi series like Halo, ST, Battletech, etc. I couldn't help but laugh at Halo and their "lighter than styrofoam ships" that fire tungsten projectiles at 0.4c. Maybe not as bad as some of the worse of ICS, but it sure gives it competition.

That thread brings back memories. I remember calculating densities for Honorverse ships very many years ago and blinking at them.

Sometimes, when we get so wrapped up in Star Trek and Star Wars, it's hard to remember that there have been other things in other genres more ludicrous than STV or even the ICS books.

Here's my own contribution:
http://forum.spacebattles.com/showpost. ... tcount=289

I can only laugh at some of the ICS defenders, claiming that forest fires must represent gigatons of firepower.

And yes, starcraft canon is really bad.

Ah yes, I recall that silliness with the Warsies trying to defend gigaton firepower figures for Darksaber, even though the discriptions have nothing more than forest fires being set by the bombardment of Yavin IV's surface by hundreds of high-power TLs from the SSD Knight Hammer.

They tried to sweep away the lack of dust clouds, craters, molten rock, shockwaves, and other distinctive features of of a multi-gigaton firepower bombardment by claiming such interesting things as: The humidity of Yavin IV and the wet nature of the jungle some how suppressed the fireball and other effects!

One of the defenders of ICS when confronted over their highly questionable use of physics went on a rant over how they were taking engineering and physics classes. Typical.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso wrote:Ah yes, I recall that silliness with the Warsies trying to defend gigaton firepower figures for Darksaber, even though the discriptions have nothing more than forest fires being set by the bombardment of Yavin IV's surface by hundreds of high-power TLs from the SSD Knight Hammer.

They tried to sweep away the lack of dust clouds, craters, molten rock, shockwaves, and other distinctive features of of a multi-gigaton firepower bombardment by claiming such interesting things as: The humidity of Yavin IV and the wet nature of the jungle some how suppressed the fireball and other effects!

One of the defenders of ICS when confronted over their highly questionable use of physics went on a rant over how they were taking engineering and physics classes. Typical.
-Mike

it is funny how similar that is to TDIC commentary when warsies look at that and kneejerk accusations of how wrong it all it.

admittedly the die is cast is a bit silly, but so is the most powerful starship in SW firing at full power at a planet and not ripping its continents up with its teratons of firepower.

The big difference between TDiC and ICS is that TDiC is an actual part of the true Trek canon (we actuallysee the bombardment on-screen), whereas ICS falls into highly questionable territory in the SW canon hierarcy. In TDiC, never mind seeing the crust of the planet crack and all, the shockwaves and the fireballs argue for at least gigaton-range firepower all by themselves. Is there some question of TDiC's firepower when compared to other examples? Sure. But it is not so far out of line that we cannot create a reasonable explanation to tie it all in.
-Mike

They're both "canon," however ICS is of a lower canon level than TDiC. That said, I believe one should rarely ever get into a discussion over what constitutes canon. That's basically what the "ICS is canon" crowd has done, and it has completely turned a rational debate into a religious debate. It's also ridiculously hypocritical and self-contradictory. I mean, it's pretty hard to rationally accept how TDiC has been contradicted in canon and ICS hasn't, or vice versa for that matter. It's all stupid and a waste of time.

What should be done is the reasonable, and at one's best ability the scientific method of analysis. It's been discussed on this board before, but things like accepting the larger body of evidence and rejecting outliers, using calculations, making observations based on observed real world events, etc. should be things that justify what is correct and what isn't. When that is done, all crazy claims whether they should be TDiC or ICS should be rejected. This happens in ever sci-fi universe ever made; some crazy stuff always exists and needs to be retconned out of existence, and these two sources are no different. Though I must add ICS is the most egregious or nearly the most egregious example of bad canon.

Nonamer wrote:They're both "canon," however ICS is of a lower canon level than TDiC. That said, I believe one should rarely ever get into a discussion over what constitutes canon. That's basically what the "ICS is canon" crowd has done, and it has completely turned a rational debate into a religious debate. It's also ridiculously hypocritical and self-contradictory. I mean, it's pretty hard to rationally accept how TDiC has been contradicted in canon and ICS hasn't, or vice versa for that matter. It's all stupid and a waste of time.

What should be done is the reasonable, and at one's best ability the scientific method of analysis. It's been discussed on this board before, but things like accepting the larger body of evidence and rejecting outliers, using calculations, making observations based on observed real world events, etc. should be things that justify what is correct and what isn't. When that is done, all crazy claims whether they should be TDiC or ICS should be rejected. This happens in ever sci-fi universe ever made; some crazy stuff always exists and needs to be retconned out of existence, and these two sources are no different. Though I must add ICS is the most egregious or nearly the most egregious example of bad canon.

religion is a very good way of putting it, and with the ICS covering such a wide range of information, most of it conjured up by the power of the "lord" it has become difficult to see a debate online without ics being claimed as proof of things.

the fact that whenever anyone outside a certain web-board see this stuff for the ifirst time reacts the same "what the hell ?" is telling.

Destiny of the Daleks, Resurrection of the Daleks and Revelation of the Daleks.

The Daleks were shown to be pretty stupid in those episodes. Davros is to blame on that front, really...