More Trektardism

[Darth Ruinus]

Oh Jesus, this shit just keeps coming in..

Actually, the Empire has 25,000 Star Destroyers

First off, I thought the 25,000 ISD thing was in reference to the Imperator class, but, I could be wrong.

and then a number of substantially smaller ships incapable of engaging anything more substantial than a runabout, let alone a Federation starbase or planet.

WHAT? The fucking Acclamators had heavy turrets that had more firepower than entire Trek fleets, and he says they cant engage even a runabout!

And he says a "number" when it has been stated that there were millions of otherships.

Actually, Federation ground equipment is one huge unknown. Accordingly, it's not worth talking about.

Im going to stop here, I was going to write a rebutall to each of those "advantages" but, I dont need to. JMSpock is doing that for me.

Side Note: Trektards always bring out this amazing replicator technology, but just how long would they need to be running those replicators to even get a fraction of the total amount of resources the Empire has?

[lord Martiya]

Well, some ground equipment is appeared: the handguns with the worst ergonomics of the sci-fi, the Type-III carbines, the FC assault rifles and the mighty Worfzooka. Sadly, the Worfzooka wasn't issued in the incident at AR-something, where it could be very useful.

The Type-III phaser was almost as bad as the Type-II in usefulness and ergonomics and the "Mighty Worfzooka" caused little more than shrapnel and concussion damage to a small group of soldiers. The average fragmentation grenade would cause more painful injuries without landing right in the middle of their group, where the beam hit.

I was only pointing that some ground equipment exists. It sucks, but exists (I tried to be sarcastic about the Worfzooka).

[NecronLord]

Actually, the Empire has 25,000 Star Destroyers

In other news, the Confederacy of Independant Systems took over yesterday, after finally realising that its navy outnumbered the Empire's over a hundred to one.

That number does indeed reffer to the ubiquitous Imperator/Imperial class, as far as I know. Possibly even the first (I) subtype.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Oh Jesus, this shit just keeps coming in..

Actually, the Empire has 25,000 Star Destroyers

First off, I thought the 25,000 ISD thing was in reference to the Imperator class, but, I could be wrong.

and then a number of substantially smaller ships incapable of engaging anything more substantial than a runabout, let alone a Federation starbase or planet.

WHAT? The fucking Acclamators had heavy turrets that had more firepower than entire Trek fleets, and he says they cant engage even a runabout!

And he says a "number" when it has been stated that there were millions of otherships.

Actually, Federation ground equipment is one huge unknown. Accordingly, it's not worth talking about.

Im going to stop here, I was going to write a rebutall to each of those "advantages" but, I dont need to. JMSpock is doing that for me.

Side Note: Trektards always bring out this amazing replicator technology, but just how long would they need to be running those replicators to even get a fraction of the total amount of resources the Empire has?

The more you debate the guy, the easier it gets as he leaves himself wide open on so many things. The gound combat thing is a perfect example

[TC Pilot]

In other news, the Confederacy of Independant Systems took over yesterday, after finally realising that its navy outnumbered the Empire's over a hundred to one.

That number does indeed reffer to the ubiquitous Imperator/Imperial class, as far as I know. Possibly even the first (I) subtype.

Pellaeon may only have been referring to the Empire's strategic battle fleet, and ignoring ships that had been attached to sectoral garrisons and patrol, or the other way around, and it was certainly only Impstars (it's doubtful he was only talking about Mk. I's, since Chimaera is an Mk. II), ignoring the millions of smaller ships (Tectors, Venators, Acclamators, Victories, Carracks, Strikes, Dreadnoughts, etc etc etc) that are within the same size bracket as virtually every Federation starship. And then there are the behemoths like Executor, albiet only a handful.

Of course, this ignores the fact that the Empire blatantly lied about its military strength on any number of occasions, which Publius points out in his Oversector article.

