[Jason_T]: Saxton rigged the debate wah wah!

[Jason_T]

I think we might want to take "Star Wars fans diagnose the sociopathy of Star Trek Fans" with a bit of a grain of salt here.

To address the initial question in the thread title, prefacing it by saying that I mildly favour ST and haven't followed the discussion much since Usenet:

Reasions why People Think the Federation Could Win

1. They feel the methodological problems (differing types of canon, differing canon qualifications, dislike of one another's canon, (mis)applications of real life science) make the question unanswerable, and decide that unanswerability = parity. For my own part, I agree with the gravity of methodological difficulties, although the unanswerability = parity solution is not logically justified. Instead I'd simply say "unanswerability = unanswerability."

2. They feel that their side deserves to win the canon-war, becuase they think SW is a disorganized canon-mess, encompassing pulp literature and a sourcebook specifically written to 'cheat' in the SW vs. ST argument.

3. They choose to make the most of their own fandom's internal inconsistancies, and not the other side's.

For example, a Trek person could seize on ST ships' ability to engage in FTL combat, while cheerfully ignoring the fact that FTL combat has never been sensibly integrated into the combat one sees frequently on Trek.

4. The define it as Federation vs. Empire, and seize on the fact that the Empire was never a stable enough polity to make use of its preponderance of materiel; it was falling apart as soon as it began its existence and was done in by a far weaker group than the many-times-insanely-lucky Federation.

I'm well aware that the size of the Empire and the presumed properties (I've not read whatever the state of the art is) of hyperdrive make for an impressive (indeed, nigh incomprehensibly so) level of force as opposed to a state that exists and travels within a small part of a galaxy; one rarely hears this addressed. OTOH, I also haven't seen FTL combat addressed by SW people, although perhaps that's just because I haven't checked the argument in several years. And I do consider Curtis Saxton's little addition to the canon to be extremely dirty pool; when it gets to that level, it becomes a contest of whose canon is more easily edited for cynical purposes.

[Ghost Rider]

I think we might want to take "Star Wars fans diagnose the sociopathy of Star Trek Fans" with a bit of a grain of salt here.

To address the initial question in the thread title, prefacing it by saying that I mildly favour ST and haven't followed the discussion much since Usenet:

Reasions why People Think the Federation Could Win

1. They feel the methodological problems (differing types of canon, differing canon qualifications, dislike of one another's canon, (mis)applications of real life science) make the question unanswerable, and decide that unanswerability = parity. For my own part, I agree with the gravity of methodological difficulties, although the unanswerability = parity solution is not logically justified. Instead I'd simply say "unanswerability = unanswerability."

Except that is a complete and total sticking one's head in the sand.

Star Trek has defined canon by Paramount as being the movies and TVs.

Sansweet defines canon by George Lucas' own words as "Movies, then EU which comprises of Novels, then comics, then game stories".

How is that muddled?

2. They feel that their side deserves to win the canon-war, becuase they think SW is a disorganized canon-mess, encompassing pulp literature and a sourcebook specifically written to 'cheat' in the SW vs. ST argument.

And Trek isn't a muddled mess with it's own shows and movies contradicting each other as well as dialogue that makes no discernable sense with poor usage to complete total wrong usage of terms of ST units?

And I would honestly love to hear how Dr Saxton's book is a cheat.

3. They choose to make the most of their own fandom's internal inconsistancies, and not the other side's.

For example, a Trek person could seize on ST ships' ability to engage in FTL combat, while cheerfully ignoring the fact that FTL combat has never been sensibly integrated into the combat one sees frequently on Trek.

This is where logic comes into play. We call it Occam's Razor.

4. The define it as Federation vs. Empire, and seize on the fact that the Empire was never a stable enough polity to make use of its preponderance of materiel; it was falling apart as soon as it began its existence and was done in by a far weaker group than the many-times-insanely-lucky Federation.

Then use any SW organization given the material is relative on parity with the only difference being one side won't have a Death Star.

I'm well aware that the size of the Empire and the presumed properties (I've not read whatever the state of the art is) of hyperdrive make for an impressive (indeed, nigh incomprehensibly so) level of force as opposed to a state that exists and travels within a small part of a galaxy; one rarely hears this addressed. OTOH, I also haven't seen FTL combat addressed by SW people, although perhaps that's just because I haven't checked the argument in several years. And I do consider Curtis Saxton's little addition to the canon to be extremely dirty pool; when it gets to that level, it becomes a contest of whose canon is more easily edited for cynical purposes.

So I want to hear your point of Saxton's book being a cheat beyond your snide remark as well as FTL combat is shown multiple times in SW in terms that they can engage in Light minute territories and only engage in close combat for the reason of ECM.

So really all that you spewed up was something that this board went over multiple times and I read the follow ups before this board came into existence on ASVS.

[Noble Ire]

And I do consider Curtis Saxton's little addition to the canon to be extremely dirty pool; when it gets to that level, it becomes a contest of whose canon is more easily edited for cynical purposes.

What are you talking about? I have never once seen any indication that Curtis Saxton's works are at all influenced by the versus debate, or that he has any interest in it at all. Do you have any evidence for this accusation? Any at all?

[Darth Lucifer]

....The define it as Federation vs. Empire, and seize on the fact that the Empire was never a stable enough polity to make use of its preponderance of materiel; it was falling apart as soon as it began its existence and was done in by a far weaker group than the many-times-insanely-lucky Federation.

