I challenge darkstar to a debate

[Mr. Oragahn]

That's quite a problem. Even forums with absolutely no frontpage get listed pretty high on search engines. Mind you, "star trek star wars forum" had SDN appear at the top of the third page.

[Praeothmin]

That being said, I expect you guys to remain on best behavior. I don't want you trolling or anything else at SWST, as I don't want to give him or anyone else ammunition for claims of bias and hypocrisy.
-Mike

I don't want anybody Trolling at all, or else we WILL be hypocrits...
There are no excuses for Trolling, even in response to someone else's Trolling...

Exactly. Now the next question I have is this; does SWST's denial of his behavior count in and of itself as dishonesty, and thus grounds for a warning and a ban?
-Mike

I say "Yes", because every time we present these arguments to him, he acts as if they have never been presented, and every time we mention his behavior, behavior he was warned and banned many times for, he again acts as if it's not true, even though this behavior is documented, and arguments have been presented to him, again, many times over.
And by the way, the ban should be 4 weeks, since you need to double the previous Bans, and his last one was for two weeks...

[Mike DiCenso]

Well, there you go, Praeo.
-Mike

[StarWarsStarTrek]

I say "Yes", because every time we present these arguments to him, he acts as if they have never been presented, and every time we mention his behavior, behavior he was warned and banned many times for, he again acts as if it's not true, even though this behavior is documented, and arguments have been presented to him, again, many times over.
And by the way, the ban should be 4 weeks, since you need to double the previous Bans, and his last one was for two weeks...

And there have been various posts I made that you have not responded to either. I have posted in my defense multiple times, and 90%+ of the time it is completely ignored, whether intentionally or not.

Why don't you actually talk to me about it one one one, through PM's or something, rather than referring to me in third person?

Exactly. Now the next question I have is this; does SWST's denial of his behavior count in and of itself as dishonesty, and thus grounds for a warning and a ban?
-Mike

Any legal system that lists defending your behavior alone as grounds for punishments is not fit to exist.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Any legal system that lists defending your behavior alone as grounds for punishments is not fit to exist.

Now this i agree with, however Perjury is a crime.

[Praeothmin]

Well, there you go, Praeo.
-Mike

Well then, there HE goes then...

[KSW]

Any legal system that lists defending your behavior alone as grounds for punishments is not fit to exist.

Now this i agree with, however Perjury is a crime.

That depends on what your definition of "is" is LOL

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Well, there you go, Praeo.
-Mike

Well then, there HE goes then...

So defending myself through argument is wrong now? That I "denied" evidence, despite the fact that I never did such a thing, and instead argued the interpretation of said evidence you brought forth? That being presented with evidence of "thousands" of Acclamators at a battlefield and yet then turning around and saying that I have no evidence and that my case rests on "because I say so" is not refusal to acknowledge/denial of evidence?

Why are you so obsessed with strawman arguments? Why do you love to hurl false accusations at me, and when I clearly and concisely explain to you how you misunderstood my position, your response is to completely ignore my post and just mock it like you did now?

Here are a few facts:

Evidence =/= proof
Interpretation of evidence =/= absolute
Request for evidence =/= denial of existence =/= accusations of dishonesty
Defending oneself =/= wrong
Trolling =/= unintentionally missing posts
Time =/= unlimited

[Admiral Breetai]

hey SWST how about you follow this mans advice and shut the fuck up

[Picard]

Evidence =/= proof
Interpretation of evidence =/= absolute
Request for evidence =/= denial of existence =/= accusations of dishonesty
Defending oneself =/= wrong

All of which you are just too happy to ignore.

What about your claim about Empire having trillions of ships?

You claimed it. No proof, and no evidence.
You could not interpret evidence beacouse you did not provide any. But you are too happy to interpret other evidence your way.
You are completely right to defend yourself... and your theories... but in latter case, you have to bring some proof. If you don't have time, simply do it later when you catch some time.

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... &start=120

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Evidence =/= proof
Interpretation of evidence =/= absolute
Request for evidence =/= denial of existence =/= accusations of dishonesty
Defending oneself =/= wrong

All of which you are just too happy to ignore.

What about your claim about Empire having trillions of ships?


You claimed it. No proof, and no evidence.

Sure I did:

You have no industrial capabilities, and have to deal with one that can construct a Death Star in a year and maintain the giant cityscape of Coruscant. Millions (billions?) of shipyards that produce billions of private ships every year (or trillions; any less and ships would be so impossibly rare that only the super-super elite could afford them, which ANH deomstrates is false, and the RotS: novel confirms a population of "quadrillions") means that the SW private sector is also impossibly larger than the entire Alpha Quadrant.

Just to name one.

