DWvsATJ commentary thread.

[Connor MacLeod]

Lets keep in mind that these "docking bays" are designed to be resistant to the exhaust of starships that eject charged particles/ions out the back of their ship at near-lightspeed. The ships themeslves are in the tens of hundreds of tons, minimum.

As for the Darksaber quote, I'm still waiting for AJT's reasoning why we should take it literally, since it does not mention Daala actually doing anything that suggests the staff/pole she "ripped" was firmly anchored or that she tore bolts, particularily when we already KNOW that humans could not possibly do this.

[MKSheppard]

This kid is so stupid it's painful.

[MKSheppard]

as well as CockRocket

Oh man! You're bringing back memories! I got sent a copy of
the fanfic the LT wrote when he destroyed CockRocket while
I was in jail! It was fucking funny

[Ender]

This week needs to hurry the hell up, I want to see his response.

[CmdrWilkens]

as well as CockRocket

Oh man! You're bringing back memories! I got sent a copy of
the fanfic the LT wrote when he destroyed CockRocket while
I was in jail! It was fucking funny

You truly missed where I got to toy with him so that he actually started pretending he was my friend before I started fucking with his head. Oh it was glorious...I can see Blue.

[Ghost Rider]

This week needs to hurry the hell up, I want to see his response.

In this week...pfft I'm not betting money...course with someone that dumb...sure why not.

Maybe he'll re-rewrite what he wrote to Wong.

And get smashed again.

[Ender]

Friday, where is the chickenshit?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Friday, where is the chickenshit?

Probably out playing in the sandbox with the other little children.

[LordShaithis]

So is the little weenie never coming back, or what?

[Ryoga]

Oh, great. He's back.

Anyone else find his comment about "concrete walls made of a material that an angry woman can bend" hilarious? Methinks the child isn't doing so well in his English courses either....

[Joe Momma]

Oh, great. He's back.

After reading his bullshit strawman arguments, I think I liked him better when I thought he was just a chickenshit. At least Sovereign knew when to make a tactical retreat.

-- Joe Momma

[Ender]

The length of the time for my reply is summed up thusly: "It take longer to come up with the truth than to spout a lie."

Confucius says "You're full of shit."

Besides, I had the SAT to study for. Bite me, Wong Harem Members. I'm here to bitch slap your leader with a dose of reason.

Unhuh.

Ah, it took you many days to find a spare half-hour, rather than being shamed into finally responding by everyones' resounding mockery. Yeah, right.

The mockery of fools no longer bothers me.

That would explain why you titled this about you are not a coward then?

That would only be true if the canon films explicitly said that they use no neutronium at all in their hulls. You obviously don't know what the word "override" means. I suggest an investment in a basic dictionary.

BTW, it is a strawman distortion to claim that I think they're using "neutronium hulls", which implies that neutronium constitutes the majority substance. And on top of that, neutronium-impregnated hull material comes from a canon source anyway (the ICS books have been declared canon)

A "canon" source which is regarded only as canon as the EU continuity (that is, not at all).

Ah, vintage Bobby. Unfortunately the fact that Church makes a clear distinction between the ICS and the rest of the EU blows that out of the argument.

Besides that, the ICS author made "educated guesses" towards the specs of the ships and vehicles he drew, none of which was seen in the films (which are maintained as the "primary canon"). How eagerly you accept outrageous figures if it helps your side in any way. Jackal.

I can, and have, generated far higher numbers then what are in that book based solely on the movies and the Dankayo bombardment.

You're still not getting it, are you? This is a simple matter of geometry; with a sufficiently thin rod, it doesn't matter how strong it is; it will still bend. Do you honestly need this explained to you?

According to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q
=staff ) is that it is a stout object,even for the walking version . . . a slender walking-stick would be a cane, not a staff. Ie, something that's not supposed to be easily breakable and is NOT thin. And yet, a pissed-off woman bent it. Ouch, that would be such a chore.

You still have not established a thickness for the rod, or demonstrated anything remotely resembling comprehension of basic material science.

Who cares? The point is that on metallic targets, phasers have never demonstrated serious power, while blasters can tear through starship bulkheads and walls.

Oh yes, concrete walls and bulkheads made out of a material an emotional woman can bend. I'm shaking. What about Saavik's obliteration of a metallic pot in ST:VI? While not a particulary impressive display of power, it removes your false assumption about the idea that phasers cannot pierce metallic objects.

So much for you being busy, that nice little bit of evidence was put forth by members here.

Further, do you not get the fact that extremely thin metal will be less resistant then thicker metal of crates?

Keep in mind the fact that, in "The Arsenal of Freedom", Tasha notes that whatever melted the tritanium was "beyond our technology".

So, are you hell bent on shooting your own argument in the foot?

Starfleet hulls and bulkheads are built of tritanium ("The Managerie" [TOS], "Threshold" [VGR]), an "exotic metallic alloy". An alloy that, combined with the ever popular duranium, would have to be pretty damn tough to take the kind of strains that would be found at FTL speeds.

Yes, hence the presence of Structural Integrity Fields, their materials can't take the stress so they need the SIF to hold together.
Forget shooting yourself in the foot, you appear to be trying to shoot your argument in the nuts.

A single dust partical at 99.9999% of c alone has it's mass increased (thanks to Relativity) by roughly 66,000 times. Even with shields and deflectors, the hull materials have to be tough too in such an enviroment.

No, it wouldn't, that’s the POINT of shields and deflectors. You have them to make up for a weaker hull.

It does not seem illogical to assume that the bulkhead materials of a starship are strong enough to absorb phaser blasts without any real trouble. In "Where Silence Has Lease (TNG)", Riker is scanning the walls of the duplicate USS Yamato when he comments "They're not tritanium". This means that tritanium IS in the bulkheads, so no argument for them being some other material cannot be made.

Of course there will be tritanium in the walls, those are the cross braces and frame of the hull. But you would need to establish that the very plastic looking wall coverings are the same material. I really can't believe this, the walls of a skyscraper will contain steel, but the walls themselves are made out of plywood, insulation, and a few other materials, not steel.

However, in "Insurrection Alpha (VGR)", we did indeed see a door being blasted apart by Maquis rebel phasers (sure, it was a holographic simulation, but it was written by Tuvok, so it seems logical that he'd have been as accurate with the situation as possible). The doors might have been made of replicated wood for all we know, but it seems more likely they were simply made of thinner duranium, or a less dense alloy. In any event, it destroys your remark about phasers not being able to blow apart doors or other obstructions if put to the test.

You just said you couldn't prove a single thing about it!

