Rebuttal to darkstar's website

[Mike DiCenso]

The TM and the new Star Trek movie suggest that they build them conventionally, and not using magi-tech replicators.

What? That they move and weld parts together like we do now? The TM is non-canon, so that's right out, not to mention it's timeline for when the start of the of the construction of the E-D occured and how long it took are greatly at odds with the episode canon. Further, you went back and anti-chronologically picked a relatively primitive time in Trek... that is pre-replicator, mid-23rd century. Even without those replicators, the Federation was able to switch from building the 289 meter Constitution class from what we saw in the Prime timeline TOS to the monsterous, 762-1,181 meter Alt timeline version of the new movie. On top of that, we see the Alt-E docked along with 7-8 other similarly sized starships to a space station that is easily 8-10 km wide when scaled to those ships.
-Mike

[Who is like God arbour]

Except that the Essential Atlas gives a figure of 120,000 LY in diameter, written with a 3rd person omniscient perspective, which trumps a 3rd person limited perspective in terms of reliability.

You are a liar.
I have already proven that the novelization » A New Hope « was written by an omniscient third person narrator:

• • • • Okay, I think it is clear for all, that StarWarsStarTrek has no clue about what he is talking.
        
        He is confusing concepts like narrator, narrative point of view and narrative voice.
        
        A narrator is, within any story (literary work, movie, play, verbal account, etc.), the person who tells the story to the audience.
        
        The Narrative point of view (also point-of-view or viewpoint) describes from which grammatical person's perspective the story is perceived.
        

        • • • • There is the first-person view, the second-person view, the third-person view and the alternating person view.
                
                The Third-person narration provides the greatest flexibility to the author and thus is the most commonly used narrative mode in literature. In the third-person narrative mode, each and every character is referred to by the narrator as "he", "she", "it", or "they", but never as "I" or "we" (first-person), or "you" (second-person). In third-person narrative, it is necessary that the narrator be merely an unspecified entity or uninvolved person that conveys the story, but not a character of any kind within the story being told. Third-person singular (he/she) is overwhelmingly the most common type of third-person narrative, although there have been successful uses of the third-person plural (they), as in Maxine Swann's short story "Flower Children". Even more common, however, is to see singular and plural used together in one story, at different times, depending upon the number of people being referred to at a given moment in the plot. Sometimes in third-person narratives, a character would refer to himself in the third-person e.g., "(Character name) would like to come with you".
                
                The third-person modes are usually categorized along two axes:
                • The first is the subjectivity/objectivity axis, with "subjective" narration describing one or more character's feelings and thoughts, while "objective" narration does not describe the feelings or thoughts of any characters.
                • The second axis is between "omniscient" and "limited", a distinction that refers to the knowledge available to the narrator. An omniscient narrator has omniscient knowledge of time, people, places and events; a limited narrator, in contrast, may know absolutely everything about a single character and every piece of knowledge in that character's mind, but it is "limited" to that character - that is, it cannot describe things unknown to the focal character.

        The narrative voice describes how the story is conveyed (for example, by "viewing" a character's thought processes, by reading a letter written for someone, by a retelling of a character's experiences, etc.).
        

        • • • • There are Stream-of-consciousness voices, Character voices, Epistolary voice and of course Third-person voices.
                
                The third-person voices are narrative-voice techniques employed solely under the category of the third-person view.
                
                There are the subjective third-person, the objective third-person, and the omniscient third-person.
                
                Historically, the third-person omniscient perspective has been the most commonly used; it is seen in countless classic novels, including works by Jane Austen, Leo Tolstoy, Charles Dickens, and George Eliot. This is a tale told from the point of view of a storyteller who plays no part in the story but knows all the facts, including the characters' thoughts. It sometimes even takes a subjective approach. One advantage of omniscience is that this mode enhances the sense of objective reliability (i.e. truthfulness) of the plot. The third-person omniscient narrator is the least capable of being unreliable - although the omniscient narrator can have its own personality, offering judgments and opinions on the behavior of the characters.
                