I hear Trekkies claim that from time to time, but the truth is the Rebel Alliance is not 'far weaker' than the Federation. They alone could wipe the Federation out without anyone's help.

Re: Federation vs. Empire; Trekkies do the opposite; they drag in outside entities and powers into it because they say has to encompass ALL of Star Trek, meaning the Dominion, The Borg, Species 8472, The Q, etc.

I'm well aware that the size of the Empire and the presumed properties of hyperdrive make for an impressive level of force as opposed to a state that exists and travels within a small part of a galaxy; one rarely hears this addressed.

Not presumed...demonstrated. This fact has been addressed repeatedly. It's Trektards who continue to insist that SW ships move only at c based on Han Solo saying "...while I make the calculations for the jump to lightspeed."

...And I do consider Curtis Saxton's little addition to the canon to be extremely dirty pool; when it gets to that level, it becomes a contest of whose canon is more easily edited for cynical purposes.

This is beyond a simple Appeal to Motive fallacy....this is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Comedy Gold! Never mind the fact that independent calculations by others have yielded similar results.

[Bounty]

And I do consider Curtis Saxton's little addition to the canon to be extremely dirty pool; when it gets to that level, it becomes a contest of whose canon is more easily edited for cynical purposes.

What are you talking about? I have never once seen any indication that Curtis Saxton's works are at all influenced by the versus debate, or that he has any interest in it at all. Do you have any evidence for this accusation? Any at all?

It's not something he came up with -

++http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWICS.html

[Darth Wong]

And I do consider Curtis Saxton's little addition to the canon to be extremely dirty pool; when it gets to that level, it becomes a contest of whose canon is more easily edited for cynical purposes.

You will, of course, provide evidence for this accusation of nefarious motives on the part of Saxton, as per the clearly stated rules of this forum.

[Jason_T]

And I do consider Curtis Saxton's little addition to the canon to be extremely dirty pool; when it gets to that level, it becomes a contest of whose canon is more easily edited for cynical purposes.

What are you talking about? I have never once seen any indication that Curtis Saxton's works are at all influenced by the versus debate, or that he has any interest in it at all. Do you have any evidence for this accusation? Any at all?

I left my brain-scan transcripts at home; obviously there's no "proving" something of this nature, but him thanking SW v. ST people while writing "the book that won the war" from SW people's point of view is something I assume you won't overlook.

Except that is a complete and total sticking one's head in the sand.

Star Trek has defined canon by Paramount as being the movies and TVs.

Sansweet defines canon by George Lucas' own words as "Movies, then EU which comprises of Novels, then comics, then game stories".

How is that muddled?

The SW canon including such a heterogeneous array of fiction naturally leads to some questionably-written stuff being included, which gives the SW lots of cheap and easy arguments. For my own part, I think "films and shows" is a better canon. But then, I would think that, wouldn't I?

And Trek isn't a muddled mess with it's own shows and movies contradicting each other as well as dialogue that makes no discernable sense with poor usage to complete total wrong usage of terms of ST units?

And I would honestly love to hear how Dr Saxton's book is a cheat.

Of course ST canon is a muddled mess; as would even SW canon if we similarly limited it. Shall we all jump to "lightspeed" together? I never claimed either universe was a scientific or literary masterwork.

For Saxton comment, see above; you're not going to convince Trek people it wasn't a deliberate deus ex machina.

(RE: FTL)This is where logic comes into play. We call it Occam's Razor.

If positions were reversed, you know quite well you'd be getting all the milage out of the clearly canonically possible FTL angle that you could; no use of occam's razor is going to 'disprove' something like that, especially to ST fandom.

Then use any SW organization given the material is relative on parity with the only difference being one side won't have a Death Star.

I agree this would eliminate (or, mitigate) the issue of demonstrated organizational capacity; but nevertheless, both ST and SW fandom commonly discuss Empire vs. Federation or Empire vs. FKR, which means discussing the character of the Empire is perfectly reasonable.

So I want to hear your point of Saxton's book being a cheat beyond your snide remark as well

As I noted above, how can something like that be proven or disproven? The mere fact that the book that 'happens' to 'decide' the "offical canon vs. official canon" argument is written with thanks to actors in the SW vs. ST community is more than a little suspect.

As for snide - I'm not a great partisan in this discussion; I certainly don't have any kind of emotional baggage that would lead to my remarks being 'snide.' I'm sure Curtis Saxton is a swell guy, and he did a service to SW fandom by writing a well regarded sourcebook that is generally considered to have won the "SW EU vs. ST Paramount Canon" argument. I'm just saying there is never an end to canonical debates in an argument like this, and Saxton's relatively likely interest in SW v. ST gives ST people an excellent reason for a canonical objection.

If Paramount were to license a change in their canon that reversed the EU vs. paramount balance (particuarly by thanking ASVS posers) you would problably not find it a banner day for legitimate canon. Perhaps you'd accept it, in which case, grand, but not everybody would, and they'd have reasons not to.

as FTL combat is shown multiple times in SW in terms that they can engage in Light minute territories and only engage in close combat for the reason of ECM.

I was thinking specifically of the ST universe's propensity for firing while travelling FTL; which, of course, glosses over both the infrequency with which this ability is exploited in ST canon and the various physics questions it raises about the nature of ST's FTL travel. I've not accessed any SW canon that suggests ships fight whilst in hyperdrive; perhaps this is just because I'm not a huge SW fan.

So really all that you spewed up was something that this board went over multiple times and I read the follow ups before this board came into existence on ASVS.