Show me evidence of all this water vapour, which would cause severe burn injuries to everyone near the victim. Oh wait, you can't do that, can you?

And neither can you.

That's the point kid.

However, considering that they HAVE mentioned on-air vaporizations with phasers, and the fact we've seen people "vanish" thanks to energy weapons, it seemed logical to assume that they were "vaporized".

Except for the fact that it is utterly inconsistent with vaporization, yes, we might be able to conclude that.

Perhaps so quickly that the vapor was reduced to lone particles-It's difficult to speculate on this.

It's only difficult for those without a brain kid. You now want to throw out conservation of mass and have 10 kilos of water be reduced to a few particles.

Wrong again. I strongly suggest you look up the definition of "chain reaction". A conventional laser will not continue to heat a target after it's been shut off, whereas a chain reaction will.

Perhaps, but the effects of an energy weapon are never "instantaneous". Ergo, it is the reaction between the energy of the blast and the matter of the target.

Which is totally different from a "chain reaction".

And yes, phaser do use nadion beams to disassemble molecules on the sub-atomic level-It still requires a great deal of energy to actually DO anything of the sort we've seen phasers do. Just because they're "purely" chain reaction weapons (as you implied) does not make them weak-It in fact makes them more powerful, if they can cause the structure of an object to simply fall apart.

In terms of raw energy, and given the limitations we constantly see in their target depended ness, yes, it does make them weak.

Thanks, I already did ("Insurrection Alpha" VGR). BTW, that was with one shot to the door that cause it to blow apart, given by the fact that there was only one phaser leveled toward the door after the fact.

A holodeck simulation is the same as a real thing to you?

The way you put it, yes.

Then why won't you concede it?

However, the majority of the firefights we've seen involved wanting to simply stun or kill opponents, not vaporize them (which requires more power). Would YOU want to waste your weapon on burning your way through everything, at full power, just so you'd be out of juice before reaching your primary objective?

If you only have to start to burn away one thing and the chain reaction does the rest, yes, because I would still have plenty of power for the low powered shots.

Not even a Stormtrooper could be that dense. You use the minimum needed juice to take out an opponent: THat's the smart way to have maximum effectiveness.

Except they aren't using the minimum amount of energy to achieve their objective, they are utterly failing in their objective showing they need to use more power.

And the fact we've never seen Stormtroopers try to blow through obstacles with sheer full powered-weapons blasts doesn't even cross your mind, right? And blowing open a door on the DS1 doesn't count: The door remained intact.

They blew a man-sized hole in it you tard! They blew chunks the size of Luke’s head out of the wall in ESB! They blew their way into the Tantive IV in ANH! Have you even seen the movies?

I have, thanks. THis simply goes to your claim that phasers couldn't blow through any kind of obstacle a blaster "could". Duh, rock is easier to blow up than metal. It's called a logical FOUNDATION for an argument, Wong,. Try it sometime.

...so you are claiming he is wrong because he proved he was right? Have you been taking your medication lately Andy?

Gee Wong, I wonder: If they "vanished" when they were shot, where did they go? The land of pink fuzzy distortions?

What happened was utterly inconsistent with vaporization. they disappeared, yes, but this was due to the nadion effect, not the DET you are claiming.

Phasers have been said to be able to "vaporize" things.

You mean like Picard said in FC about the phaser setting When the shot fired right before Lilly grabbed the gun clearly did not vape the drone?

The fact they've made things vanish kind of supports the fact that they vaporized them.

Except we know what happens during vaporization, and what we see happen wasn't it.

The mechanics of the vaporization process, we can only guess at,

Wow. I mean WOW. Thank you, I am sigging that little tidbit of mind-blowing stupidity.

but it seems logical to assume if they "vanished" and ceased to be cohesive, solid matter, they were vaporized.

We know what vaporizing is. What happened wasn't it. In fact what happened makes vaporization an impossible conclusion. What part of this do you not get?

ICBM silos are reinforced with steel, concrete, and various other materials to make them stronger and survive the launch of the missile they hold. In the Star Wars Universe, wherein they use repulsorlifts (which, I might add, have not shown they produce ANY backwash

You mean like the sudden flare of the Falcon's Engines when it takes off in ANH?

or exhaust that could damage nearby structures or affect anyone nearby),

Shield of Lies says that undampened repulsors can injure bystanders.

there is no real need to reinforce docking ports from hot thruster exhaust. Therefore, no need for exotic materials to keep the structure together. It's little more than DIRT and cement. Your statement not only holds no merit; it's completely idiotic. Try something else.

You mean like the quote from the novel I provided showing you were a liar?

Dirt describes the surrounding terrain, not the docking bay itself.

Once again, you are trying to detract from the main issue.

He's using an anology to respond to your point, and this is off topic?

Blasters have NEVER shown the ability to vaporize a person,

Neither have phasers

or anything else of consequence, to be completely honest.

you aren't being completely honest, they vaporized a large chunk of a door in ANH (notice all the smoke?), head sized holes in the wall in ESB (again, the smoke), and several dozen liters of water in Tattoine's Ghost,

They have also never demonstrated greater power than a phaser, no matter the methods of the weapons in doing what they're supposed to do.

Yes, they have routinely demonstrated more power. Power is energy over time, so a high-energy weapon will be more powerful then a low energy one.

Best they have shown themselves capable of are blowing up windows (gee, glass: I'm shaking), cement, setting fire to clothing, and peircing one-inch thick armor. Armor that has not demonstrated any particular resilience to ANYTHING.

And vaporize man sized holes in metal walls, blow half a meter thick craters in super building materials, tear huge gashes in metal walls...

If by the assumption that phasers are more powerful than blasters (which they have shown themselves to be), Stormie's not going to stand a chance.

Phasers have shown themselves to be low in energy and material dependent. Given the nature of stormtrooper armor, these both point to phasers not doing much at all. Further, the Empire has shown it uses combined arm tactics, with air support and heavy vehicles, with droid support. The Federation troopers will be massacred.

Sue me.

And rather then politely admit you were in error, you get snotty. Kid, I'm pulling my punches here, but I'm still letting you know what I think. Mike hasn't even been doing that, he's been trying to educate you. And you get pissy because you are losing?

Again, sue me. When something's called a laser, it seems logical to assume it's based upon the modern-day laser.

So it is logical to you to ignore all evidence to the contrary and make a superficial judgment call? Sure explains your "phasers vaporize people" stance.

And don't try your "ICBM silo" stunt again: Semantics get you nothing but time.

Analogies and comparisons are not semantics you twit.

Gee, I've just presented surefire evidence that phasers can throw around more power than blasters, and all you can come up with is an insult to my intelligence. Whose pretending?