                In addition to reinforcing the sense of the narrator as reliable (and thus of the story as true), the main advantage of this mode is that it is eminently suited to telling huge, sweeping, epic stories, and/or complicated stories involving numerous characters. The disadvantage of this mode is that it can create more distance between the audience and the story, and that - when used in conjunction with a sweeping, epic "cast of thousands" story - characterization is more limited, which can reduce the reader's identification with or attachment to the characters. A classic example of both the advantages and disadvantages of this mode is J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings novel. However, as demonstrated by Isabel Allende's The House of the Spirits, this mode can capture huge sweeping stories (such as the political history of Chile, a major element of the novel) while also maintaining the reader's intimacy with certain key characters. Ann Patchett's Bel Canto also illustrates how this mode can be used to tell a complicated story involving dozens of characters while maintaining intimacy with the key characters.
                
                Some make the distinction between the third-person omniscient and the universal omniscient, the difference being that in universal omniscient, the narrator reveals information that the characters do not have. This is also called "Little Did He Know" writing, as in, "Little did he know he'd be dead by morning." Usually, the universal omniscient enforces the idea of the narrator being unconnected to the events of the story.
                
                Some more modern examples are Lemony Snicket, James Eugene Robinson in his novel, The Flower of Grass, and Philip Pullman. In some unusual cases, the reliability and impartiality of the narrator may in fact be as suspect as in the third person limited.

        As you can see, there is a difference between a narrative point of view and a narrative voice.
        
        But StarWarsStarTrek is lumping everything together. He thinks that the narrator is a limited third person narrator who jumps from person to person and knows always what the focal person knows and thinks.
        
        But that is nonsense.
        
        And that is obviously if you read through the excerpt I have quouted earlier. The narrator even describes things where no one is:
        

        • • • • The rest of the assembled soldiers were dismissed by the officer. On board the freighter, a last lone figure left off examining the space beneath the cockpit consoles and ran to join his comrades. He was anxious to be off this ghost ship and back in the comfortable surroundings of the barracks. His heavy footsteps echoed through the once more empty freighter.
                Below, the muffled sounds of the officer giving final orders faded, leaving the interior in complete quiet. The quivering of a portion of the floor was the only movement on board.
                Abruptly the quivering became a sharp upheaval. Two metal panels popped upward, followed by a pair of tousled heads. Han Solo and Luke looked around quickly, then managed to relax a little when it became clear that the ship was as empty as it sounded.

        That's clearly an objective describtion of what happened. Nobody was there to see it. And notice that the narrator describes our heroes from a third person view from inside the ship but out of the compartments in which our heroes were hiding.
        
        There are enough other examples in the novelization, in which the narrator describes things from a perspective, where no one is on which he could be focused as a multiple third person narrator (That is a limited third-person, who can only describe what is known, seen, thought, or judged from a single character's perspective at a time, but can change that point of view character many times during the piece).
        

        • • • • It was a vast, shining globe and it cast a light of lambent topaz into space - but it was not a sun. Thus, the planet had fooled men for a long time. Not until entering close orbit around it did its discoverers realize that this was a world in a binary system and not a third sun itself.
                At first it seemed certain nothing could exist on such a planet, least of all humans. Yet both massive G1 and G2 stars orbited a common center with peculiar regularity, and Tatooine circled them far enough out to permit the development of a rather stable, if exquisitely hot, climate. Mostly this was a dry desert of a world, whose unusual starlike yellow glow was the result of double sunlight striking sodium-rich sands and flats. That same sunlight suddenly shone on the thin skin of a metallic shape falling crazily toward the atmosphere.
                
                The erratic course the galactic cruiser was traveling was intentional, not the product of injury but of a desperate desire to avoid it. Long streaks of intense energy slid close past its hull, a multihued storm of destruction like a school of rainbow remoras fighting to attach themselves to a larger, unwilling host.
                One of those probing, questing beams succeeded in touching the fleeing ship, striking its principal solar fin. Gemlike fragments of metal and plastic erupted into space as the end of the fin disintegrated. The vessel seemed to shudder.
                The source of those multiple energy beams suddenly hove into view - a lumbering Imperial cruiser, its massive outline bristling cactuslike with dozens of heavy weapons emplacements. Light ceased arching from those spines now as the cruiser moved in close.
                Intermittent explosions and flashes of light could be seen in those portions of the smaller ship which had taken hits. In the absolute cold of space, the cruiser snuggled up alongside its wounded prey.