You could not interpret evidence beacouse you did not provide any. But you are too happy to interpret other evidence your way.
You are completely right to defend yourself... and your theories... but in latter case, you have to bring some proof. If you don't have time, simply do it later when you catch some time.

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... &start=120

Please specify which post in that page you feel that I have ignored.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Evidence =/= proof
Interpretation of evidence =/= absolute
Request for evidence =/= denial of existence =/= accusations of dishonesty
Defending oneself =/= wrong

All of which you are just too happy to ignore.

What about your claim about Empire having trillions of ships?


You claimed it. No proof, and no evidence.

Sure I did:

You have no industrial capabilities, and have to deal with one that can construct a Death Star in a year and maintain the giant cityscape of Coruscant. Millions (billions?) of shipyards that produce billions of private ships every year (or trillions; any less and ships would be so impossibly rare that only the super-super elite could afford them, which ANH deomstrates is false, and the RotS: novel confirms a population of "quadrillions") means that the SW private sector is also impossibly larger than the entire Alpha Quadrant.

Just to name one.

You could not interpret evidence beacouse you did not provide any. But you are too happy to interpret other evidence your way.
You are completely right to defend yourself... and your theories... but in latter case, you have to bring some proof. If you don't have time, simply do it later when you catch some time.

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... &start=120

Please specify which post in that page you feel that I have ignored.

Where the heck did you get the idea that any of the Death Stars were built in one year.
The first one started, by Lucas' word, at least at the end of the Clone Wars, and we don't know when the construction of the skeleton actually begun. Clearly there wouldn't be a need for 20 years to fill a sphere when the nascent Empire could already make that in one year.
The second Death Star took at least four years to be built, and wasn't even finished in ROTJ. Notice, by the way, that its dimensions were changed, meaning that they were working from new blueprints, requiring reworking all from scratch (you cannot arbitrarily increase the size of superstructures). Which regarding the construction time of the first Death Star, begs for an explanation as to how construction time got sped up that much: 2nd battle station nearly twice as big as the first, and 4 years of construction instead of 20, that's 10 times faster. This could only come at the great cost of cannibalizing huge amounts of other industries.
Anything it could put into the construction of those battle stations, it couldn't put into the construction of anything else worth the same cost, mass or volume.
And you couldn't claim that Palpatine would rather build a fleet of ships instead, first because there's no evidence he could get enough people to man those ships (in comparison, the vast majority of figures for the DSI population show a very low population density, from engineers to military forces), and secondly, because it wouldn't be Palpatine, it wouldn't be the Empire. Palpatine chose to make one battle station (movie evidence), and insisted to go one notch up when the first one got nuked. He didn't give a shit about naval power. This actually proved to be his undoing.

So it's true that a functional Death Star would be a problem, especially the second one with its full shield and better superlaser and greater volume, logically meaning for support ships and more personnel, but they don't pop out of nowhere after a year.

[Mike DiCenso]

Where the heck did you get the idea that any of the Death Stars were built in one year.
The first one started, by Lucas' word, at least at the end of the Clone Wars, and we don't know when the construction of the skeleton actually begun. Clearly there wouldn't be a need for 20 years to fill a sphere when the nascent Empire could already make that in one year.

The thing about the Death Stars' construction is that we have little knowledge of how it progresses outside of some EU speculation. RoTS strongly indicates that the first thing to be built is the cylinderical north-south central power core section, and then the lattice-like structure of the outer sphere is established, though we can't tell if it is done in a series of built up layers, like an onion, or a very outer shell is constructed and then filled in. We have in the highest canon only seen a very early stage of construction or a relatively late 50-60% completion stage. With the DS-I, we do see an early placement for the superlaser structural support framework and possibly some systems.
-Mike

[mojo]

Where the heck did you get the idea that any of the Death Stars were built in one year.
The first one started, by Lucas' word, at least at the end of the Clone Wars, and we don't know when the construction of the skeleton actually begun. Clearly there wouldn't be a need for 20 years to fill a sphere when the nascent Empire could already make that in one year.
The second Death Star took at least four years to be built, and wasn't even finished in ROTJ. Notice, by the way, that its dimensions were changed, meaning that they were working from new blueprints, requiring reworking all from scratch (you cannot arbitrarily increase the size of superstructures). Which regarding the construction time of the first Death Star, begs for an explanation as to how construction time got sped up that much: 2nd battle station nearly twice as big as the first, and 4 years of construction instead of 20, that's 10 times faster. This could only come at the great cost of cannibalizing huge amounts of other industries.
Anything it could put into the construction of those battle stations, it couldn't put into the construction of anything else worth the same cost, mass or volume.
And you couldn't claim that Palpatine would rather build a fleet of ships instead, first because there's no evidence he could get enough people to man those ships (in comparison, the vast majority of figures for the DSI population show a very low population density, from engineers to military forces), and secondly, because it wouldn't be Palpatine, it wouldn't be the Empire. Palpatine chose to make one battle station (movie evidence), and insisted to go one notch up when the first one got nuked. He didn't give a shit about naval power. This actually proved to be his undoing.