Except you haven't proven they are powerful, you've only proven you don't understand what vaporization is, what a chain reaction is, what power is, and what semantics are.

Given this, I'm gonna assume you ended up bombing the everliving fuck out of those SATs

No-Though my argument should include that, since we've never seen Stormtroopers or Rebels (or anyone else, for that matter) try what you suggest, this doesn't hold much water.

He’s talking about the Feddies, not Empire or Rebels you jackass.

They have never upped the power to punch through even though they should have. You claim this is intelligent since it limits the expenditure of "juice" He points out that this is suicidal. You start talking about the Empire and Rebels.

No, the design of the Federation phaser is insane. It has no sights, so they require years of practice in order to become proficient with it. As soon as they got into a shooting war, they started using guns with scopes on them; think about it.

Meaning that you're implying Federation troopers are better trained that Imperial ones?

This is the worst attempt at twisting someone’s words I have ever seen.

As for the scopes: Since we only saw them on phaser rifles (which logically should possess more range), it seems likely that auto-aim systems on phaser rifles weren't thought to be needed (or not needed as much). Handheld phasers are the ones that are harder to aim accurately (comparitively speaking), so an auto-aim system would be handy for such a weapon.

You've shown off axis firing as a capability, you have NEVER proven auto aiming. Do so or stop treating it as a fact.

What do you think they're doing when Worf and Guinan practice phaser marksmanship on the E-D? Why is Worf missing if his phaser can auto-target?

Has it occured to you that the auto-aiming system might have an "off" switch? Training, in this case, would be increasing your natural skills so that, in a firefight WITH the auto-aim on, you have even better aim.

Thanks for helping me out.

You are really one dumb son of a bitch. If the weapon does it automatically, there would be no need to practice period. You think this supports auto aiming (something you are still to prove is present).

Sure; Riker adjusts his emitter to point downwards. But an auto-aiming system is a ridiculous assumption in light of Worf/Guinan's marksmanship practice session or the fact that they routinely miss at short range.

Let me repeat slowly for you: "O-F-F-S-W-I-T-C-H".

P-R-O-V-E-I-T-!

No, you haven't. Nowhere have you explained how the blasters can tear gashes in starship bulkheads without being powerful. Nowhere have you explained how phasers can be assumed to vapourize things when there is no vapour.

(sigh) You're pathetic. You draw out the semantics of every argument to try and stall the primary subject. Maybe you should have been a lawyer.

Oh, and BTW: I HAVE explained, thank you.

Kid, honest question: Do you even know what semantics are?

No, you have not explained a damn thing. You have simply shown the huge flaw that is the public school system since you clearly have no concept of what vaporization is.

You're obviously a youngster, so I will try to speak to you as a student: given a system with initial energy state A, final energy state B, and energy input C, how do you think you determine the energy input? Note that you cannot simply infer or assume energy state B; you must measure it.

And I have.

You haven't measured shit. You are yet to present a single number in this farce of a debate

The day you teach me anything more than how to attempt to insult someone in order to manipulate a debate is the day I check outside for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Maybe if you weren't so arrogant as to think you are always right, you'd grasp what people are telling you.

A modern Marine detachment of the same size would have easily killed every last one of the Jem'Hadar as they came charging through. They announced their arrival by screaming in the night, and they were all clumped together, coming through a single point. In fact, one heavy machine gun would have killed them all. Most of the Marines could have been answering E-mail throughout the whole thing.

Once again, trying to draw the debate off subject. Let's try this again:

Starfleet troops, mostly engineers and scientists

Prove that

to determine how to work the Dominion comm system. Add five months of hunger, sleep deprivation, and wracked nerves because of the Houdini mines and Jem'Hadar raids. And they didn't have a machine gun, though it sure as hell would have come in handy. Phasers are a bit too narrow-field of fire. Finally, THEY WEREN'T MARINES. They weren't a well-trained security detachment: They were basically thrown together to try and make use of a vital strategic resource. They don't have any bearing on the general compentence or ability of true Federation troops.

Burden of Proof is on you to show they were not true troops.

Yes, the Dominion troops ran in as a screaming mass. However, there comes a point where there are simply too many troops rushing against your position to stop them. The reasons for this in the above paragraph support my claim.

You need to prove the above reasons.

Perhaps, although it would take a very special purpose-built weapon to vapourize someone instead of blowing a hole through him, which even an extremely powerful weapon is more likely to do. Nevertheless, you cannot claim vapourization unless you can produce evidence of the requisite vapour. Is this concept too complex for you to grasp?

And phasers can do both ("Insurrection Alpha (VGR)". And I have already gone over the vaporization aspect. It seems that this is just too complex for YOU to grasp.

You really are amazing.

Something disappearing DOES NOT MEAN it was vaporized.
Vaporization is a set and known occurrence. It has well-established characteristics. What phasers do does not meet those characteristics.

I vaguely understand what you are saying: It makes people disappear, so while it doesn’t' vaporize them, it must be just as good. Unfortunately this doesn't fly because the disappearing act is target dependent, and because it is a low energy reaction thus low power.

No one has "violated" canon. You have, however, ignored both common sense and the laws of physics by claiming that if a durasteel rod is strong, then it should be impossible for a human being to bend it no matter how thin it is.

Yes, and a little pansy like you could bend the "staff" (which is thick, as I said, and NOT supposed to bend easily!). And I never said impossible: Nice try on the semantics card, but no cigar.

You supplied a definition, you never established a thickness.

Again: Do you honestly know what semantics are?

I see you have decided to emulate Darkstar's technique of pontificating about the superiority of your debate techniques while ducking the scientific issues and major points.

No, I've emulated his technique of sticking to the facts.

Kid, as someone who has repeatedly engaged Bobby, I'll tell you flat out: His favorite technique it to get as much evidence thrown out as possible so he can get away from the facts, try to hide the subject, then claim he already answered your question.

YOU are the one who dodges the scientific issues and tries to lead the debate toward something totally unrelated to the subject at hand. It is YOUR lying, bullying, and falsification that has led to this debate.

Apparently you think analogies and comparisons directly relating to his position have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Authors everywhere are weeping kid.

Perhaps you hope to emulate his success in fooling people who are too casual or too gullible to notice how you put so much more effort into your style than your substance. I, for one, choose to aim higher.

And who is the one around here insulting your opponent's intelligence and trying to discredit them with language dripping "superiority complex", while dodging the important issues? You aim for nothing but your own selfish motives, and have brainwashed your brood to follow the same line without any logic. You disgust me.

Kid, you did more to insult your own intelligence then any flame could ever do when you said direct energy transfer was a chain reaction. Run away now little coward.