Look, question asked, question answered. I'm not trying to piss on anyone's lawn, and I'm certainly not expecting to convince anyone on this forum, were, from what I gather, favouring ST in this argument is grounds to be referred to mental health professionals. But, it's my practice to be civil when discussing things on the internet, particularly when there's as little cause for animus as there is here.[/i]

[Jason_T]

And I do consider Curtis Saxton's little addition to the canon to be extremely dirty pool; when it gets to that level, it becomes a contest of whose canon is more easily edited for cynical purposes.

You will, of course, provide evidence for this accusation of nefarious motives on the part of Saxton, as per the clearly stated rules of this forum.

Bounty's link, for example. To reiterate, I'm not making accusations of nefarious motives; simply suggesting that a perfectly legitimate motive - involving SW v. ST - most probably played a role. If a ST equivalent canon-revision came out which tipped the balance in the other direction would that be equally unanswerable? Perhaps in the view of some, but I wouldn't expect the SW community as a whole to accept it.

[Noble Ire]

I left my brain-scan transcripts at home; obviously there's no "proving" something of this nature, but him thanking SW v. ST people while writing "the book that won the war" from SW people's point of view is something I assume you won't overlook.

Stunning, undeniable evidence, to be sure.

Has it ever even occured to you that some people might have some interest in Star Wars, and the quantification of Star Wars, that goes beyond the SW v. ST debate? As far as I know, the mention of people of Mike Wong in the back of the book was for issues in regards to scaling and the like, issues barely related to the debate at all; ask Darth Wong himself, he would know better than I.

And more than that, why would jeopardize his role in the LFL writer's payroll over something as petty as an online debate (and including the quantifications was indeed a contriversial decision; there are many members of LFL who dislike Saxton for it, and the Ep. III ICS was devoid of the caluclation so noted in the previous volume)? Clearly, his motives were ones of more importance, in his eyes, at least; preservation of internal consitancy and SoD in the SW universe. ST didn't factor in at all.

[Isolder74]

In my opinion all this talk against the ICS is based on the crybaby attitude that the paramont position is that no Star Trek Techinical manual has any bearing on the Star Trek univrse. Only what we see on film does.

As i see it it would make the debate on both sides easier of we included all the Star Trek literature as valid parts of canon. Products like Star Fleet Battles, would add depth to the Star Trek Universe.

The main point is that Star Wars just has better reference material than does Star Trek.

I like both shows and enjoy watching both. I have yet to understand why which universe is better has become such a big deal.

As said by Shatner on Saturday Night Live. "Its just a TV show! Get a life!"

[Darth Wong]

And I do consider Curtis Saxton's little addition to the canon to be extremely dirty pool; when it gets to that level, it becomes a contest of whose canon is more easily edited for cynical purposes.

You will, of course, provide evidence for this accusation of nefarious motives on the part of Saxton, as per the clearly stated rules of this forum.

Bounty's link, for example.

The spittle-flecked ravings of the well-known liar and idiot "Darkstar" are not "evidence", you idiot. In fact, he's been told by reps of both Paramount and Lucasfilm that he's interpreting their respective continuities wrongly.

To reiterate, I'm not making accusations of nefarious motives; simply suggesting that a perfectly legitimate motive - involving SW v. ST - most probably played a role.

No, you made an accusation of nefarious motives. Do not compound your error by lying. I can simply quote your earlier post and the "dirty pool" accusation, fool.

If a ST equivalent canon-revision came out which tipped the balance in the other direction would that be equally unanswerable?

Every single new episode or movie is a canon revision, moron. And when they come out, people do in fact jump over them looking for new evidence that might change existing interpretations.

Perhaps in the view of some, but I wouldn't expect the SW community as a whole to accept it.

This sounds a lot like the religious idiots whose principal accusation against atheists is that they wouldn't accept evidence for God if it appeared, thus sidestepping the fact that no such evidence exists.

[Darth Wong]

I left my brain-scan transcripts at home; obviously there's no "proving" something of this nature, but him thanking SW v. ST people while writing "the book that won the war" from SW people's point of view is something I assume you won't overlook.

Stunning, undeniable evidence, to be sure.

It's a nice example of the ad-hominem fallacy on his part. Since I participate in the SW v ST debate, I must be dishonest. Therefore, anything I ever said to Curtis Saxton is dishonest. Therefore, Curtis himself is dishonest. After all, that's what the "dirty pool" accusation is. It's an accusation that the theories and estimates codified in the ICS were derived through a fundamentally dishonest method, rather than an honest assessment of what Dr. Saxton felt to be the numbers and theories that would best fit the Star Wars uiniverse.

It also contains the implicit assumption that my own estimates are fundamentally dishonest, ie- motivated by a desire to win the SW vs ST debate and therefore not accurate representations of the evidence I've analyzed.

In short, the mere fact that I participate in SW v ST debates is implicitly used here to suggest that all of my arguments must be dishonest.

What an idiot.

[Darth Lucifer]

I left my brain-scan transcripts at home; obviously there's no "proving" something of this nature, but him thanking SW v. ST people while writing "the book that won the war" from SW people's point of view is something I assume you won't overlook.

Again, more Appeal to Motive fallacy bullshit.

...For Saxton comment, see above; you're not going to convince Trek people it wasn't a deliberate deus ex machina.

Now a Wall of Ignorance comes flying up. More Appeal to Motive asshat-piracy.

