Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 
Want to support this site? Click

Quote of the Week: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." - Will Durant, American historian (1885-1981)


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Returning fire: Federation Phasers vs. Imperial Blasters PostPosted: 2003-08-31 04:32pm
Offline
Youngling
User avatar

Joined: 2002-09-18 06:13pm
Posts: 114
Location: Earth, a planet of dreams...
My flair for the dramatic is an unfortunate handicap in debates, but nevertheless one I shall ignore. My defining the canon is just to make sure everyone remembers it. THe EU was called a "parallel universe" by Lucas, and given this quote from "Darksaber" regarding durasteel, that could be seen as a good thing:

[i]"Daala turned and ripped one of the electric-blue glowtorches from the floor behind her. 'Enough!' she shouted. She raised the durasteel staff high and smashed it down upon the tabletop. The glowcrystal exploded into shards with crackling blue sparks, and transparent fragments flew in all directions. She hammered the rod down again and again, denting the table, bending the staff, and fragmenting the end."[*i] (Darksaber, p. 133)

Capable of being bent by a pissed off woman (even one with enhanced strength, which compared to the forces out in space combat, is barely anything)? Gee, I wish I had some boots to quake in.


But, that's not the topic of the reponse to the challenge issued by Wong. This is:

Phaser to Blasters


In ST:II, we see phasers vaporize at least two people. In TNG Season 3, Ep# 57: "The Vengeance Factor", we see Riker vaporize Yuta with a phaser. Granted, Wong argues over "vaporization", but for all intents and purposes, Yuta was reduced to virtually nothing. In TNG Season 3, Ep# 57: "The Vengeance Factor", we see another example of "vaporization", and though there is smoke left over, Wong fails to submit the idea that not ALL of the norandium was vaporized. Considering the size of the pile, and the angle of the phaser blasts, it is entirely possible the away team didn't vaporize it all, and some of it was left over, smoking. This does not indicate phasers are weak, as I might point out that:

1: We have never seen an Imperial blaster vaporize a person entirely. Or, any large scale object at all, for that matter. Yes, Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru were reduced to flaming corpses, but they were still, in effect, THERE. Phasers have shown themselves capable of leaving virtually nothing left.

2: In the ANH novelization, in the first chapter, [i]Red, green and blue bolts ricocheted off polished sections of wall and floor or ripped long gashes in metal surfaces.[*i]

This seems to indicate that blaster shots simply bounce off mirrored surfaces. On one hand, this is not entirely surprising: The primary shipboard weapon in use in the Star Wars Universe is the laser: at it's most basic, energized light. Since the Empire doesn't use projectile weapons, and how blasters and lasers seem to work exactly the same ("little bolts of light," in the immortal words of John Crichton), it makes sense that blasters are just smaller versions of lasers.

3: Phasers can disperse their energies across a wide range for stunning and sweeping manuvers (ST: Voyager "Cathexis", ST DS9 "Way of the Warrior", "Homefront"). While they might not be able to kill large sweeps of targets, they are able to stun large numbers of them.


4: Phasers can adjust their aim ("The Vengeance Factor"[TNG]) by the fact that Riker fires the phaser off-center.


Phasers pack far more firepower than blasters do, are more versatile, and have greater range. No matter the argument, the sheer fact that phasers have far greater power in ground combat applications shows that it doesn't matter if the Federation doesn't use very "sophisticated" ground tactics. Lines of Stormtroopers could easily be mowed down by a few security personnel equipped with phasers. And given their pathetic aim (Stormtroopers), I doubt they'd prove much of a threat to Federation troops except in numbers.


How's that?



"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics..." Admiral Rickover


Wolverine: Woah! It's me...
Cyclops: Oh yeah? Prove it!
Wolverine: ... You're a dick.
Cyclops: ... Okay then...

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Returning fire: Federation Phasers vs. Imperial Blasters PostPosted: 2003-08-31 04:57pm
Offline
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
Andrew Joshua Talon wrote:
My flair for the dramatic is an unfortunate handicap in debates, but nevertheless one I shall ignore. My defining the canon is just to make sure everyone remembers it.