        That's an objective description of what happened. There is no one, whose point of view the narrator could have taken.
        
        The same here:
        

        • • • • IT was an old settlers' saying that you could burn your eyes out faster by staring straight and hard at the sun-scorched flatlands of Tatooine than by looking directly at its two huge suns themselves, so powerful was the penetrating glare reflected from those endless wastes. Despite the glare, life could and did exist in the flatlands formed by long-evaporated seabeds. One thing made it possible: the reintroduction of water.
                For human purposes, however, the water of Tatooine was only marginally accessible. The atmosphere yielded its moisture with reluctance. It had to be coaxed down out of the hard blue sky -coaxed, forced, yanked down to the parched surface.
                Two figures whose concern was obtaining that moisture were standing on a slight rise of one of those inhospitable flats. One of the pair was stiff and metallic - a sand-pitted vaporator sunk securely through sand and into deeper rock. The figure next to it was a good deal more animated, though no less sunweathered.
                Luke Skywalker was twice the age of the ten-year-old vaporator, but much less secure. At the moment he was swearing softly at a recalcitrant valve adjuster on the temperamental device. From time to time he resorted to some unsubtle pounding in place of using the appropriate tool. Neither method worked very well. Luke was sure that the lubricants used on the vaporators went out of their way to attract sand, beckoning seductively to small abrasive particles with an oily gleam. He wiped sweat from his forehead and leaned back for a moment. The most prepossessing thing about the young man was his name. A light breeze tugged at his shaggy hair and baggy work tunic as he regarded the device. No point in staying angry at it, he counseled himself. It's only an unintelligent machine.

        There is no one who chould have watched Luke and the vaporator. But notice how the narrator describes that » Luke was sure hat the lubricants used on the vaporators went out of their way to attract sand, beckoning seductively to small abrasive particles with an oily gleam. « If there were another person, whose perspective the narrator could have taken, this person could not know Lukes thoughts. But the narrator did know them.
        
        Therefore the narrator of the noveization » A New Hope « has to be an omniscient third person narrator.

You choose to ignore my explanations and you are now pretending as if they were never made and you can continue to use an already disproven argument. But by ignoring them, they will not vanish. By ignoring the truth, the untruth will not become true.

[Lucky]

Except that the Essential Atlas gives a figure of 120,000 LY in diameter, written with a 3rd person omniscient perspective, which trumps a 3rd person limited perspective in terms of reliability.

And the same source says the GFFA is smaller then 120,000 light years. Your source is self contradictory.

You need to prove your claim. Provide the quotes.

Ah, so you expect me to look through 7 pages of a thread to find these "pretty pictures" of yours?

I expect you to scroll down and go to the next page until you see and read the two or three posts with the big noticeable maps with flashing lines on them, but you really should just read the whole thread anyway. It is only 7 pages.
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... f=8&t=1478

Right, and a Federation force sub would involves years or decades just to get to Tatooine.

Would they? The maps show a galaxy only a slightly lager diameter then the UFP is long.

Such hyperdrive speeds are canon, and having a few planets being close together does absolutely nothing to refute it.

And how far apart are the planets used to calculate that speed?

What source says hyperdrives are that fast?

...The Essential Atlas.

The Essential Atlas is a self contradictory source, and therefor an unreliable source.

Ah. Even as an absolute upper limit, it would have no more than a few years of construction time, which is the upper limit for the construction time of the Death Star 2.

Just find the quote, and post it along with the page number, and name of the book.

What; are you claiming that the Jedi Temple had less than 200 Jedi? Where is your evidence.

It's from the script, and scripts are G-canon last time I checked. The Temple is just where the Jedi go between missions.

I did not deny the 10,000 Jedi claim. What I was saying was that the Jedi Temple alone had more than 200 Jedi.