...As I noted above, how can something like that be proven or disproven? The mere fact that the book that 'happens' to 'decide' the "offical canon vs. official canon" argument is written with thanks to actors in the SW vs. ST community is more than a little suspect.

Appeal to _ _ _ _ _ _ fallacy. Fill in the blank, kiddies.

I'm sure Curtis Saxton is a swell guy, and he did a service to SW fandom by writing a well regarded sourcebook that is generally considered to have won the "SW EU vs. ST Paramount Canon" argument. I'm just saying there is never an end to canonical debates in an argument like this, and Saxton's relatively likely interest in SW v. ST gives ST people an excellent reason for a canonical objection.

Because attacking a man's motivation for his involvement in the project is so much easier than refuting the data itself.

Look, question asked, question answered. I'm not trying to piss on anyone's lawn....

So instead you decide to spray on the living room floor.

...But, it's my practice to be civil when discussing things on the internet, particularly when there's as little cause for animus as there is here.

I'm taking cover now.

[Edi]

And I do consider Curtis Saxton's little addition to the canon to be extremely dirty pool; when it gets to that level, it becomes a contest of whose canon is more easily edited for cynical purposes.

You will, of course, provide evidence for this accusation of nefarious motives on the part of Saxton, as per the clearly stated rules of this forum.

Bounty's link, for example. To reiterate, I'm not making accusations of nefarious motives; simply suggesting that a perfectly legitimate motive - involving SW v. ST - most probably played a role. If a ST equivalent canon-revision came out which tipped the balance in the other direction would that be equally unanswerable? Perhaps in the view of some, but I wouldn't expect the SW community as a whole to accept it.

You really are starting to look more and more like a bog-standard fucking moron by the minute. Do you have any idea of who the person who wrote the stuff behind Bounty's link is and what his history with the versus debate is? He's the single most dishonest, obsessive idiot to grace the entire STvsSW debate ever and who has been delusional enough to actually argue that the people responbsible for making canon decisions on both SW and ST don't know what they are talking about because they didn't tell him what he wanted to hear.

Furthermore, Saxton has never participated in the versus debate that I know of. His crediting of Mike Wong, Wayne Poe and Brian Young is for matters of analysis of the SW material for quantification purposes and pointing out things he might have missed. Nothing to do with the vs debates per se, until somebody starts wanking over Trek beating Star Wars and then ebing presented with the actual quantified numbers.

You should really read the fucking main site before spouting bullshit, moron.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

it's my practice to be civil ...

Well goody goody gumdrops for you. What makes you think I give two shits about what you think our rules of decorum should be? You can be as polite as you want, but I will continue to point out that you're being a fallacious little prick, dismissing the ICS as some sort of dishonest tactic without a shred of evidence.

[RedImperator]

I left my brain-scan transcripts at home; obviously there's no "proving" something of this nature, but him thanking SW v. ST people while writing "the book that won the war" from SW people's point of view is something I assume you won't overlook.

There's not one shred of evidence Saxton cared a whit about SWvST. To my knowledge, he never participated on ASVS or anywhere else in the versus debate. Most of the numbers in Ep2 ICS had been on his site for years, worked out primarily from the films.

As for thanking people like Wong, Poe, ConnorMcLeod, and others, the fact of the matter is that the technically minded SW fandom overlapped considerably with the SWvST fandom, especially on the Internet. Many people started working the numbers as a response to the debate. And before you start with "Ah ha! They were on the Wars side, so they fudged the numbers in their side's favor!", their assumptions and methodology are freely available on the Internet to be challenged.

The SW canon including such a heterogeneous array of fiction naturally leads to some questionably-written stuff being included, which gives the SW lots of cheap and easy arguments. For my own part, I think "films and shows" is a better canon. But then, I would think that, wouldn't I?

If you want to argue most of the SW EU is crap and should be tossed out on its ear, I'm totally with you, and I'm not the only Star Wars fan who feels that way. The EU tends to weaken SW anyway, with its well-documented minimalism and typically poor quality. The main arguments which defeated Trek are based on the movies anyway.

Trek canon, however, is hardly clear. You have dozens, maybe hundreds of writers working on hundreds of episodes across more than 30 years, that's going to happen, and it only gets worse when at least two whole series (VOY and ENT) were in the hands to total incompetents for most of their runs.

Of course ST canon is a muddled mess; as would even SW canon if we similarly limited it. Shall we all jump to "lightspeed" together? I never claimed either universe was a scientific or literary masterwork.

This doesn't make any sense. How would Star Wars, limited to six movies written by one man, be as muddled as Trek, spread across five TV series and ten movies written by hundreds of people?

For Saxton comment, see above; you're not going to convince Trek people it wasn't a deliberate deus ex machina.

That strikes me as being the Trek people's problem. If you want to kick the legs out from under Ep2 ICS, go after Saxton's calculations, which are freely available on his website. Otherwise, get used to it. There's a reason the appeal to motive is a fallacy, doubly so in this case where no such motive can even be proven to exist.

If positions were reversed, you know quite well you'd be getting all the milage out of the clearly canonically possible FTL angle that you could; no use of occam's razor is going to 'disprove' something like that, especially to ST fandom.

Again, this strikes me as Trek fandom's problem. And while we're on the subject, please refrain from projecting your own feelings about the whole thing onto other Trek fans. I like Trek better than Wars, and I accept the results of the debate. So do a lot of other Trekkies. Honestly, how much of Trek fandom really gives a shit anyway? If the Empire can whomp the Federation, does that somehow make The Best of Both Worlds or City on the Edge of Forever not as good as they used to be?