[The Kernel]

What a steaming pile of crap this idiot has laid down. Did anyone else notice that he never explained the vaporization claim? Did he not realize that when you vaporize something with the mass of a human, you will cause a pressure wave that will kill everyone in the immediate area?

This guy is just dodging the questions over and over while adding little insults to try and distract from Mike's rebuttals. Personally, I don't know what is left to be accomplished here as he has basically refused to answer Mike's criticisms of his argument.

[Master of Ossus]

Holy shit! The moron returns!

The length of the time for my reply is summed up thusly: "It take longer to come up with the truth than to spout a lie."

So... why did it take you so long to come up with this, then? Mike took mere hours to explain the truth.

Besides, I had the SAT to study for.

Good luck with that, BTW.

Bite me, Wong Harem Members. I'm here to bitch slap your leader with a dose of reason.

And a fine job you're doing of it, too.

Ah, it took you many days to find a spare half-hour, rather than being shamed into finally responding by everyones' resounding mockery. Yeah, right.

The mockery of fools no longer bothers me.

Nor does the fact that you haven't got a case.

That would only be true if the canon films explicitly said that they use no neutronium at all in their hulls. You obviously don't know what the word "override" means. I suggest an investment in a basic dictionary.

BTW, it is a strawman distortion to claim that I think they're using "neutronium hulls", which implies that neutronium constitutes the majority substance. And on top of that, neutronium-impregnated hull material comes from a canon source anyway (the ICS books have been declared canon)

A "canon" source which is regarded only as canon as the EU continuity (that is, not at all).

Who cares? It's still a canon source. Tell me, do you believe that the scripts, radio plays, and novelizations should also be considered higher than the EU?

Besides that, the ICS author made "educated guesses" towards the specs of the ships and vehicles he drew, none of which was seen in the films (which are maintained as the "primary canon"). How eagerly you accept outrageous figures if it helps your side in any way. Jackal.

Deal with it. They're canon books. Unless you can find evidence against what they show, you have no case. Again, look up the word "override" and start dealing with the EVIDENCE Mike presented, rather than trying to draw the debate away from the central argument. Mike pointed out to you that it was a strawman to claim he felt that the hulls were made of neutronium and you came back with this? Deal with the original evidence.

You're still not getting it, are you? This is a simple matter of geometry; with a sufficiently thin rod, it doesn't matter how strong it is; it will still bend. Do you honestly need this explained to you?

According to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q
=staff ) is that it is a stout object,even for the walking version . . . a slender walking-stick would be a cane, not a staff. Ie, something that's not supposed to be easily breakable and is NOT thin.

How does that show that an angry woman shouldn't be able to bend it? Just because it can support a portion of someone's weight for a small amount of time does not mean that an angry person cannot bend it. Moreover, your semantics attack is laughable in the face of Mike's original statement. How did it take you so long to understand what she was saying?

And yet, a pissed-off woman bent it. Ouch, that would be such a chore.

Fool. The object wasn't even a walking staff. Moreover, the difference between a cane and a staff is only one of length, dumbass. A cane is held by the top, at about the waist. A staff is held higher, and extends further to the ground. Nice semantics argument, but it gets you nowhere. Deal with the original problem with your reasoning, rather than attempting to run away from it.

Who cares? The point is that on metallic targets, phasers have never demonstrated serious power, while blasters can tear through starship bulkheads and walls.

Oh yes, concrete walls and bulkheads made out of a material an emotional woman can bend.

1. No. An emotional woman can bend a THIN STAFF made of similar materials. This is an outright lie regarding the evidence.
2. Show that phasers have that much firepower.
3. Deal with the crux of the argument.
4. I love the double standard, here. You claimed earlier that the EU counts for nothing, and come back attacking the firepower of SW weapons by using an obscure reference from the EU in which no weapon was even used! Do you always debate using the bait-and-switch school of thought?

I'm shaking. What about Saavik's obliteration of a metallic pot in ST:VI?

Oh my GOD. Saavik melted a pot. Think she could have bent it? This is an astonishingly stupid argument, not least because of the double-standard inherent in it.

Besides that, Mike stated that against metallic objects "phasers have never demonstrated serious firepower." You come back and show that Saavik was able to damage a pot? You didn't address his point AT ALL. In fact, you yourself acknowledge that Mike's point was correct in the following sentence.

While not a particulary impressive display of power, it removes your false assumption about the idea that phasers cannot pierce metallic objects.

Mike never said that, dumbass. He never ascribed to your foolish tautological method of examining the evidence (ie. A woman can bend a thin staff, therefore the material the staff is made of must be weak.). What he said was the phasers do not show substantial firepower against metal objects. You come back with an admittedly crappy demonstration of firepower, use a strawman misrepresentation to claim that Mike was saying phasers couldn't penetrate metal? Truly pathetic, and textbook strawman.

Keep in mind the fact that, in "The Arsenal of Freedom", Tasha notes that whatever melted the tritanium was "beyond our technology".

How does this hurt Mike's case? If anything, it shows that phasers are not powerful against metal objects. Nice job crippling your argument.

Starfleet hulls and bulkheads are built of tritanium ("The Managerie" [TOS], "Threshold" [VGR]), an "exotic metallic alloy". An alloy that, combined with the ever popular duranium, would have to be pretty damn tough to take the kind of strains that would be found at FTL speeds.

And phasers apparently can't penetrate it.

A single dust partical at 99.9999% of c alone has it's mass increased (thanks to Relativity) by roughly 66,000 times. Even with shields and deflectors, the hull materials have to be tough too in such an enviroment.

Or it would have to be combined with an SIF field and navigation deflectors. Besides, the hulls of starfleet vessels have been shown to be pathetically weak. Note the astonishing amount of damage done by a KT level impact in ST:Nemesis.

It does not seem illogical to assume that the bulkhead materials of a starship are strong enough to absorb phaser blasts without any real trouble.

True. This has been shown. What has not been demonstrated is the firepower that you claim phasers come loaded with.

In "Where Silence Has Lease (TNG)", Riker is scanning the walls of the duplicate USS Yamato when he comments "They're not tritanium". This means that tritanium IS in the bulkheads, so no argument for them being some other material cannot be made.

Bravo. Now connect this with phaser firepower. I love how you spend all this time creating this red herring, only to be completely incapable of showing great phaser firepower against a metal object. This has been an exercise in futility. Show examples of phaser firepower against metal objects, and show them to be more impressive than the little scorchmarks left on the walls.

However, in "Insurrection Alpha (VGR)", we did indeed see a door being blasted apart by Maquis rebel phasers (sure, it was a holographic simulation, but it was written by Tuvok, so it seems logical that he'd have been as accurate with the situation as possible).