We don't know how many Jedi are there at any one time. I've never heard any set numbers for how many Jedi are normally stationed there.

Yet photon torpedos do not suffer from that problem...but the Federation still fired them at point blank range, despite supposedly having >100,000 KM effective ranges. The only possible explanation is that the Federation ships have crap range.

Even torpedos suffer from the fact that the farther away they are fired the more time the target has to react to them, and the Borg are perfectly able to adapt to torpedos.

To be honest, that wouldn't surprise me, given that Federation characters make mistakes like every episode.

You will provide examples. Quotes and Episode names. Basically you are claiming the UFP should not be able to navigate anywhere, and target anything with weapons.

ROFL what? Did you just claim that visuals are less reliable than visuals? Thank you for admitting that you are clearly desperate to win this debate. You try to refute the ICS by using visuals, and then turn around and claim that dialog trumps visuals. By that account, the 200 gigaton claim > all TCW visuals. Star Wars wins.

I said that dialog in Star Trek is more reliable then the visuals because they have odd mistakes. like ships changing size or design for no reason.

Star Wars has a very different canon policy then Star Trek like the novelizations being canon, and no source support the ICS 2 and 3.

Reversed; most trek combat takes place within a few KMs or even within a few hundred meters, but there are examples over over 10 kms.

Prove it.

And yet Federation commander regularly go within 1 km ranges; surprise, Federation commanders are morons!

Clearly the ships must be much larger then believed, or the VFX are wrong.^_^

You need to prove your claim.

Enlighten as to how they are. It's not my job to prove a negative, especially not to one as ridiculous as yours. I suppose that the United States' tanks are a sign of their limited air combat, eh?

So you can't prove Star Wars powers can fire on ground targets, and destroy those targets, and you can't show it is a standard tactic? That kind of means you are wrong. Heck there is very limited use of bombers and artillery in Star Wars.

If you can hit targets from orbit easily then you will not mass large numbers of troops out in the open without defenses that can protect them.

To occupy territory, smart one? This is basic military warfare.

To bad they use the same tactics even when the objective is simply to destroy a factory

And where does that energy come from? Magic?

From reactors that easily put out gigatons a second.

Ah, more examples of the Federation's vastly smaller scale.

Jumping to conclusions aren't you. The UFP has to train the crew, but there is nothing that says they couldn't just build all Galaxies if they wanted to. Why have fewer large ships at a time when you can have lots of smaller ships that meet you needs?

ROFL what? So during the dominion war and the various borg invasions they didn't need more galaxy class ships?

They were turning out Galaxies like candy along with smaller ships during the Dominion war.

YOu mean like the 5 galaxies that were waiting for the borg at the end of Voyager?

The TM and the new Star Trek movie suggest that they build them conventionally, and not using magi-tech replicators.

The TMs are contradicted by the TV shows.

We see them working on a ship on the ground, but we don't know what their doing.

"large" amounts that are absolutely nothing compared to the industrial capability of Star Wars.

To bad Star wars powers never make use of it, and you have yet to prove it exists..

Then how did he get the red matter at all?

You haven't seen the movie? He captured Spock who had it.

"just about anything" means basic materials. It does not in any way counter the huge industrial might of Star Wars.

Yes they can't make extremely exotic things like Red Matter. They have no trouble making things like phasers, armor, food, ... just about anything.

Details, please.

One ounce of anti-matter was used to blow off something like half the atmosphere of a seemingly Earth like planet, and made that huge crater seen in the screen caps on that page..

As in fusion, both Star Wars and Star Trek probably use some exotic form of fusion that we do not know about.

While I don't like to give a group tech they don't have, I see nothing wrong with with giving them what they are shown to have. If canon says fusion they use fusion even if they somehow get far more energy from it then they should.

Hypermatter came into being in the EU because some idiot got the moronic idea Star Wars was a hard sci-fi setting.

Besides there is real world hypermatter, but it would be matter composed of only Hyperons. I guess someone didn't think the name through.^_^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperon

And yet they need matter to annihilate the anti-matter with to get energy. Therefore, they still need matter to get the energy, and thus your claim about them not needing matter is moot.