So I want to hear your point of Saxton's book being a cheat beyond your snide remark as well

As I noted above, how can something like that be proven or disproven?

One statement from Saxton anywhere on the Internet would do it. You're the one making the positive assertion; it's on your to prove it.

The mere fact that the book that 'happens' to 'decide' the "offical canon vs. official canon" argument is written with thanks to actors in the SW vs. ST community is more than a little suspect.

His methodology is freely available to examine for anyone who takes issues with his numbers, including you. It ultimately doesn't even matter what his motives were (which is why, again, appealing to a person's motive for making an argument as disproof of that argumeent is a fallacy), as long as his numbers are right. Whatever is left of Trek fandom that still cares about this debate is free to prove he made mistakes or bad assumptions or what have you. The fact nobody has, and in fact nobody with the apparent mathmatical skill to do so has turned up on the Trek side is far more telling than who's name is on the acknowledgements page of the EP2 ICS.

As for snide - I'm not a great partisan in this discussion; I certainly don't have any kind of emotional baggage that would lead to my remarks being 'snide.' I'm sure Curtis Saxton is a swell guy, and he did a service to SW fandom by writing a well regarded sourcebook that is generally considered to have won the "SW EU vs. ST Paramount Canon" argument.

It's only considered that by sore losers who had been hoping against hope the calculations worked out by the Wars side in the debate long before that book hit the shelves were wrong. The Empire's speed, logistical, and firepower advantages can be worked out entirely from the films, without any help from any companion book or the EU. The ICS just sucked the life out of whatever resistance was left. Except for the kiddies and the raving lunatic fanatics, one of whom I note you cite elsewhere in this thread.

I'm just saying there is never an end to canonical debates in an argument like this, and Saxton's relatively likely interest in SW v. ST gives ST people an excellent reason for a canonical objection.

Oh bullshit. There is not one lousy shred of evidence Saxton gave a rat's ass about Star Trek at all, let alone any part of the debate. Feel free to provide it if you have some, but otherwise, yammering about Saxton's "likely" motives is going to get you nowhere.

If Paramount were to license a change in their canon that reversed the EU vs. paramount balance (particuarly by thanking ASVS posers) you would problably not find it a banner day for legitimate canon. Perhaps you'd accept it, in which case, grand, but not everybody would, and they'd have reasons not to.

The difference in that scenario is that truly would be the ST EU arbitrarily overriding the filmed canon. Trek's weakness is derived from the episodes and films, just like Wars's strength is. For Paramount to authorize such a change would create any number of enormous contradictions within ST canon.

[Darth Wong]

Well, technically it could be done by producing a new movie where Q magically grants the Federation a massive technology boost. There, done. The Federation can now kick the Empire's ass. But that's irrelevant to the fact that he's directing his argument almost entirely toward peoples' perceived motives rather than numbers and evidence and methodology.

[Utsanomiko]

Jason_T's attempt to throw continuity to the wind and declare its categorization an impossibility is fallacious, to say the least. Not only is canon hierarchy clearly stated by both franchizes, the issue of comparing the technological levels between their various levels of canon can be clearly sorted out by comparing each equivalent level separately (ie, just SW's movies vs ST's movies and TV, movies + books, etc) and still get a clear difference is sheer magnitude between their abilities. Hell, even mixing and matching should yield the same result.

Jason_T is simply trying his ignorance-appealing best to avoid reaching any analysis entirely because he doesn't like the conclusions. Unbiased indeed.

I really like how he falls for Bounty's bait (I guess it could be called that) of comparing his argument to G2000's neurotic dishonest banter. You really don't know where you're going, do you Jason? Sorry to tell you that simply argumentatively sitting like a rock and ignoring the failings of your refusals to reason aren't going to fly here; we consider that kind of bankrupt debate a more-offensive piss on our shoes than saying the 'moron' word.

[Jason_T]

And more than that, why would jeopardize his role in the LFL writer's payroll over something as petty as an online debate (and including the quantifications was indeed a contriversial decision; there are many members of LFL who dislike Saxton for it, and the Ep. III ICS was devoid of the caluclation so noted in the previous volume)? Clearly, his motives were ones of more importance, in his eyes, at least; preservation of internal consitancy and SoD in the SW universe. ST didn't factor in at all.

I don't see why his motives have to be entirely abstracted without any reference to a long-standing dispute he certainly was familiar with. I find it highly far fetched that it played no role.

As for thanking people like Wong, Poe, ConnorMcLeod, and others, the fact of the matter is that the technically minded SW fandom overlapped considerably with the SWvST fandom, especially on the Internet. Many people started working the numbers as a response to the debate. And before you start with "Ah ha! They were on the Wars side, so they fudged the numbers in their side's favor!", their assumptions and methodology are freely available on the Internet to be challenged.

That's a perfectly reasonable interpretation. So is one which involved a multiplicity of motives; as I said, I have no problem with the fellow and his contribution to fandom; there are, however, simple and reasonable reasons why ST partisans would object to it as a deus ex machina.

If you want to argue most of the SW EU is crap and should be tossed out on its ear, I'm totally with you, and I'm not the only Star Wars fan who feels that way. The EU tends to weaken SW anyway, with its well-documented minimalism and typically poor quality. The main arguments which defeated Trek are based on the movies anyway.