So it's true that a functional Death Star would be a problem, especially the second one with its full shield and better superlaser and greater volume, logically meaning for support ships and more personnel, but they don't pop out of nowhere after a year.

i will eat my own foot and post pics if swst is able to adequately rebut these arguments.

[Picard]

Sure I did:

No, that's claim, not proof. Now, if you have your website/blog where you have explained it, I'll be only too happy to read it. Just post the link. If you don't, however, you're required to give a proof of these claims and an explanation of how that fits canon, where we see DSI being constructed over a timespan of three to four decades (based on its state at end of RotS, two decades before ANH, where we see it only about halfway finished), and DSII over unknown amount of time, and why would Imperial bureocracy accept them unless it saves costs somehow – like, for example, reducing manpower requirements for Imperial Starfleet, reducing number of rebellions and thus further reducing manpower required by military, and so on.

Please specify which post in that page you feel that I have ignored.

Entire thread basically consists of you ignoring evidence and repeating old claims. Some of offenders:

The Republic mobilized thousands of Acclamators (ICS3) on the fly to defend Coruscant in far less than a six day span.

Why we don't see them in movies? Beacouse unarmed or lightly armed transports would have been useless.

Note that the latter was within hours of Yoda arriving at Kamino and mobilizing the entire military for the very first time. The Federation mustered 40 ships to defend Earth by comparison, and the Enterprise is frequently the only ship within range to come to the aid of X starbase or X planet. It was estimated that a transport ship would take two weeks to prepare in a life or death situation.

You ignore repeatedly pointed out fact, that Starfleet was not expecting attack to occur yet, while Republic was on war footing for around three years. Moving on.

Five seperate examples of photon torpedos being used?
Of body armor?
Of cover?

Which has all already been pointed out before. Several times, even.

Who says he didn't? A million "systems".

Can you explain, please, how million systems possibly can have fifty inhabited planets each.

Fact: Romulans were making hostile movement with 30 warbirds, this was BIG news.
Fact: Federation sent fifteen ships in retaliation.
Fact: The Republic mobilized for the first time thousands of ships to attack Geonosis in a matter of hours.
Fact: There were more than 15 ships at the battle of Coruscant.

And that despite it being known that they can muster fleets of thousands if given time. It also ignores that thrity ships is quite large danger to any less-protected world in Star Trek, as evidenced by several TOS episodes as well as "The Die is Cast" and "The Chase". So you're ignoring canon.
And, for Star Wars, it doesn't seem to be thousands of ships. All ships shown were transports, and, if we compare them to Galaxy class, each should be able to carry 10 000 – 20 000 troops. If we take machinery into equation, it could maybe drop to 1 000 – 5 000 troops. 200 000 troops were deployed, and were "a huge army", althought that could be beacouse it has just been revealed, and Geonosians believed they should have known of it. That is between forty and two hundred ships built in secret, over unspecified time; in Star Trek, two intelligence organizations of one major and one minor power were able to build twenty ships in secret.

So because you see ranges of 220 kilometers onscreen, you conclude that this must be the "upper limit" for no apparent reason at all?

For ship-vs.ship, yes, beacouse we never see them engage at longer range.

Yet many official sources list far higher range figures. Since these are not contradicted by G canon evidence, they are canon. So there is indeed evidence to the contrary of your denial, and none of it is contradicted. The only way that it would be is if a hard upper limit was established in the movies like this:

That completely ignores lack of longer ranges in capital-ship combat, even when it would have been advantageous to do so. Also, as it was already pointed out, one to two hundred kilometer ranges were considered "long", and Ackbar was vary of closing to point-blank range to ISD's due to their heavier artillery and armor. Only thing it can mean is that ships will get hit more often at closer range, or that medium turbolasers would be brought into play. Either way, it shows that they were fighting near maximum range.

And all of this has been pointed out.

None of the rest of the sentence counters the fact that the atmosphere was drifting away. If an attack did X, Y and Z, and X was the most impressive in terms of energy required, logic and science dictates that the energy of the attack was at least the energy required to do X, even if Y and Z are far less 'impressive'. To say otherwise would be silly and disingenuous.

But it does. Turbolasers that only "evenly crater surface" would not have power to remove atmosphere from a planet; mop-up operations would not have to be performed if surface is melted – which yields required to remove atmosphere would have achieved; ans troops could not have landed. Only possibility is some funky technobabble.