Matter is easy to get. Anti-matter is hard to make and store. The UFP has some cheap way to make anti-matter.

Voyager was always on the look out for hydrogen, but the Voyager crew are not exactly known for being the sharpest tools in the shed in the shed, but then again their ship was badly damaged from Episode one on, and they couldn't get it repaired properly so that might explain some things.

Please elaborate.

The Republic needed the fual on the planet to fight the war.

Nice goalpost move, because you originally claimed that they had large supplies of them.

They have lots of photon torpedos, and they have lots of ways that involve photon torpedos.

Voyager out in the mild of nowhere and short on supplies was able to produce planet/star destroying weapons on it's own.

Really? And how do you know that the Death Star shown wasn't the prototype?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtJpg4d93-w

We see the blue prints to the Death Star seen in ANH.

The Death Star is made with proven technologies.

The Death Star seen at the end of ep3 did not look like any picture I've seen of the "prototype Death Star".

Word of god as I recall.

Do you seriously not understand the possibilities of such a device? Obviously the Federation is either too stupid to understand it or can't produce it. Make your pick.

When strong appear weak.
They among other reasons don't want to make their neighbor to nervous.

When would a Genesis device have been useful to the UFP that the scaled down slower and less threatening version could not meet their needs??

Oh, and THEY NEVER MASS PRODUCED THE STAR BUSTERS!

They never needed the star busters but knew exactly how.

They did mass produce gravimetric war heads, destroy a small planet or turn a star into a black hole.
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Gravimetric_torpedo

Then why did you make such a stupid evasion move that the war wouldn't even happen?

You mean use a senior where there is a wormhole sort of thing linking the two galaxies at a time about the same as Kirk and Picard's' era? The simple answer is that by the time the either group would have been able to meet under their own power the UFP would crush the weak Star Wars side, and that just isn't fun.

Eh, because they're a threat to their existence?

Canon says other wise since we know the future.

How would doing things like destroying star and planets help deal with them? The Borg would just be annoyed at best, and the Dominion would return in kind if not worse.

Strangely enough what you are suggesting was used on the tribbles. They went for total over kill.

Such prime directives are basically always violated when the fate of the Federation calls for it, which means that time travel spam is not an option for the Federation.

Except there is an entire movie that involves them going back in time to steal some whales with a broken down barely working Klingon ship.

Ok, thanks for showing that you have no idea what you're talking about.

So only the main characters are aloud to time travel even though every warp capable race can?

Ah, more double standards. You want me to show examples of good Star Wars security, yet refuse to give examples of borg computer security being good. Instead, you put the burden of proof on me to prove the positive of one side and a negative on another. If you want me to prove that the borg have poor computer security, you have to prove that Star Wars has poor computer security, you hypocrite.

You didn't both to actual read my post. The UFP has only been able to hack the Borg with the help of someone who was part of the collective, and even then it was only about one cube that was effected.

The neurolytic pathogen is a big unknown as we have no thing similar in the real world, and was only created after studying the Borg for years, and was used to attack the queen.

You make claims you need to back them up with evidence. You seem to be conceding that Star Wars has any form of computer security, and have yet to shown the Borg or any trek power has poor computer security.

You have yet to show the Borg or any Star Trek power has poor computer security.

Why is it that any droid can link into a computer and take it over if computer security is not bad in Star Wars.

You claim that there are invisible time travelers helping the Federation without us viewers ever knowing,

Canon states most of the time travelers try to keep a low profile, but we know for a fact they are there. You know this because you read the time ship page I linked to, and have seen the episodes.

that having a ground army shows inferior space forces,

You need to take your time and read more closely. I stated militaries like those in Star Wars can't exist if air or space forces can easily blast them.

You've made quite a few claims, but are very light on evidence.

Lucky, you're being completely dishonest with debating. Such hypocrisy is not good form, and it's not polite either. It's arguably even worse than blunt insults, just a lot more subtle. If you want me to prove good Star Wars security, don't turn around and deny that you have to prove the same for your side, or change your mind and suddenly want me to prove a negative for you side. It's not honest.