Trek canon, however, is hardly clear. You have dozens, maybe hundreds of writers working on hundreds of episodes across more than 30 years, that's going to happen, and it only gets worse when at least two whole series (VOY and ENT) were in the hands to total incompetents for most of their runs.

We're in agreement on that; I would say, however, that the canonical character of the EU is something of an advantage for the SW side assuming that both sides accept each others' definitions of canon, and both sides then cherry-pick useful information.

This doesn't make any sense. How would Star Wars, limited to six movies written by one man, be as muddled as Trek, spread across five TV series and ten movies written by hundreds of people?

I said they were both muddled as it is, and would be both muddled even with extremely stringent canon rules (just films.) I did NOT say that SW canon would be AS muddled as ST canon if they were limited to 6 movies vs. 10 movies and several TV series. They would just both still be muddled, with the problems that come from internal contradictions and the fact that they're neither hard sci fi nor military sci fi.

(Which isn't to suggest that "hard" and "military" sci fi are so fantastic themselves, but certainly neither Trek nor SW seriously addresses all of the huge question marks surrounding interstellar war.)

That strikes me as being the Trek people's problem. If you want to kick the legs out from under Ep2 ICS, go after Saxton's calculations, which are freely available on his website. Otherwise, get used to it. There's a reason the appeal to motive is a fallacy, doubly so in this case where no such motive can even be proven to exist.

I don't see why motive (or, as I contend, partial motive) is irrelavant to a discussion of which canon is or isn't appealing to people. Anything is fair game when the issue is how people perceive legitimacy.

Again, this strikes me as Trek fandom's problem. And while we're on the subject, please refrain from projecting your own feelings about the whole thing onto other Trek fans. I like Trek better than Wars, and I accept the results of the debate. So do a lot of other Trekkies. Honestly, how much of Trek fandom really gives a shit anyway? If the Empire can whomp the Federation, does that somehow make The Best of Both Worlds or City on the Edge of Forever not as good as they used to be?

Well, rather than "ST Fandom," read "Partisans of ST in ASVS-type debates." As I mentioned before, I don't really have a dog in this fight; if I saw SW being abused on a ST forum I could quite possible get dragged into the other side of the argument. They're both appealing sci fi universes, and they're both just pop culture to me. My genuine sense is that neither universe is sufficiently real for a ST v. SW argument to have a meaningful result. Both universes, regardless of which canon is used, rely on imagination to fill in huge yawning holes about the nature of the universes, the politics, the military realities, the economics, etc.

So, neither "wins" in my book, nor do I have a definite view on what ought to be canon on either side.

There's not one shred of evidence Saxton cared a whit about SWvST. To my knowledge, he never participated on ASVS or anywhere else in the versus debate. Most of the numbers in Ep2 ICS had been on his site for years, worked out primarily from the films.

As for thanking people like Wong, Poe, ConnorMcLeod, and others, the fact of the matter is that the technically minded SW fandom overlapped considerably with the SWvST fandom, especially on the Internet. Many people started working the numbers as a response to the debate. And before you start with "Ah ha! They were on the Wars side, so they fudged the numbers in their side's favor!", their assumptions and methodology are freely available on the Internet to be challenged.

Someone's state of mind doesn't generally produce 'scraps of evidence." It might, but that's just dumb luck. It seems unlikely to me that the SWvs.ST fandom's overlap with technical SW fandom is something that was unknown to CS, or that it failed to have an influence on the direction of the numbers.

One statement from Saxton anywhere on the Internet would do it. You're the one making the positive assertion; it's on your to prove it.

Since the argument is phrased "Why do a lot of people think the federation can win," my burden of evidence as a whole is extremely relaxed. And on this particular matter, we're talking about how ST partisans should consider a work by CS; why do I need to incontrovertably prove CS's motives in totality in order to suggest ST fans can be justly suspicious?

His methodology is freely available to examine for anyone who takes issues with his numbers, including you. It ultimately doesn't even matter what his motives were (which is why, again, appealing to a person's motive for making an argument as disproof of that argumeent is a fallacy), as long as his numbers are right. Whatever is left of Trek fandom that still cares about this debate is free to prove he made mistakes or bad assumptions or what have you. The fact nobody has, and in fact nobody with the apparent mathmatical skill to do so has turned up on the Trek side is far more telling than who's name is on the acknowledgements page of the EP2 ICS.

Bounty's link - although obviously highly agenda driven - pokes some of the usual holes that always get poked in people trying to square science fiction with objective numbers. "Dialed down" lasers, hypothetical weapons invisible in the movies, canon issues, etc.

It's only considered that by sore losers who had been hoping against hope the calculations worked out by the Wars side in the debate long before that book hit the shelves were wrong. The Empire's speed, logistical, and firepower advantages can be worked out entirely from the films, without any help from any companion book or the EU. The ICS just sucked the life out of whatever resistance was left. Except for the kiddies and the raving lunatic fanatics, one of whom I note you cite elsewhere in this thread.

...cite elsewhere? I've not exactly been posting in this thread for a long time. Deriving the empire's speed, logistical and firepower advantages from the films strikes me as very dubious. I don't think the political-military nuts and bolts of either universe can be derived from either canon in its entirety, in fact.

Oh bullshit. There is not one lousy shred of evidence Saxton gave a rat's ass about Star Trek at all, let alone any part of the debate. Feel free to provide it if you have some, but otherwise, yammering about Saxton's "likely" motives is going to get you nowhere.