WTF? Nice assumption. Show that the doors were made of metal. Quantify the amount of firepower it would have taken to do such damage.

The doors might have been made of replicated wood for all we know, but it seems more likely they were simply made of thinner duranium,

Why is this likely? Explain your assertion.

or a less dense alloy.

Which would invalidate the example, anyway, due to the material dependence of phaser effectiveness, which Mike has demonstrated.

In any event, it destroys your remark about phasers not being able to blow apart doors or other obstructions if put to the test.

What remark? You've done nothing but attack strawmen since you began this "rebuttal." Phasers haven't shown substantial firepower against metal.

Moreover, you STILL haven't shown that phasers can blast through obstructions. You admitted yourself that the doors were on the holodeck, and there is therefore little reason to assume that they were replicated completely or accurately model the effects of phaser blasts.

Show me evidence of all this water vapour, which would cause severe burn injuries to everyone near the victim. Oh wait, you can't do that, can you?

And neither can you.

Wow. What a crippling argument. He can't show where the water vapor is, either. This shows that the people were NOT vaporized.

However, considering that they HAVE mentioned on-air vaporizations with phasers, and the fact we've seen people "vanish" thanks to energy weapons, it seemed logical to assume that they were "vaporized".

Erm... no. The effects seen were NOT consistent with vaporization. What part of this do you not understand? Since the term "vaporize" could easily be a colloquialism, and since the dialogue is UTTERLY unsupported by observation, there is absolutely NO logical reason to believe your interpretation of events.

Perhaps so quickly that the vapor was reduced to lone particles-It's difficult to speculate on this.

Nice red herring. Now show that the people were legitimately vaporized, using observation. You can't? Too bad. You lose.

Wrong again. I strongly suggest you look up the definition of "chain reaction". A conventional laser will not continue to heat a target after it's been shut off, whereas a chain reaction will.

Perhaps, but the effects of an energy weapon are never "instantaneous".

Duh. Who cares? Show that Mike's point was wrong.

Ergo, it is the reaction between the energy of the blast and the matter of the target. And yes, phaser do use nadion beams to disassemble molecules on the sub-atomic level-It still requires a great deal of energy to actually DO anything of the sort we've seen phasers do.

Hello unsubstantiated claim.

Just because they're "purely" chain reaction weapons (as you implied) does not make them weak-It in fact makes them more powerful, if they can cause the structure of an object to simply fall apart.

It does make them more limited. If you cannot destroy metallic obstructions and your opponent can, then even if your weapons are equally lethal you are at a combat disadvantage. In this case, the phaser is not more lethal since Mike has demonstrated that metallic body-armor will significantly impede its ability to kill a target.

Thanks, I already did ("Insurrection Alpha" VGR).

Blowing apart a holographic door (that may or may not have been made of metal) does not a starship bulkhead make. Do you always take such low standards of evidence when attempting to support your claims?

BTW, that was with one shot to the door that cause it to blow apart, given by the fact that there was only one phaser leveled toward the door after the fact.

Wow. I'm impressed. This is perhaps the weakest evidence I've ever seen by someone attempting to support a claim.

The way you put it, yes. However, the majority of the firefights we've seen involved wanting to simply stun or kill opponents, not vaporize them (which requires more power).

So what about the firefights we HAVE seen, in which it would be easy to kill starfleet's many enemies if they would destroy their enemies' cover, first? BTW, SF personnel don't seem to care too much about "wasting power," since there have been NUMEROUS examples of "vaporizations" when in fact it would have been just as easy to simply kill the targets. This was seen in such episodes as "The Cage," and several TNG episodes.

Would YOU want to waste your weapon on burning your way through everything, at full power, just so you'd be out of juice before reaching your primary objective?

No, but apparently SF personnel do if "The Cage" is any example. Moreover, in some of the conflicts the "primary objective" was simply to hold onto a particular area or to take few casualties. Both of these objectives could have been fulfilled with more powerful blasts destroying objects that their enemies were using for cover. We have never seen SF personnel take advantage of the alleged ability of phasers to destroy such obstacles.

Not even a Stormtrooper could be that dense. You use the minimum needed juice to take out an opponent: THat's the smart way to have maximum effectiveness.

Except when the situation calls for you to turn up the power or be killed. SF personnel have repeatedly refused to turn up the power on their weapons to destroy packing crates and such, which would have enabled them to win fights more easily. Unfortunately for you, many of them have died due to this alleged stupidity on their part.

And, BTW, rather than coming up with these pathetic excuses, why don't you actually demonstrate that phaser firepower is more significant against metallic objects?

And the fact we've never seen Stormtroopers try to blow through obstacles with sheer full powered-weapons blasts doesn't even cross your mind, right?

Actually, we have. In SW: ANH, a stormtrooper blew through the door into the detention bay in order to gain access to it. Han said that this also would have been possible at the control room, when he instructed the droids to "hope [the Imperials] don't have blasters."

And blowing open a door on the DS1 doesn't count: The door remained intact.

So? They still blew through it. Nothing like this has ever been shown in a tactical situation in ST. Stormtrooper blasters blew softball sized chunks out of walls on Bespin. Tiny hand blasters tore through at least a few centimeters of armor plate on Naboo. You ignore all these incidents, disallowing evidence for NO apparent reason. You're missing the point, though. If SF personnel had been able to do as much damage as that stormtrooper did in ANH, they could have saved SF lives during their "pop-up, duck-down" fights. The fact that they were unable to do so shows that blasters deliver superior firepower.

I have, thanks. THis simply goes to your claim that phasers couldn't blow through any kind of obstacle a blaster "could".

Nice strawman. Mike shows that rock is easier to destroy than metal, destroying your original claim, and you attack the strawman that a phaser cannot go through ANY kind of obstacle a blaster could. This is a strawman distortion of the highest order. Learn the read, dumbass.

Duh, rock is easier to blow up than metal. It's called a logical FOUNDATION for an argument, Wong,. Try it sometime.

Why don't you actually get around to BUILDING an argument, then, since you claim you've laid the foundation for one, dumbass. Mike has presented his arguments extremely well and you have proven incapable of coming back at him with anything but crappy strawmen, red herrings, bait-n-switch debating tactics, and a shocking propensity to disregard evidence.

Gee Wong, I wonder: If they "vanished" when they were shot, where did they go?

