SoD 2008

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:36 pm

Mike Wong wrote:I wasn't aware that people could unilaterally declare issues settled.
And yet, this is exactly what he does in regards to ST vs SW.
When Alyeska says that in DS9 we see Jem'Hadar being hit at over 100 yards, even with visual evidence, he asks how Alyeska knows that the distance is indeed 100 yards, 'cause to him (MW), it doesn't look that far...

Even after Alyeska repeadedly counters every one of their arguments, they come around with these same old arguments that anyone with eyes can verufy by looking at clips and pictures and that Alyeska has previously countered.
And they say the Pro-Trek side is pig-headed? :)

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:40 pm

Praeothmin wrote:
Mike Wong wrote:I wasn't aware that people could unilaterally declare issues settled.
And yet, this is exactly what he does in regards to ST vs SW.
When Alyeska says that in DS9 we see Jem'Hadar being hit at over 100 yards, even with visual evidence, he asks how Alyeska knows that the distance is indeed 100 yards, 'cause to him (MW), it doesn't look that far...

Even after Alyeska repeadedly counters every one of their arguments, they come around with these same old arguments that anyone with eyes can verufy by looking at clips and pictures and that Alyeska has previously countered.
And they say the Pro-Trek side is pig-headed? :)
That has nothing to do with the material of this thread. So kindly knock it off. This is not about Mike Wong. It is about inaccuracies in statements made by Darkstar. If you want to discuss that particular topic, do so in another thread.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:24 pm

The trouble with the state of debate per se is that a certain frange of warsies (I stress on certain), later identified as members of SDN, have mounted a structured and sufficiently well presented front, full or ready to pick arguments for both sides, wars or trek.

Of course, many are just pure nonsense, and Robert does make good points, though he's far from being a saint either, but he's pretty much one against a whole community.

At this time, Trek has nothing like a solid community of well informed debaters. They're all disbanded, and most of the time, greatly ignorant trekkies prove to be cannon fodder for SDN, which doesn't make the trek side look good at all.

This is not a call to copy SDN in style and substance, far from that.

As for spacebattles... what's to say? The days of the "Trek triumvirate" are long gone, the versus is piloted by very pro wars people who

If I had to pick a sample from SBC's thread, I'd choose that one:
CrossoverManiac wrote:If you're talking about the Ep. 2 ICS, then yes, it's fanwank since it was written by a fan irregardless of the visuals like.
Cpl_Facehugger wrote:I find it extremely hard to consider anything in the ICS wank given the existance of the Death Star.
Just like saying US troopers carry gigajoules level rifles because the US army posseses megaton level nukes. You got to admire the ingenuity of the argument. [sigh]

Above all, you got to admit that when you get to deal with that kind of stupid logic, from a long term (and pro wars) debater, who's also an active mod of the forum in question, you know this is not going to get anywhere soon, and certainly not to any place called "intelligent discussion". I pretty much had a good taste of it when I discussed about wars' firepower, though CPL's comment was to be found in another thread, but is all to know that the situation is totally locked in favour of wars, with the wank firmly held in place.

Making a comparison of sources and data is not hard. I did it, and it's rather easy to see how ICS barely fits in that. And yes, it always returns to the ICS. It would be particularily naïve or ignorant, or even dishonest, to bash someone because he pours gripes against those EU books (including the Worlds of SW bits Saxton also placed).

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:28 pm

Entirely off topic. This has nothing to do with the point of the thread. Are you going to continue to try clouding the issue with pointless off topic discussion?

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Post by Kane Starkiller » Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:51 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Just like saying US troopers carry gigajoules level rifles because the US army posseses megaton level nukes. You got to admire the ingenuity of the argument. [sigh]
No that's not the logic at all. The logic is that if we see a B2 launch 16 bombs with the total yield of 10Mt and then later an official book comes out which claims that an F-22 can carry 200kt yield it's claim is supported by what we have seen B2 do. NO ONE is claiming that existence of Death Star (or B2) means that the yield of every Imperial/US weapon can be derived simply by scaling the firepower carried by the aforementioned craft.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:57 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Just like saying US troopers carry gigajoules level rifles because the US army posseses megaton level nukes. You got to admire the ingenuity of the argument. [sigh]
No that's not the logic at all. The logic is that if we see a B2 launch 16 bombs with the total yield of 10Mt and then later an official book comes out which claims that an F-22 can carry 200kt yield it's claim is supported by what we have seen B2 do. NO ONE is claiming that existence of Death Star (or B2) means that the yield of every Imperial/US weapon can be derived simply by scaling the firepower carried by the aforementioned craft.
Jeez, get a clue, really. He's saying there's no wank because basically the Death Star blows planets. There's not even a single bit of connection between both elements. How can you not see it? It's rather glaring.
CrossoverManiac said the ICS was full of wank, to which CPL replied that it was hardly wank since the existence of the Death Star.