We're growing repetative. His thanking ASVS SW partisans. I don't claim any evil plot; but I think it very unlikely he was entirely disinterested. Indeed, even if he never heard of Star Trek, his integration of work produced by ASVS partisans itself brings that debate into the heart of his work.

The difference in that scenario is that truly would be the ST EU arbitrarily overriding the filmed canon. Trek's weakness is derived from the episodes and films, just like Wars's strength is. For Paramount to authorize such a change would create any number of enormous contradictions within ST canon

I think that a restrictive canon vs. restrictive canon discussion wouldn't be one sided as you claim; but these restrictions are not generally accepted regardless. As Wong mentioned, a silly kludge could be used; but so also, could a series of quasi-logical, pseudo scientific workarounds. It would hardly be a shocking deviation from hiterto peerless consistency, would it?

Well goody goody gumdrops for you. What makes you think I give two shits about what you think our rules of decorum should be? You can be as polite as you want, but I will continue to point out that you're being a fallacious little prick, dismissing the ICS as some sort of dishonest tactic without a shred of evidence.

I think meaningful conversation works better through civility. You're the one with all the fancy doo-dads under your name, however, so I don't presume to instruct you.

Incidentally, to the various people who enjoy the "appeal to motive" chorus set to the Star Wars theme - you're applying this criticism far too broadly. Noone, for example, has any difficulty in criticizing Bounty's link because of the presumed motives of its author. An appeal to motive is a fallacious argument only if the motive being presented is unreasonable.

For example, I claim that Bill McCreary just ruled on a penalty in a Montreal-Toronto game because he once played for Toronto; this is a far-fetched appeal to motive. McCreary is known to be an excellent and objective referee who would never stoop to serious misconduct in such a situation.

If, on the other hand, I am watching a game of pickup with an amateur referee, and the referee appears to be ruling on behalf of his friends, I might very reasonably think that his association with the beneficiaries of his rulings was objectionable. There are far fewer sanctions and moral forces acting on this referee.

In the case of debating Curtis Saxtons's work, it is impossible to know. If, for example, he were to say very earnestly that he knew little to nothing of the debate and didn't realize that his work would have a bearing on it, I'd take him at his word.

Not having seen anything like that, my assumption is that he must have been familiar with the discussions, particularly since they were at the forefront of "quantifying" Star Wars technology. Given that absolutely noone is going to contend that "winning the ASVS war" is somehow bad behavior - it isn't - I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that was a good natured but conscious fringe benefit of the book.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see why motive (or, as I contend, partial motive) is irrelavant to a discussion of which canon is or isn't appealing to people. Anything is fair game when the issue is how people perceive legitimacy.

The question is how you perceive legitimacy, asshole. You accused Curtis Saxton of "dirty pool", so you are clearly sympathetic to this viewpoint, rather than dispassionately analyzing the way these Trekkie idiots think as you want us to believe.

Someone's state of mind doesn't generally produce 'scraps of evidence." It might, but that's just dumb luck. It seems unlikely to me that the SWvs.ST fandom's overlap with technical SW fandom is something that was unknown to CS, or that it failed to have an influence on the direction of the numbers.

Yet more of your Appeal to Motive fallacies. I grow weary of your bullshit. You WILL provide evidence in your next post.

Since the argument is phrased "Why do a lot of people think the federation can win," my burden of evidence as a whole is extremely relaxed.

Wrong, asshole. You have stated these interpretations as your own. You made the "dirty pool" statement as your own. The paragraph preceding this one is your own interpretation.

Bounty's link - although obviously highly agenda driven - pokes some of the usual holes that always get poked in people trying to square science fiction with objective numbers. "Dialed down" lasers, hypothetical weapons invisible in the movies, canon issues, etc.

There you go again, suggesting that an argument has merit but refusing to actually do the work of defending it. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

We're growing repetative. His thanking ASVS SW partisans. I don't claim any evil plot; but I think it very unlikely he was entirely disinterested.

I am sick of your "SW partisan" bullshit. If you have a shred of evidence that my analyses of Star Wars are dishonest, hence "partisan" rather than logical and objective, bring it.

You are literally accusing Curtis Saxton of dishonesty merely by virtue of associating with me, asshole.

If, on the other hand, I am watching a game of pickup with an amateur referee, and the referee appears to be ruling on behalf of his friends, I might very reasonably think that his association with the beneficiaries of his rulings was objectionable. There are far fewer sanctions and moral forces acting on this referee.

Then PROVE that some kind of unfair ruling is going on, asshole.

In the case of debating Curtis Saxtons's work, it is impossible to know. If, for example, he were to say very earnestly that he knew little to nothing of the debate and didn't realize that his work would have a bearing on it, I'd take him at his word.

Why the fuck does he have to be IGNORANT of the debate to be basing his numbers on objective and logical analysis rather than "partisan" motives, you little turd?

[Edi]

Link for the moron.

There, in Curtis Saxton's own words, how much his work has to do with the STvsSW debate.

You don't have a fucking case and you're deep into troll territory with your repetition of the same fallacy over and over when your claim has been demolished.

Edi

[Jason_T]

I don't see why motive (or, as I contend, partial motive) is irrelavant to a discussion of which canon is or isn't appealing to people. Anything is fair game when the issue is how people perceive legitimacy.

The question is how you perceive legitimacy. You accused Curtis Saxton of "dirty pool", so you are clearly sympathetic to this viewpoint, rather than dispassionately analyzing the way these Trekkie idiots think as you want us to believe.