It doesn't matter, since if they had been vaporized we would see the effects of that. Listen, moron, children recognize something called "object continuity" at the age of six months. That is, they understand that objects still exist when they are out of their immediate vision. The fact that you cannot understand this concept is truly pathetic, given your claim that you are studying for the SAT. If someone is there one moment, they will be somewhere the next moment. If they were vaporized, then we should see the effects of this vaporization. We have never seen such effects in ST. Thus, we must assume that they were not vaporized and go with an alternate theory. Subspace seems to be a reasonable direction from there.

The land of pink fuzzy distortions? Phasers have been said to be able to "vaporize" things.

Interesting colloquialism. Show evidence that it's true. It's never been demonstrated.

The fact they've made things vanish kind of supports the fact that they vaporized them.

Magicians make things vanish. Does that mean that magicians can vaporize things? This is one of the worst lines of reasoning I've ever seen in a debate. In fact, the ability of a phaser to make things "vanish" supports exactly the OPPOSITE conclusion. If something is vaporized, we should see evidence that it was vaporized. The fact that we see no effects of phaser vaporization demonstrates conclusively that phasers are not vaporizing their targets.

The mechanics of the vaporization process, we can only guess at, but it seems logical to assume if they "vanished" and ceased to be cohesive, solid matter, they were vaporized.

Not at all. The mechanics of vaporizations are quite well understood. We do not see anything remotely similar to them, initiated by phaser fire. Thus, we must conclude that the targets were not vaporized.

ICBM silos are reinforced with steel, concrete, and various other materials to make them stronger and survive the launch of the missile they hold. In the Star Wars Universe, wherein they use repulsorlifts (which, I might add, have not shown they produce ANY backwash or exhaust that could damage nearby structures or affect anyone nearby),

Watch TPM, dumbass. The Queen's transport kicks up dust as it lands. There goes your argument.

there is no real need to reinforce docking ports from hot thruster exhaust.

But there is reason to have "blast doors" just outside a hangar bay in ANH?

Therefore, no need for exotic materials to keep the structure together. It's little more than DIRT and cement.

1. Demonstrate this. Oh wait, your only evidence for this conclusion comes from a novel reference which Mike just showed does not prove your case.
2. Do you know how much energy it takes to blast a torso-sized piece of concrete out of a concrete wall? Try it sometime.

Your statement not only holds no merit; it's completely idiotic. Try something else.

Nice projection. Your attempt to project your own faults onto others does not help your case.

Once again, you are trying to detract from the main issue. Blasters have NEVER shown the ability to vaporize a person, or anything else of consequence, to be completely honest.

And neither have phasers. However, blasters have demonstrated VASTLY superior firepower against metal objects, cement, and similar materials.

They have also never demonstrated greater power than a phaser, no matter the methods of the weapons in doing what they're supposed to do.

Erm... yes they have. Your statements to the contrary notwithstanding, you admitted that blasters were able to blow through a metal door in ANH. Has a phaser ever done this? No. You claimed that a phaser was able to do this on the holodeck, but not only was there no evidence presented that the door was metal, in fact there was no evidence that it was even a physical object!

Best they have shown themselves capable of are blowing up windows (gee, glass: I'm shaking), cement, setting fire to clothing, and peircing one-inch thick armor. Armor that has not demonstrated any particular resilience to ANYTHING.

And the best phasers have been shown to do is.... damage a pot? Fact of the matter is, even if the armor was merely iron then the ease with which blasters penetrated it in TPM would demonstrate conclusively that blasters were more powerful than phasers against metallic objects.

If by the assumption that phasers are more powerful than blasters (which they have shown themselves to be), Stormie's not going to stand a chance.

Given the accuracy of SF grunts in ST: Nemesis, stormtroopers might be able to win even if the weapons were switched. However, the fact that stormtroopers wear armor and the fact that blasters have been consistently portrayed as being more powerful only further seals the case against the phaser.

Sue me.

You've just admitted to lying in the past two posts. I like your chain of reasoning: don't demonstrate anything, avoid being shown wrong on issues by using red-herrings to flee from the significant arguments, and ignore all defeats that do manage to slip through. Your claim that blasters and turbolasers are lasers demonstrates SPECTACULAR ignorance of the workings and effects of lasers.

Again, sue me. When something's called a laser, it seems logical to assume it's based upon the modern-day laser.

What a pathetic argument. Are you claiming that Luke's lightsaber must be based on (according to your own dictionary.com):

1. A heavy cavalry sword with a one-edged, slightly curved blade.
2. A light dueling or fencing sword having an arched guard covering the hand and a tapered flexible blade with a cutting edge on one side and on the tip.

And don't try your "ICBM silo" stunt again: Semantics get you nothing but time.

This from Mr. "Let's see what a "walking staff" is, and use that argument to claim that it cannot be bent AT ALL by a person."

Gee, I've just presented surefire evidence that phasers can throw around more power than blasters, and all you can come up with is an insult to my intelligence. Whose pretending?

You're pretending. You constantly evaded the central thrusts of the argument, using an arsenal of red-herrings, strawmen, outright lies, dismissals of evidence, etc. in an effort to AVOID presenting evidence, and then you come back and claim to have presented "surefire evidence that phasers can throw around more power than blasters?" This appears to be an outright lie.

No-Though my argument should include that, since we've never seen Stormtroopers or Rebels (or anyone else, for that matter) try what you suggest, this doesn't hold much water.

You mean like when the Imperials quickly and efficiently blew through the defenses of the Rebels on the Tantive IV? You mean like the way that proximity hits from blasters consistently kill people? You mean like how blasters have blown softball sized chunks out of Cloud City walls, whereas phaser blasts have left scorch marks on packing crates? You mean like how stormtrooper fire on the DS was shown to be sufficient to destroy doors so they could no longer be considered obstacles, whereas phasers on the E-E sometimes didn't even leave burn marks in ST:Nemesis?

No, the design of the Federation phaser is insane. It has no sights, so they require years of practice in order to become proficient with it. As soon as they got into a shooting war, they started using guns with scopes on them; think about it.

Meaning that you're implying Federation troopers are better trained that Imperial ones?

What's that, ladies and gentlemen? That's right! It's ANOTHER STRAWMAN. Mike never claimed that UFP troops were better trained than Imperials. He pointed out that it would TAKE far more training to raise a UFP member to the same level of proficiency as a stormtrooper. This represents a TERRIBLE misallocation of training that would be far better spent elsewhere.

As for the scopes: Since we only saw them on phaser rifles (which logically should possess more range), it seems likely that auto-aim systems on phaser rifles weren't thought to be needed (or not needed as much).

1. Demonstrate that phasers have an "auto-aim" function, keeping in mind the fact that SF members routinely practice their marksmanship using specifically designed holoprograms.
2. Explain why the earlier models of SF "rifles" lacked sights (ie. the little carbine used in TNG).