Then report it to the moderators, and give them all the evidence. It's rather pointless to get angry at me.

Your claim that visuals are trumped by dialog is more proof of your dishonesty, because in other debates you've tried to refute dialog with visuals.

For Trek yes because it's the only thing that makes sense when you look at the entire series and spinoffs.. Ships aren't consistently the same sizes for crying out loud. Visuals in Star Trek tend to just be made to look good. The simple truth is VFX artists are just that, artists. They care about what looks cool to them, and not what makes a lick of sense.

For Star Wars you have the movies, the novelizations of the movies, and SW:TCW to compare, they all show the same things. Add most of lower canon shows similar capabilities to the movies, and you have next to no reason to doubt the visuals in Star Wars.

[Praeothmin]

For Trek yes because it's the only thing that makes sense when you look at the entire series and spinoffs.. Ships aren't consistently the same sizes for crying out loud. Visuals in Star Trek tend to just be made to look good. The simple truth is VFX artists are just that, artists. They care about what looks cool to them, and not what makes a lick of sense.

For Star Wars you have the movies, the novelizations of the movies, and SW:TCW to compare, they all show the same things. Add most of lower canon shows similar capabilities to the movies, and you have next to no reason to doubt the visuals in Star Wars.

Sorry, but in this case, I have to agree with SWST, using two different ways of interpreting visuals is dishonest.
Either you use the same interpretion order in both franchises, or you don't claim an honest debate.
VFX in SW also changes, just look at the DS II scaling, the ISD scaling, the MF scaling, etc...
So if you use "visuals trump dialogue" in one, you must use it in the other franchise to be honest, else your using "Warsie 101" tactics...

[Lucky]

For Trek yes because it's the only thing that makes sense when you look at the entire series and spinoffs.. Ships aren't consistently the same sizes for crying out loud. Visuals in Star Trek tend to just be made to look good. The simple truth is VFX artists are just that, artists. They care about what looks cool to them, and not what makes a lick of sense.

For Star Wars you have the movies, the novelizations of the movies, and SW:TCW to compare, they all show the same things. Add most of lower canon shows similar capabilities to the movies, and you have next to no reason to doubt the visuals in Star Wars.

Sorry, but in this case, I have to agree with SWST, using two different ways of interpreting visuals is dishonest.
Either you use the same interpretion order in both franchises, or you don't claim an honest debate.
VFX in SW also changes, just look at the DS II scaling, the ISD scaling, the MF scaling, etc...
So if you use "visuals trump dialogue" in one, you must use it in the other franchise to be honest, else your using "Warsie 101" tactics...

Stop trolling Praeothmin.

I don't go visuals trump dialog, and I don't go dialog trumps visuals. If there is no reason to doubt what is being spoken then you must take it into account when analyzing the series. It is pure idiocy to assume no one can read the displays, or the displays are wrong most/all of the time.

For Star Wars you check the movies(G-canon) and TV shows(T-canon) against the novelizations(G-canon) and scripts. It's all fairly consistent from what I've found.

For Star Trek it is much more difficult because the only canon is the movies and TV shows that have very notable visual effects mistakes, and a tendency to reuse footage to save money hoping no one noticed.

The truth is I can't use the same standards to judge Trek as I do Wars because they have very different canon policies, and even then I'm using almost the same method.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/incon ... sities.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/incon ... s/spot.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies.htm
Scaling issues
http://www.ditl.org/index.php?daymain=/ ... cle.php?22
Since we are never told the sizes of things like the DS-II we can not tell if the visuals are consistent or not.

[Praeothmin]

SWST said this:

Your claim that visuals are trumped by dialog is more proof of your dishonesty, because in other debates you've tried to refute dialog with visuals.

And you replied:

For Trek yes because it's the only thing that makes sense when you look at the entire series and spinoffs..
For Star Wars you have the movies, the novelizations of the movies, and SW:TCW to compare, they all show the same things.

So you're saying (or seemed to be saying) that in ST's case you did refute visuals with dialog, while in SW's case you refuted dialog with visuals because SW is consistent in its VFX, to which I showed you it wasn't always...