No, the thread is called "Why do a lot of people think the federation can win," not "Why does Jason_T think the federation can win." As, indeed, I never contended.

Someone's state of mind doesn't generally produce 'scraps of evidence." It might, but that's just dumb luck. It seems unlikely to me that the SWvs.ST fandom's overlap with technical SW fandom is something that was unknown to CS, or that it failed to have an influence on the direction of the numbers.

Yet more of your Appeal to Motive fallacies. I grow weary of your arguments. You WILL provide evidence in your next post.

I already did; his acnkowlegement of ASVS personalities, and his inclusion of the fruits of their debate. You might also want to consult the referee analogy I made; you do, after all, accept motive as a sensible consideration when debunking Bounty's link.

Since the argument is phrased "Why do a lot of people think the federation can win," my burden of evidence as a whole is extremely relaxed.

Wrong. You have stated these interpretations as your own. You made the "dirty pool" statement as your own. The paragraph preceding this one is your own interpretation.

As I mentioned, my own contention is that neither universe is sufficiently real for conclusive comparisons. Either side could, in case of absolute need, claim that the two universes operate with different physical properties.

Bounty's link - although obviously highly agenda driven - pokes some of the usual holes that always get poked in people trying to square science fiction with objective numbers. "Dialed down" lasers, hypothetical weapons invisible in the movies, canon issues, etc.

There you go again, suggesting that an argument has merit but refusing to actually do the work of defending it. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

It's delicious.

We're growing repetative. His thanking ASVS SW partisans. I don't claim any evil plot; but I think it very unlikely he was entirely disinterested.

I am sick of your "SW partisan" bullshit. If you have a shred of evidence that my analyses of Star Wars are dishonest, hence "partisan" rather than logical and objective, bring it.

Partisan doesn't mean dishonest; it means interested. I see no evidence that you're dishonest.

You are literally accusing Curtis Saxton of dishonesty merely by virtue of associating with me.

No, I'm saying that his acknowlegements make it unlikely that he is unfamiliar with the debate - and further, even if he were somehow unfamiliar with it, the fact that the quantification efforts were tied up with ASVS discussions means that they are inherently linked to the debate.

If, on the other hand, I am watching a game of pickup with an amateur referee, and the referee appears to be ruling on behalf of his friends, I might very reasonably think that his association with the beneficiaries of his rulings was objectionable. There are far fewer sanctions and moral forces acting on this referee.

Then PROVE that some kind of unfair ruling is going on, asshole.

It would be equally impossible to prove that the above referee were being unfair, wouldn't it? There is no way to determine that he's not merely 'incorrect.' Bear in mind, this is an analogy; I'm not implying that Saxton is meanspirited or dishonest in his efforts.

Why does he have to be IGNORANT of the debate to be basing his numbers on objective and logical analysis rather than "partisan" motives?

He could be utterly non-partisan; the question is the appearance of partisanship. Connection to those who are partisan, and their work. People with a clear point of view, whose "objective and logical" research is designed to demonstrate that their pew pews are bigger and badder than Star Trek's pew pews.

[Jason_T]

Link for the moron.

There, in Curtis Saxton's own words, how much his work has to do with the STvsSW debate.

You don't have a fucking case and you're deep into troll territory with your repetition of the same fallacy over and over when your claim has been demolished.

That's not precisely what I asked for; nor does it delve into Curt Saxon's familiarity (which appears to exist) with the debate, or his feelings on the fact that a fringe benefit of his work was to 'end' the debate from a certain point of view.

As for "trolling," good lord, that's something I've never been accused of in my life; your soi-dissant 'demolition' of my arguments is very much a work in progress. If you demand that I stop posting, or define my posting as it exists now as abusive, I'll stop to avoid a ban; but I certainly do not concede the points I'm arguing.

[Edi]

I already did; his acnkowlegement of ASVS personalities, and his inclusion of the fruits of their debate. You might also want to consult the referee analogy I made; you do, after all, accept motive as a sensible consideration when debunking Bounty's link.

That particular moron has been objectively demonstrated to be a dishonest turd who will not accept the word of even the very people responsible for arbitartion of the fucking canon if they do not tell him what he wants to hear. One does not need to look at his motives,one needs only look at his actions and arguments, the evidence of his motives is just the icing on the cake. Evidence, which actually exists, you fucktard.

Edi

[Edi]

Link for the moron.

There, in Curtis Saxton's own words, how much his work has to do with the STvsSW debate.

You don't have a fucking case and you're deep into troll territory with your repetition of the same fallacy over and over when your claim has been demolished.

That's not precisely what I asked for; nor does it delve into Curt Saxon's familiarity (which appears to exist) with the debate, or his feelings on the fact that a fringe benefit of his work was to 'end' the debate from a certain point of view.

As for "trolling," good lord, that's something I've never been accused of in my life; your soi-dissant 'demolition' of my arguments is very much a work in progress. If you demand that I stop posting, or define my posting as it exists now as abusive, I'll stop to avoid a ban; but I certainly do not concede the points I'm arguing.

Goodbye then, asshole, and good riddance. Because by the time Wong posts next, you WILL be banned and will make a nice new entry in the Parting Shots. A forum you should have read before opening your mouth here. As for your status as a troll, yes, you are one. People who tenaciously cling to fallacious arguments and walls of ignorance, make accusations they can't back up and act like assholes, even if they do so with a veneer of civility, are trolls. Trolls who prefer style over substance, among other things. You're one of them.

Edi