StarDestroyer.Net BBS

 Post subject: Old Trekkie, came back to apologize.

Posted: 2010-11-03 07:36pm 

Hello. I last signed on here sometime in december of 2007 apparently. My old accounts email was a long time ago when we moved and switched internet providers, so I can't recover it.

My old username was StarFighter, and I was responsible for this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=116306

The vast majority of replies consisted of pointing out the glaring flaws in my arguments and 'evidence,' while i continued with pretty much the same thing for the entire debate, the same crap style. Heck, I even ignored spelling for the most part, raping the names of the ships i believed would win the day for Trek. After all, the Reman Scheimitars couldn't be stopped, right?

I came back to apologize for my horrid threads and the headaches it may have caused as a result. I was just over 13 when I signed up my account, and I wasn't the most mature. I turned 16 a month ago and decided to come back and try to make up for that. So, just to clarify:

Yes, Trek would get its ass handed to it in a dozen or so cruel and creative ways. No, Borg adaption will not help in any meaningful way. No, 8472's bio armor wont be anywhere near enough to stop the onslaught that ISD's can dish out. the Empire's vastly superior industry, weapons, speed, and many other factors will win the day, full stop. I conceed any points i had.

Hopefully I'll be looked at as less of a retard now by the members of SD. As I look at that thread and my profile I feel embarrassed that I put so much... passion into the argument. I still enjoy Star Trek, despite it's obvious flaws, and I enjoy many other shows like Battlestar Galactica that Wars would stomp even harder. What I did was silly, and I just want parts of that account to go away.

Thank you for your time. Have a nice day.

 Post subject: Re: Old Trekkie, came back to apologize.

Posted: 2010-11-05 09:50pm 

Hey, how often does this happen? Nice to hear.

 Post subject: Re: Old Trekkie, came back to apologize.

Posted: 2010-11-06 01:01am 

Hold on...one sec...yep, my pan-dimensional thermometer/Omnicide stick tells me that the current temperature in Hell is 3 degrees Celsius, chilly but not quite freezing. I await to see if this is a troll or not, then I'll be able to accurately call it.

Edit: clarifying statement

 Post subject: Re: Old Trekkie, came back to apologize.

Posted: 2010-11-06 11:36am 

Well that's a shitty thermometer. It can't predict anything!

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. It's a unique style of trolling if it is trolling, but I'm more willing to accept it at face value.

Welcome back. Enjoy your stay.

 Post subject: Re: Old Trekkie, came back to apologize.

Posted: 2010-11-24 01:01pm 

How refreshing. A Trekkie admitting they were wrong.

Or, for that matter, someone admitting they were wrong, apologising for their posts after three years!

Kudos to you StarLiner, and thank you

 Post subject: Re: Old Trekkie, came back to apologize.

Posted: 2010-11-24 01:24pm 

Welcome!




Passion is a good thing, honestly. It's why we're interested in SF in the first place. The problem is when passion blinds us.

Take me for an example. I love Farscape. If the debate were, for some insane reason, to pit Farscape against the Total Annihilation 'verse (where megascale construction is the order of the day), then I would have to conclude that any Farscape faction would reasonably have its ass handed to it. That doesn't make TA a "better" universe in my eyes, nor does it detract from the awesomeness of Farscape.

(By the same token, I vastly prefer the Borg from TNG to the Voyager era Borg. And it's got nothing to do with relative ability. TNG Borg were frightening; utterly alien beings following principles and rationales the Federation couldn't begin to fathom. They didn't get upset, didn't react to insult or mockery, didn't get mad when bested. Like Deep Blue playing against Kasparov, they just calmly kept on reevaluating and trying again. During Q Who and BoBW, they didn't even seem interested in propagating the classic hive mind "you'll be happy with us" trope, because to the Borg such motivations were meaningless. They were just, well, the Borg, and no justification was required.

And that - despite the illogic of them allowing intruders free rein onboard - is what made them so utterly terrifying.)

 Post subject: Re: Old Trekkie, came back to apologize.

Posted: 2010-11-24 02:10pm 

I totally agree wit what Elease said, passion is a good thing, provided you learnt o keep it under control so it doesn't blind you to the argument. As you said, you're older and maturer now so hopefully that's the case

My apologies if that sounds incredibly condescending, but I couldn't figure a way to say it otherwise

 Post subject: Re: Old Trekkie, came back to apologize.

Posted: 2010-11-24 05:51pm 

Dude, its not unprecedented for trekkies to admit error. If you're going to talk about fanboys, then call them fanboys rather than assuming all trekkies are irrational.

 Post subject: Re: Old Trekkie, came back to apologize.

Posted: 2010-11-24 05:58pm 

My apologies Connor, I just haven't seen one repent yet. Always nice to see it. My apologies to rational Trekkies

 Post subject: Re: Old Trekkie, came back to apologize.

Posted: 2011-03-11 05:28pm 

Yeah your concession isn't a big deal. You're only 16 as you said. People that young are pretty wishy washy. Sounds like some star wars fanatics waved the Incrediable Cross Sections books in your face. Maybe I would have believed it too if I were your age. Or you could have just submitted to peer presure around here. In any case, I don't put its figures as the decideing factor in any debate. I've watched the Star Wars Clone Wars mini series, every episode of star wars the clone wars, and every star wars movie specifically to see if its most extreme figures had any validity. I picked through them all with a fine tooth comb. I found nothing supporting it and plenty against it.

I saw nothing in the highest levels of canon which supported its figures which were apparently calculated from some vague novel descriptions of a base delta zero order and maybe a mention of a gigaton in some other novel. Any other evidence is scaling nonsense of smaller weapons to support the books insane figures. It wouldn't be the first C-canon source to exaggerate the star wars reality a bit.

 Post subject: Re: Old Trekkie, came back to apologize.

Posted: 2011-03-11 06:06pm 

Darthy, if you plan to conduct vs. debates with this sort of attitude here I can guarantee you'll be the source of much mirth but also much frustration. I implore you to not disavow numerical figures and not the SW EU because objective numbers and canon adherence (the EU is canon, not the highest level but canon nonetheless) are both fundamentally important to a vs. debate.

Now however I'll be silent because there's no point in further necroing this thread.

 Post subject: Re: Old Trekkie, came back to apologize.

Posted: 2011-03-16 11:47pm 

It's a low-traffic forum, so this necro is a first-page resurrection; nothing to write home about.

I do expect to see his claims challenged though.

 Post subject: Re: Old Trekkie, came back to apologize.

Posted: 2011-03-17 02:08am 

What's the point of challenging a broken record that makes shit up and ignores arguments that demolish his "points?"

 Post subject: Re: Old Trekkie, came back to apologize.

Posted: 2011-03-22 08:43am 

Especially one that spans multiple threads with inane drivel...

 Post subject: Re: Old Trekkie, came back to apologize.

Posted: 2011-03-22 08:57am 

And makes up their own version of Wars canon rules...

And their own explanations for Treknology...

We could go on...

I think he brought up some of his 'counter-evidence' to the ICS numbers. A 6 year old could challenge what he presented. Maybe he has better. I asked him to start a thread dedicated to it.