I really don't care whether you prefer dialog or visuals, but what I am saying is that you use the same standards of analysis for both franchises, or you are being dishonest in your debates.
If you feel that is trolling, too bad for you, but then you must feel the truth is trolling...

[Picard]

Dialogue is always closer to "creators intent" level, since it is not uncommon for VFX crew to screw up, so I guess it should trump visuals if there is unsolvable contradiction.

[Praeothmin]

Dialogue is always closer to "creators intent" level, since it is not uncommon for VFX crew to screw up, so I guess it should trump visuals if there is unsolvable contradiction.

But then it should trump visuals for both franchises, not just one.
That was my point...

[Mr. Oragahn]

The trouble is... creator intent is a good thing, but in the end, they produced a show, not a book. :)
And yes, I know, that doesn't help.

[Picard]

I said that for both franchises... althought that leaves problem with Star Wars cloak, since we don't know how it exactly operates.

EDIT: Unless something is mentioned in TV series'. If it is, please enlighten me.

[Lucky]

So you're saying (or seemed to be saying) that in ST's case you did refute visuals with dialog, while in SW's case you refuted dialog with visuals because SW is consistent in its VFX, to which I showed you it wasn't always...

I really expected better from you then a straw man.

I was clearly stating that you have to take as much evidence as possible, and then analyze it to see if it reliable.

The problem with star Trek is that once you analyze the data you find the visuals don't make sense often, and the VFX crew admit it. If the VFX are unreliable then you must use dialog which in the case of weapons ranges for Star trek is very consistent, they even give you a safe minimum range to be when a ship blows up. Do you have any idea how big the ships shown in Sacrifice of the Angels have to be to make sense?

In Star Wars you have the novelizations to compare to the movies and TV show. There is no way for VFX crews to screw-up written text. It's just Star Wars bad luck the text tends to match the visuals.

It is impossible to know the exact Death Star-II's size because of the sloppy way the VFXs were done.

I really don't care whether you prefer dialog or visuals, but what I am saying is that you use the same standards of analysis for both franchises, or you are being dishonest in your debates.
If you feel that is trolling, too bad for you, but then you must feel the truth is trolling...

One has to take all the information into consideration. If there is no reason to doubt the speaker then one must logically except what is being said as at least possibility being true. It's you and StarWarsStarTrek that are being dishonest. The two of would not be using an obvious straw man otherwise.

Is there even a single instance of ranges being given in G or T canon?

[Praeothmin]

I really expected better from you then a straw man.

If by strawman you mean "put me in front of what I said", then I guess it is a strawman...

I was clearly stating that you have to take as much evidence as possible, and then analyze it to see if it reliable.

Then I misunderstood your meaning.

The problem with star Trek is that once you analyze the data you find the visuals don't make sense often, and the VFX crew admit it. If the VFX are unreliable then you must use dialog which in the case of weapons ranges for Star trek is very consistent, they even give you a safe minimum range to be when a ship blows up. Do you have any idea how big the ships shown in Sacrifice of the Angels have to be to make sense?

In Star Wars you have the novelizations to compare to the movies and TV show. There is no way for VFX crews to screw-up written text. It's just Star Wars bad luck the text tends to match the visuals

And this is where I disagree, and it seems I had not misunderstood your meaning after all.
While the VFX isn't perfect in ST, it is most of the time consistent.
The E-D always looks the same, things behave the same way most of the time (Phasers, going to Warp), etc, etc...
It is normal that in more then 700 hours of television, there will be some inconsistencies, but you cannot always dismiss the VFX when you feel like it in ST, and not do the same thing in SW.
As I have shown you , again multiple times, VFX in SW is not fully consistent either (MF size, ISD size, DS size)...

And also, once you've taken all the information available, and you've quantified it, you need to average it out if you wish to be honest, you cannot simply take the high end examples and then rationalize away the low ends because you don't like them...

It's you and StarWarsStarTrek that are being dishonest.

You will now provide evidence I'm being dishonest...