Just... duh. Hello? Brain on? Someone pick up the phone?

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:00 am

Alyeska wrote:Entirely off topic. This has nothing to do with the point of the thread. Are you going to continue to try clouding the issue with pointless off topic discussion?
They're not much different either though. They're both related to the single and same post, which is all about "state of the debate 2008".
It's splitting hairs, really.
Besides, we're not going to open two threads about the same blog's post when the activity in this forum is almost dead.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:00 am

So it seems that people are hellbent on hijacking the thread and have a discussion that is not relevant to the thread.

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Post by Kane Starkiller » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:03 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Jeez, get a clue, really. He's saying there's no wank because basically the Death Star blows planets. There's not even a single bit of connection between both elements. How can you not see it? It's rather glaring.
CrossoverManiac said the ICS was full of wank, to which CPL replied that it was hardly wank since the existence of the Death Star.

Just... duh. Hello? Brain on? Someone pick up the phone?
And he is right. Death Star showed us a certain power generation density. That in itself doesn't mean they can achieve it everywhere. But it does mean that it's not wank unless someone starts exceeding those power densities. ICS neither exceeds Death Star in energy per unit of volume or total energy. So how is it wank? How would you define wank anyway?

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:10 am

All it showed was the end product work. A planet blew up. That says zero on power generation.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:14 am

At this point, the continued off topic discussion is intentional. The behavior is trollish to say the least.

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Post by Kane Starkiller » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:16 am

GStone wrote:All it showed was the end product work. A planet blew up. That says zero on power generation.
That same logic can be applied to every single event in all of scifi to which quantification attempt was made.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:27 am

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Jeez, get a clue, really. He's saying there's no wank because basically the Death Star blows planets. There's not even a single bit of connection between both elements. How can you not see it? It's rather glaring.
CrossoverManiac said the ICS was full of wank, to which CPL replied that it was hardly wank since the existence of the Death Star.

Just... duh. Hello? Brain on? Someone pick up the phone?
And he is right. Death Star showed us a certain power generation density. That in itself doesn't mean they can achieve it everywhere. But it does mean that it's not wank unless someone starts exceeding those power densities. ICS neither exceeds Death Star in energy per unit of volume or total energy. So how is it wank? How would you define wank anyway?
Wait, so basically, it's just the downscaled turbolaser argument in disguise, that is, pick the volume of your ship, reactor core or cannon bore or whatever, and multiply by "energy density".
You sure seem to read a lot in his words. Not that it matters much, because he'd have to prove that the Death Star technology can be downscaled. Which we're far from seeing any soon. Any claim in that direction would be hot air.
Besides that same old horrible leap of logic and association error, I thought CPL would be fairly aware of the recent revelations about the Death Star in the EU book related to those matters.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:28 am

Alyeska wrote:At this point, the continued off topic discussion is intentional. The behavior is trollish to say the least.
Please drop the offended attitude. It doesn't suit you well.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:41 am

Kane Starkiller wrote:
GStone wrote:All it showed was the end product work. A planet blew up. That says zero on power generation.
That same logic can be applied to every single event in all of scifi to which quantification attempt was made.
Wrong.

Your stance assumes a method of operation for how the DS works, in contradiction to the visuals shown for the movie only universe. When going to the movie+EU universe, we again see that the mechanism isn't pure DET.

When discussing the movie only universe, the visuals override the ICS. When discussing the movie+EU universe, both the ICS and the recent DS novel have equal weight in authenticity. This would mean that the ICS is an incomplete tech manual when it comes to the description in the text for the SL mechanism. So, power generation levels can not be assumed to be equal to the assuming energy for planet desctruction because the mechanism isn't purely DET. There is some use of DET, but not for the entire thing.

This is how you are wrong.

Post Reply