Your re-definition of canon ignores public statements made by Lucasfilm, not to mention Lucas himself who stated quite clearly that the EU "intrudes" upon his universe everywhere but the films themselves. That's exactly what we've all said since day one; the EU matters but can't override the films.
Quote:
THe EU was called a "parallel universe" by Lucas, and given this quote from "Darksaber" regarding durasteel, that could be seen as a good thing:

[i]"Daala turned and ripped one of the electric-blue glowtorches from the floor behind her. 'Enough!' she shouted. She raised the durasteel staff high and smashed it down upon the tabletop. The glowcrystal exploded into shards with crackling blue sparks, and transparent fragments flew in all directions. She hammered the rod down again and again, denting the table, bending the staff, and fragmenting the end."[*i] (Darksaber, p. 133)

Your total ignorance of all things mechanical shows through again. I can take a thin rod of the highest strength steel you can find, put a crystal on the end of it, and do the exact same thing.
Quote:
Capable of being bent by a pissed off woman (even one with enhanced strength, which compared to the forces out in space combat, is barely anything)? Gee, I wish I had some boots to quake in.

Obviously, you are totally ignorant of mechanical engineering. If you seriously wish to use your research of Darkstar's similarly ignorant work in order to contradict the arguments on mechanical stress and bending moment with thin rods that I can make as a qualified mechanical engineer, be my guest. Otherwise, simply deal with the fact that your example proves nothing.
Quote:
But, that's not the topic of the reponse to the challenge issued by Wong. This is:

Phaser to Blasters

In ST:II, we see phasers vaporize at least two people. In TNG Season 3, Ep# 57: "The Vengeance Factor", we see Riker vaporize Yuta with a phaser. Granted, Wong argues over "vaporization", but for all intents and purposes, Yuta was reduced to virtually nothing.

By a max-yield blast which does the same to a Klingon of probably twice the mass, thus proving that it's obviously a chain-reaction weapon. Also note that the reaction takes a while to eat through her body. None of this is news to anyone.

BTW, I have made very thorough, detailed arguments on phaser chain reactions on my website. You cannot simply dismiss them with a single sentence; address them or concede the point.
Quote:
In TNG Season 3, Ep# 57: "The Vengeance Factor", we see another example of "vaporization", and though there is smoke left over, Wong fails to submit the idea that not ALL of the norandium was vaporized.

Since the norandium was SET ON FIRE, it's ridiculous to credit it to phaser power. Do you believe that the careless smoker who started the BC wildfires had a cigarette capable of enormous quantities of energy output, comparable to the entire fire?
Quote:
Considering the size of the pile, and the angle of the phaser blasts, it is entirely possible the away team didn't vaporize it all, and some of it was left over, smoking. This does not indicate phasers are weak,

It also does not indicate that phasers are powerful, hence it is useless for establishing your position. However, when you consider the fact that thin-walled metal packing crates are routinely used for (impregnable) cover during firefights, it's pretty obvious that phasers are useless against certain materials.
Quote:
as I might point out that:

1: We have never seen an Imperial blaster vaporize a person entirely. Or, any large scale object at all, for that matter. Yes, Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru were reduced to flaming corpses, but they were still, in effect, THERE. Phasers have shown themselves capable of leaving virtually nothing left.

Yes, phasers are very effective against organic tissue. However, they are also almost totally ineffective against starship bulkheads, thin-walled packing crates, etc. Meanwhile, Imperial blasters blow chunks out of walls on starships and (according to the ANH novelization) they can be used to blow a hole right through a DS wall. In fact, both the boarding of Tantive IV and the taking of the DS detention centre were characterized by such levels of wall damage that the entire area was quickly choked with smoke and debris.

Also note that battledroids have chest armour in excess of an inch thick; far more than the packing crates which are used as cover in ST phaser firefights, yet they are blown away easily by SW blaster fire. And of course, there's Han Solo, using his hand blaster to blow torso-sized chunks out of the Docking Bay 94 walls prior to the Falcon's lift-off in ANH.

All of this is canon, even if you use Darkstar's bullshit definition. Suck it up, kiddo.
Quote:
2: In the ANH novelization, in the first chapter, [i]Red, green and blue bolts ricocheted off polished sections of wall and floor or ripped long gashes in metal surfaces.[*i]

This seems to indicate that blaster shots simply bounce off mirrored surfaces.

Perhaps you missed the part about how they "ripped long gashes in metal surfaces". Angle of incidence obviously plays a part here.
Quote:
On one hand, this is not entirely surprising: The primary shipboard weapon in use in the Star Wars Universe is the laser: at it's most basic, energized light.

That is not the definition of a laser, dumb-ass. Light is already pure energy. Moreover, the behaviour of blasters is totally unlike a real laser. One could go blue in the face listing the differences.
Quote:
Since the Empire doesn't use projectile weapons, and how blasters and lasers seem to work exactly the same ("little bolts of light," in the immortal words of John Crichton), it makes sense that blasters are just smaller versions of lasers.