Is there even a single instance of ranges being given in G or T canon?

No verbal numbers, but plenty of visual evidence that points to many km sometimes, and in certain cases, hundreds to thousands of km.
Yes, these examples are much smaller ranges then the high end for ST, but they are there nonetheless, and compare to the average Trek ranges...

[Lucky]

If by strawman you mean "put me in front of what I said", then I guess it is a strawman...

More like ignored context of a statement, and what was written in easy to understand English, a straw man.

Then I misunderstood your meaning.

That is correct, but your pride won't let you stick with this as shown below.

And this is where I disagree, and it seems I had not misunderstood your meaning after all.
While the VFX isn't perfect in ST, it is most of the time consistent.

I already provided evidence to the contrary. If ship sizes are changed for dramatic effect like in Star Gate and Star trek then you can't tell how far apart ships are.

Start providing evidence or concede. I already have provided evidence.

It is normal that in more then 700 hours of television, there will be some inconsistencies, but you cannot always dismiss the VFX when you feel like it in ST, and not do the same thing in SW.

Strange how I said we check the novelizations against the movies and TV shows. We don't have novels as canon for Star Trek to check against

As I have shown you , again multiple times, VFX in SW is not fully consistent either (MF size, ISD size, DS size)...

Funny how I said we can't actual know their exact sizes from the movies.

We can look at the models used to make the effects for at least some of them, but then I don't recall all the models being the same scale. We can get some reasonable guesses for ISDs, and the MF.

You will now provide evidence I'm being dishonest...

The above and below quotes would be some good examples.

No verbal numbers, but plenty of visual evidence that points to many km sometimes, and in certain cases, hundreds to thousands of km.

You are admitting we can't use dialog to judge ranges in Star Wars because it doesn't exist, but you are accusing me of being dishonest for not using dialog to judge ranges in Star Wars?

You don't see a problem here?

Yes, these examples are much smaller ranges then the high end for ST, but they are there nonetheless, and compare to the average Trek ranges...

Why can't you rap your mind around the fact I'm not only using visuals to analyze Star Wars, and have been saying as much from the start.

Are you seriously arguing that ships in Star Trek change size for no reason?

[Praeothmin]

Lucky, I think I've misundestood your point completely, and in all these posts, it's easy to lose track of what's being conveyed.
So let me ask you directly, and I'll get a direct answer, and I'll know exactly what you think:
Do you judge ST by using "Dialog trumps Visuals" most of the time?
Do you judge SW by using "Dialog trumps Visuals" most of the time?
(this of course implies WHEN there is dialog about what we are seing)

There, so that way, I will not misunderstand you, and my answers will not seem like those "strawman" you like to mention so much... :)

[Lucky]

Lucky, I think I've misundestood your point completely, and in all these posts, it's easy to lose track of what's being conveyed.
So let me ask you directly, and I'll get a direct answer, and I'll know exactly what you think:
Do you judge ST by using "Dialog trumps Visuals" most of the time?
Do you judge SW by using "Dialog trumps Visuals" most of the time?
(this of course implies WHEN there is dialog about what we are seing)

There, so that way, I will not misunderstand you, and my answers will not seem like those "strawman" you like to mention so much... :)

It's not a black and white issue, and is muddled further by a series canon policy.

Star Wars canon policy states the latest version of the movies are the highest canon, and characters don't say much that helps us figure out ranges and firepower. You are kind of stuck using visuals for Star Wars, but at least the lower canon novelizations of the movies tend to give results similar to the visuals of the movies.

For Star Trek you have a canon policy that may actually say that what is seen and stated on screen may not be canon, and at the very least leave dialog as equally canon as visuals.[quote="07.10.2003
How do the Star Trek novels and comic books fit into the Star Trek universe? What is considered Star Trek "canon"?"]As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. [/quote]
______
As to your question I go with what matches the plot, and known abilities/skills/knowledge/weaknesses best.

If a character says something, and they should know what they are talking about, but the visuals don't match then I assume the visuals are wrong.

If the plot demands something be possible, but visuals don't match then visuals are wrong.

I think ya got the idea.