Even if we take the 25,000 ISDs as correct, that still gives an average thousand Star Destroys a year, on top of all the troop, crew, and officer training, starfighter production, ground vehicle construction, lesser capital ships, Death Stars, SSDs that's going on, which already dwarfs what ST powers can manage, all while being "held back," so to speak, by penny-pinching Senators.

[Vympel]

No, that's not what the Death Star novel says, it says that "much" of the planet's mass was shifted into hyperspace.

Watch the semantics of SFJtards when they try and pretend the Death Star novel helps them. They'll use anything other than what the novel actually says. The quote explicitly says that much of the planet's mass is given a superluminal boost into hyperspace by the superlaser, fed by the hypermatter reactor. Here's what they turn it into:-

Especially since we know that a significant mass of the planet is sucked into hyperspace through an unquantifiable mechanism, which means that all those nifty calcs about energy needed to overcome gravity binding are in need of some severe lowering as well.

See? The Death Star isn't boosting much of a planet's mass past c, it's just making the mass get sucked in! Why, the firepower to do that is probably no more than a few megawatts!

[skies]

No, that's not what the Death Star novel says, it says that "much" of the planet's mass was shifted into hyperspace.

Watch the semantics of SFJtards when they try and pretend the Death Star novel helps them. They'll use anything other than what the novel actually says. The quote explicitly says that much of the planet's mass is given a superluminal boost into hyperspace by the superlaser, fed by the hypermatter reactor. Here's what they turn it into:-

Especially since we know that a significant mass of the planet is sucked into hyperspace through an unquantifiable mechanism, which means that all those nifty calcs about energy needed to overcome gravity binding are in need of some severe lowering as well.

See? The Death Star isn't boosting much of a planet's mass past c, it's just making the mass get sucked in! Why, the firepower to do that is probably no more than a few megawatts!

Which also causes the amazing effect of a simultaneous explosion and implosion. Now how do they explain away the flaw in their theory that somehow the outer crust of the planet gets dispersed, yet the interior of the planet gets sucked into hyperspace?

[Zablorg]

I hereby give all those who participated in this debate the Zablorg's Medal of Honor.

For what it's worth.

[Darth Wong]

See? The Death Star isn't boosting much of a planet's mass past c, it's just making the mass get sucked in! Why, the firepower to do that is probably no more than a few megawatts!

And of course, if a Star Trek device was created which could push most of a planet into warp, they would promptly generate fantastic energy output figures for this event, probably comparable to the destruction of a galaxy.

[Zablorg]

It would be so cool if I made another account, claimed that the federation made something similar to the Death Star, "forget" the episode name, and then they go along and agree with me, simply because it sounds good.

[skies]

See? The Death Star isn't boosting much of a planet's mass past c, it's just making the mass get sucked in! Why, the firepower to do that is probably no more than a few megawatts!

And of course, if a Star Trek device was created which could push most of a planet into warp, they would promptly generate fantastic energy output figures for this event, probably comparable to the destruction of a galaxy.

On the bright side however, pushing most of the planet's mass into hyperspace does get rid of Saxton's Endor holocaust concerns His view was that the energy output of the death star's destruction would decimate Endor's biosphere, but since the bulk of the death star's mass and energy was pushed into hyperspace, Endor would be relatively unaffected.

As for the trekkie equivalent you mention, that seems to be typical of the double-standard they apply to any vs debate. Star Wars, or any other universe, is represented by only the absolute minimum in power estimates as being standard. When it comes to Star Trek, however, they always seem to assume the maximum in power, as well as assuming that any one-shot-wonders used as plot devices automatically become standard Federation tech that can be developed, manufactured, and deployed on a fleet-wide basis overnight, despite the fact that we never actually see them do so in the actual show when in dire straights (the Dominion war being the best example).

[Zablorg]

What a fool. Let's see, are your parents supporting you?

Err, no, he implied that they weren't...

You are wrong about calling people retards, but you are too bitter and simpleminded to see that simple fact.

Or you simply can't rebut it.