Handheld phasers are the ones that are harder to aim accurately (comparitively speaking), so an auto-aim system would be handy for such a weapon.

I see. Now all you have to do is explain why SF personnel practice their marksmanship, if they have an auto-aim system.

What do you think they're doing when Worf and Guinan practice phaser marksmanship on the E-D? Why is Worf missing if his phaser can auto-target?

Has it occured to you that the auto-aiming system might have an "off" switch? Training, in this case, would be increasing your natural skills so that, in a firefight WITH the auto-aim on, you have even better aim.[/quote]

WTF? Are you suggesting that it's good to train without the entirety of a weapon system? The auto-aim would only confuse someone who wasn't used to working with it. Moreover, DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AUTO-AIM EXISTS, RATHER THAN EXPLAINING AWAY EVIDENCE SHOWING IT DOES NOT. This is a common tactic of yours. When presented with evidence against X, explain why it doesn't COMPLETELY disprove X, and then operate under the presumption that X exists without even attempting to show that it does.

Sure; Riker adjusts his emitter to point downwards. But an auto-aiming system is a ridiculous assumption in light of Worf/Guinan's marksmanship practice session or the fact that they routinely miss at short range.

Let me repeat slowly for you: "O-F-F-S-W-I-T-C-H".

Riker must really be neglecting his target practice, then, since he was missing someone at less than five meters BADLY. Listen, dumbass, you have UTTERLY failed to show evidence for an auto-aim system. When the best you can come up with is a way to ignore evidence to the contrary, there's really nothing to support your case. Note that Mike has a far more logical method of explaining the evidence you presented (namely, that Riker has adjusted his emitter), than you have of dismissing his (namely, that SF personnel train with their auto-aim off, so as to de-familiarize themselves with its effects ). Moreover, explain how Lore was able to miss Doctor Crusher, and only start a small fire on her arm, if an auto-aim function was in use.

No, you haven't. Nowhere have you explained how the blasters can tear gashes in starship bulkheads without being powerful. Nowhere have you explained how phasers can be assumed to vapourize things when there is no vapour.

(sigh) You're pathetic. You draw out the semantics of every argument to try and stall the primary subject. Maybe you should have been a lawyer.

Laughable. Mike just DEMONSTRATED that your claims were wrong, and you respond by saying he's using semantics? This from someone who debates that the term "staff" NECESSARILY means that something is thick (even though, even by ATJ's utterly warped definition of "staff" it only means that the staff would be able to support someone's weight), who claims that the term "vaporize" cannot be a colloquialism, and who assumed that the term "turbolaser" NECESSARILY means that it is a laser, in spite of OBVIOUS differences in characteristics.

Oh, and BTW: I HAVE explained, thank you.

No. You have not shown that blasters are not powerful (the best you've been able to do is throw out evidence that they are), and you have not even ATTEMPTED to show that phasers can vaporize things without vapor (the best you can do is claim that phaser "vaporization" uses completely different principles than normal vaporization and ignore the fact that this is an admission that phasers do not, in fact, vaporize people by the modern definition of the word).

You're obviously a youngster, so I will try to speak to you as a student: given a system with initial energy state A, final energy state B, and energy input C, how do you think you determine the energy input? Note that you cannot simply infer or assume energy state B; you must measure it.

And I have.

When? When did you measure this? QUANTIFY the results.

The day you teach me anything more than how to attempt to insult someone in order to manipulate a debate is the day I check outside for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Nice projection. Mike's the one insulting you, and you're the one presenting evidence. And Mike's the one pretending. Look back over what just went on. Your attempt to act as innocence abused is truly pathetic, ATJ. Go study for your little aptitude test.

A modern Marine detachment of the same size would have easily killed every last one of the Jem'Hadar as they came charging through. They announced their arrival by screaming in the night, and they were all clumped together, coming through a single point. In fact, one heavy machine gun would have killed them all. Most of the Marines could have been answering E-mail throughout the whole thing.

Once again, trying to draw the debate off subject. Let's try this again:

Starfleet troops, mostly engineers and scientists to determine how to work the Dominion comm system. Add five months of hunger, sleep deprivation, and wracked nerves because of the Houdini mines and Jem'Hadar raids.[/quote]

So? Marines under similar conditions would STILL have held off the JH.

And they didn't have a machine gun, though it sure as hell would have come in handy.

Demonstrate that SF has machine guns to hand out to its personnel. This is particularly interesting since the troops in question were JUST resupplied.

Phasers are a bit too narrow-field of fire. Finally, THEY WEREN'T MARINES. They weren't a well-trained security detachment: They were basically thrown together to try and make use of a vital strategic resource.

Who cares? I could have killed the JH, using a modern machine gun. I love the way you once again throw out evidence to support your assertions. Moreover, this is just an admission that SF is lacking YET ANOTHER critical component of a military: soldiers. The fact that SF had no soldiers to commit to the conflict is their own fault. Using this as an excuse to justify the horrible performance of SF personnel gets you no where, particularly since the security forces on the E-E in ST: Nemesis were (if anything) far worse.

They don't have any bearing on the general compentence or ability of true Federation troops.

Demonstrate the existence of UFP troops. Moreover, show that they are more competent than the ones we saw, even though the "highly trained security personnel" in ST:Nemesis were even worse, and even though the elite "Reman shock-troops" that were used heavily during the war (as opposed to the UFP's non-existent soldiers) were shown to be UTTERLY incompetent both on the Scimitar and later during their boarding operation of the E-E.

Yes, the Dominion troops ran in as a screaming mass. However, there comes a point where there are simply too many troops rushing against your position to stop them.

Ignoring the fact that a single machine gun could have easily defeated them, this is irrelevant. Modern soldiers would have easily repulsed the attack. While it's possible that they could have been overwhelmed, it would have taken FAR more JH to overrun their position.

The reasons for this in the above paragraph support my claim.

What "reasons?" You are using the fact that the UFP has no machine guns and no dedicated soldiers as an excuse for their ineptitude in combat, without realizing that this actually reflects even more poorly on their general command structure. Moreover, if the phaser was as powerful as you claim, why didn't the SF personnel, with their just resupplied weapons, crank the power and kill the JH with proximity hits? Blasters have been shown to do that on the Tantive IV and the DS.

Perhaps, although it would take a very special purpose-built weapon to vapourize someone instead of blowing a hole through him, which even an extremely powerful weapon is more likely to do. Nevertheless, you cannot claim vapourization unless you can produce evidence of the requisite vapour. Is this concept too complex for you to grasp?

And phasers can do both ("Insurrection Alpha (VGR)". And I have already gone over the vaporization aspect. It seems that this is just too complex for YOU to grasp.

Laughable. You yourself admitted that your only evidence for this is not conclusive, and have failed to present ANY evidence outside of IA to support your claims. You repeatedly act as if coming up with a reason to refute evidence to the contrary NECESSARILy indicates your position is stronger, and you have used a host of logical fallacies to avoid rational debate.

No one has "violated" canon. You have, however, ignored both common sense and the laws of physics by claiming that if a durasteel rod is strong, then it should be impossible for a human being to bend it no matter how thin it is.

Yes, and a little pansy like you could bend the "staff" (which is thick, as I said, and NOT supposed to bend easily!).

WTF is this? You've shown NO evidence that a staff MUST be thick. Moreover, your statement that a staff is not supposed to bend easily is meaningless, since people can and have bent staffs in the past, even when not angry.

And I never said impossible: Nice try on the semantics card, but no cigar.

Let me get this straight. Your only argument against higher blaster firepower than phaser firepower is to claim that durasteel is weak, which you base literally around nothing, and then claim that something which should be possible even if the durasteel is strong therefore proves durasteel to be weak? If this seems illogical, it's because it is. Go back to studying for your aptitude test.

I see you have decided to emulate Darkstar's technique of pontificating about the superiority of your debate techniques while ducking the scientific issues and major points.

No, I've emulated his technique of sticking to the facts. YOU are the one who dodges the scientific issues and tries to lead the debate toward something totally unrelated to the subject at hand. It is YOUR lying, bullying, and falsification that has led to this debate.

Here he goes again. ATJ, about why he's better than Mike. Ah, the irony.

Perhaps you hope to emulate his success in fooling people who are too casual or too gullible to notice how you put so much more effort into your style than your substance. I, for one, choose to aim higher.

And who is the one around here insulting your opponent's intelligence and trying to discredit them with language dripping "superiority complex", while dodging the important issues?

That would be you, ATJ.

You aim for nothing but your own selfish motives,

Appeal to motive fallacy. Finally, a new one.

and have brainwashed your brood to follow the same line without any logic. You disgust me.

Again, nice projection. I love the way you're upset with Mike for allegedly insulting you, and so you respond with this volley of abuse and pretend that this makes it okay.

[Marc Xavier]

Ah, apologies for posting in the most recent thread. I didnt see the notice.

[Ender]

Ah, apologies for posting in the most recent thread. I didnt see the notice.

Don't worry, you aren't the first, you won't be the last

[Slartibartfast]

Man, this kid is really really really REALLY retarded. What kind of argument is this?

"You can't prove that a phaser vaporizes."
"Oh yeah? Neither can you!"

[Slartibartfast]

To me, it's obvious that this kid takes this long because he's really afraid he will say the wrong thing. All the time between posts is probably spent examining his arguments with excruciating attention, then reading a thousand times and then doubting if it's perfect yet, so rinse and repeat for days and days... then it gets shot down in like 15 minutes. Talk about stupid.

[SirNitram]

Trekkie madness is real, folks. As the situation you wish to debate from becomes more impossible, the more you will deny anything in your way to try and hold fast.

[Worlds Spanner]

It’s an interesting study in why a debate isn’t just a fact sheet.

It may just be lingering Trekdom, but frankly, I feel that Wong has not won every single point here.

However, he doesn’t need to. There are 3 reasons why Wong has this one wrapped up, although no doubt this will go on for a while.

1. Although not all points flow to Wong, a very large majority do and there are NO points that clearly flow to AJT.

2. AJT has undermined many specific points, and his credibility in general, with a large number of utterly illogical statements. E.G.
a. His hanging up on the word “staff” is such an obvious grasp at saving something that he looks idiotic. Concede the point and move on.
b. Really random statements.

Show me evidence of all this water vapour, which would cause severe burn injuries to everyone near the victim. Oh wait, you can't do that, can you?

And neither can you

. WHF?! AJT has to show it’s there, not Wong! Was he even listening?

3. Rudeness. Sure, Wong is the master of well deserved mocking, but it seems to me that he has treated AJT much more kindly, thoughtfully, and generously than most other opponents that I have read exchanges with. And what does AJT do? Relentlessly lay into Wong, his style, his substance, his intelligence, his tactics, and the other people on the board, just for good measure.

Even though he may not be 100% wrong, AJT is making an ass of himself and being an asshole in general, and the combination of rudeness and stupidity makes any sympathy I had for his position or ideas simple evaporate. Or would that be vaporize?

[SirNitram]

It's a good exercise in why you shouldn't copy-paste someone's arguments. Everything he's throwing out was originally argued by Guardian2000(People here know him as Darkstar).

The 'okay it doesnt vaporize but you cant explain it either so i r teh win' is quite common(He even used a 'cool mist' excuse to try and keep vaporization calc's) of him.

The obsession over a bent rod of durasteel is, in fact, one of the more amusing pieces of total bullshit G2k came up with. See, he relies on us not having read the actual passage. It's a rod of durasteel, whereas the neutronium-impregnated uber-armour is duraarmor. Easy to miss, if you let him mislead you.

The rest is simply being condescending(He seems to have read alot of DS's personal attacks on Mike and taken them to heart) and evading the point. Nothing we haven't seen before. He's only unique in his ridiculously long pauses; I assume he's either in correspondance with Darkstar, or furiously studying DS's webpage for possible outs.

[Worlds Spanner]

But..but...but.....

If he's read DS's page or spoken to him, then he KNOWS what happened to DS's vapor and durasteel arguments!

AND HE USES THEM ANYWAY?!

Geez....

[SirNitram]

But..but...but.....

If he's read DS's page or spoken to him, then he KNOWS what happened to DS's vapor and durasteel arguments!

AND HE USES THEM ANYWAY?!

Geez....

Darkstar will never admit to being wrong. About anything. For a while he argued that Vader's metal spine is the norm. He's taken all kinds of absurd and ridiculous positions because he won't admit to being wrong.

[Worlds Spanner]

Sigh

It's an interesting study on why some people need professional help. Really quite sad/depressing.

[Ender]

I assume he's either in correspondance with Darkstar, or furiously studying DS's webpage for possible outs.

I believe its the former, simply referencing a web page doesn't take a teribly long time, but corresponding with someone depends on the others free time and Wayne, Howder, and myself have kept bobby pretty tangled up over at SB.

He's back to the old "I already answered that question" when he has never answered the question bit. I'm curently taking some time to cool down beore I respond as I want to keep it somewhat civil so he doesn't worm away by getting E1701 to close it on account of flaming.