Perhaps you are too dense to understand simple facts based on your miniscule track record here, Jabba.

What a fucktard.

[Teleros]

On the bright side however, pushing most of the planet's mass into hyperspace does get rid of Saxton's Endor holocaust concerns His view was that the energy output of the death star's destruction would decimate Endor's biosphere, but since the bulk of the death star's mass and energy was pushed into hyperspace, Endor would be relatively unaffected.

The Death Star's superlaser shunted some of the mass into hyperspace - do we know if the reactor would've (even could have) done the same thing to the DS2 in an explosion?

[General Soontir Fel]

On the bright side however, pushing most of the planet's mass into hyperspace does get rid of Saxton's Endor holocaust concerns His view was that the energy output of the death star's destruction would decimate Endor's biosphere, but since the bulk of the death star's mass and energy was pushed into hyperspace, Endor would be relatively unaffected.

The Death Star's superlaser shunted some of the mass into hyperspace - do we know if the reactor would've (even could have) done the same thing to the DS2 in an explosion?

The "ring" around the explosion is caused by the shift into hyperspace. So there was such a shift in the explosions of Alderaan, DS1, and DS2, while there wasn't in the destruction of the Rebel carrier and Despayre in the novel, and in the destruction of the Liberty in ROTJ, as indicated by the respective presence or absence of the ring.

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps you are too dense to understand simple facts based on your miniscule track record here, Jabba.

What a fucktard.

He's judging intelligence by seniority on a message board?

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Of course this is all boring, and since there is no demonstrable, real life way to prove these fictional concepts the whole VS thing is ludicrous.

Careful, you're starting to sound like HuskerJay there. In case you hadn't noticed, we do actually use science to analyse the material :logical:

Some bullshit cannot go unchallenged

[Darth Wong]

The "we can't use science" argument is ancient and stupid. The same people who say this appeal to things like technological superiority or firepower, both of which are concepts grounded in science.

[Coiler]

After debating/watching the debates over at SFJ for so long, I've come to the conclusion that they can counter any points you make simply by making stuff up.

[Tribun]

After debating/watching the debates over at SFJ for so long, I've come to the conclusion that they can counter any points you make simply by making stuff up.

In that regard they are exactly like Creationists, who employ the same tactic.
It actually wouldn't make me wonder if at least a number of SFJ members toy with YEC ideas. The thought pattern certainly is already there. Also they seem to be a bunch of NeoCons, as recently observed.

[skies]

After debating/watching the debates over at SFJ for so long, I've come to the conclusion that they can counter any points you make simply by making stuff up.

In that regard they are exactly like Creationists, who employ the same tactic.
It actually wouldn't make me wonder if at least a number of SFJ members toy with YEC ideas. The thought pattern certainly is already there. Also they seem to be a bunch of NeoCons, as recently observed.

And just like creationists, they ignore the bulk of the evidence in favor of the one outlier that they think supports their view. Or more commonly, they look at the one outlier that they think invalidates their opponent's argument, with the tacit assumption that their argument then automatically wins by default. That's what so maddening about this type of debate, they're so sure that they're right that they think the burden of proof is on their challengers. In fact, they act as if any challenge to their viewpoint is ridiculous, and therefore must be held to a higher standard of proof that their own.

Have you noticed how JMSpock always adds qualifiers to his arguments? He often states "it's indisputable", "without a doubt", "clearly", or some such. An honest researcher never tells you what conclusions to reach. In fact, such language is usually a tell that the author in insecure about their conclusions, and so resorts to qualifiers to nudge the reader towards their point of view. You never use those sorts of qualifiers except for truly undisputed facts, not with the main points of contention. If I came across with that sort of attitude in my work, my research would get rejected left and right at conferences and in journals.

[skies]

On the bright side however, pushing most of the planet's mass into hyperspace does get rid of Saxton's Endor holocaust concerns His view was that the energy output of the death star's destruction would decimate Endor's biosphere, but since the bulk of the death star's mass and energy was pushed into hyperspace, Endor would be relatively unaffected.

The Death Star's superlaser shunted some of the mass into hyperspace - do we know if the reactor would've (even could have) done the same thing to the DS2 in an explosion?

The "ring" around the explosion is caused by the shift into hyperspace. So there was such a shift in the explosions of Alderaan, DS1, and DS2, while there wasn't in the destruction of the Rebel carrier and Despayre in the novel, and in the destruction of the Liberty in ROTJ, as indicated by the respective presence or absence of the ring.

Is there canon evidence about that ring indicating a shift to hyperspace? I haven't read the death star book.

[Lord Poe]

He's judging intelligence by seniority on a message board?

Amazing how an online Thesaurus gives one such an overinflated sense of themselves!

[Darth Servo]

The "we can't use science" argument is ancient and stupid. The same people who say this appeal to things like technological superiority or firepower, both of which are concepts grounded in science.

You should have seen Husker (DM) Jay's response to that.

"Well, we can tell that the death star has more firepower than, say, a snow speeder. Just look at it. You just can't measure it since its all fake."

[Junghalli]

Have you noticed how JMSpock always adds qualifiers to his arguments? He often states "it's indisputable", "without a doubt", "clearly", or some such. An honest researcher never tells you what conclusions to reach.

Really, language like that in a "scientific" analyses of is often a good indicator of somebody who doesn't really understand the scientific method very well if you ask me. In my science class labs and in posts on message boards where I try to analyse something I notice I end up constantly using "weasel words" like "it's probable" or "likely the case" or "we can reasonably conclude". And real scientists almost always couch unproven theories in such language. Science is a matter of picking the interpretation that best fits the evidence and saying that's probably what's happening, not coming to a conclusion and going "ahh, this must be the absolute truth, nobody in their right mind could possibly dispute me!" If somebody's analyzing something as contradictory, vague, and open to interpretation as your average movie in any real depth and is peppering his analyses with "without a doubts" and "indisputables" everywhere it's probably a sign he's at least overstating the certainty of his conclusions, if not being dishonest.

See? The Death Star isn't boosting much of a planet's mass past c, it's just making the mass get sucked in! Why, the firepower to do that is probably no more than a few megawatts!

I hate to sound like I may be supporting these guys in any way, but how the heck would you quantify the energy it takes to "boost much of the planet's mass past c" anyway? By definition a process like that has to involve some sort of funky technobabble, because otherwise it would take more than infinite energy, which just plain doesn't even make sense.

[skies]

Have you noticed how JMSpock always adds qualifiers to his arguments? He often states "it's indisputable", "without a doubt", "clearly", or some such. An honest researcher never tells you what conclusions to reach.

Really, language like that in a "scientific" analyses of is often a good indicator of somebody who doesn't really understand the scientific method very well if you ask me. In my science class labs and in posts on message boards where I try to analyse something I notice I end up constantly using "weasel words" like "it's probable" or "likely the case" or "we can reasonably conclude". And real scientists almost always couch unproven theories in such language. Science is a matter of picking the interpretation that best fits the evidence and saying that's probably what's happening, not coming to a conclusion and going "ahh, this must be the absolute truth, nobody in their right mind could possibly dispute me!" If somebody's analyzing something as contradictory, vague, and open to interpretation as your average movie in any real depth and is peppering his analyses with "without a doubts" and "indisputables" everywhere it's probably a sign he's at least overstating the certainty of his conclusions, if not being dishonest.

And that's just the point. Good science is about presenting your argument in clear concise terms while addressing your own argument's weaknesses, which is something else I notice the Trektards never do. You let your argument stand on its own strengths. In my experience, the researchers that actually know what they're doing not only report in a straightforward manner, they quickly cut through the dross of bad research and get to the meat of the issue. "Weasel words" have no effect on the opinions of the researchers that count, and probably have a negative effect.