"Blasters and lasers seem to work exactly the same?" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Have you ever seen a high-powered laser in action? I have. They are not even remotely similar.
Quote:
3: Phasers can disperse their energies across a wide range for stunning and sweeping manuvers (ST: Voyager "Cathexis", ST DS9 "Way of the Warrior", "Homefront"). While they might not be able to kill large sweeps of targets, they are able to stun large numbers of them.

Even at high power, they are useless against packing crates, which are routinely used as cover in firefights. All you need is body armour made of packing crate material, and you're good to go.
Quote:
4: Phasers can adjust their aim ("The Vengeance Factor"[TNG]) by the fact that Riker fires the phaser off-center.

Either that, or:

1) They have poor quality control, or
2) Their emitters point slightly downwards from the factory, so you can hold your hand in a more ergonomically comfortable position while firing forwards
3) They are manually adjustable, and Riker likes his to point down

An auto-aiming system is more preposterous than all of those explanations in light of the fact that they so often miss even at close range (see "Conspiracy" for a good example).
Quote:
Phasers pack far more firepower than blasters do, are more versatile, and have greater range.

On firepower: you have failed to establish any advantage in firepower; in fact, one of your own quotes describes blasters tearing long gashes in starship bulkheads; something no phaser has ever been seen to do. While the chain-reaction "eating away" effect of phasers is really neat, it is of little tactical usefulness against enemies wearing body-covering armour.

On versatility: leave the Swiss army knives to the Boy Scouts. Soldiers need a reliable, powerful weapon that gets the job done. A blasters can stun someone or it can blow a hole clean through a wall if necessary; that's all you need. The fact that you can use a phaser to heat up a rock is great for camping trips, but I'd rather be the guy with the better gun.

On range: you have not even ATTEMPTED to establish greater range for phasers. In fact, we have seen SW blasters being used at ranges of several kilometres (AOTC); when have we seen this kind of range being used with ST phasers?
Quote:
No matter the argument, the sheer fact that phasers have far greater power in ground combat applications shows that it doesn't matter if the Federation doesn't use very "sophisticated" ground tactics.

Against packing crates, phasers are useless. If stormtrooper armour is as tough as a packing crate, the Feddies might as well throw their phasers away and wave the white flag (leaving aside their enormous combined-arms advantage, of course).
Quote:
Lines of Stormtroopers could easily be mowed down by a few security personnel equipped with phasers. And given their pathetic aim (Stormtroopers), I doubt they'd prove much of a threat to Federation troops except in numbers.

Prove that the average Starfleet grunt's aim is better than that of a Stormtrooper. A Starfleet detachment was overrun by a bunch of screaming idiot Jem'Hadar charging through a chokepoint JUST AFTER THEY WERE RESUPPLIED WITH FRESH WEAPONS; that is totally unacceptable. Also look at the pitiful Starfleet grunt performance during the boarding action in "Nemesis", where they were literally a stone's throw away and couldn't hit the Viceroy as he calmly walked across the hallway.
Quote:
How's that?

Quite pathetic. It's clear that you don't recognize how to connect evidence to conclusion properly. Your glaring scientific ignorance is also quite clear in your use of Darkstar's moronic "durasteel rod" argument and your claim that blasters and lasers work identically.

PS. your shameless attempt to include an EU topic (the "durasteel rod" bit) for discussion while simultaneously barring me from doing so (in the other thread, which makes this hard to follow) is just more evidence of your weaselly nature. Either debate cleanly or admit that you're hopelessly overmatched.



Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Returning fire: Federation Phasers vs. Imperial Blasters PostPosted: 2003-08-31 11:49pm
Offline
Charismatic Cult Leader
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm
Posts: 13743
Location: Wheeeee!!
Andrew Joshua Talon wrote:
THe EU was called a "parallel universe" by Lucas, and given this quote from "Darksaber" regarding durasteel, that could be seen as a good thing:

"Daala turned and ripped one of the electric-blue glowtorches from the floor behind her. 'Enough!' she shouted. She raised the durasteel staff high and smashed it down upon the tabletop. The glowcrystal exploded into shards with crackling blue sparks, and transparent fragments flew in all directions. She hammered the rod down again and again, denting the table, bending the staff, and fragmenting the end." (Darksaber, p. 133)

Capable of being bent by a pissed off woman (even one with enhanced strength, which compared to the forces out in space combat, is barely anything)? Gee, I wish I had some boots to quake in.


And what the fuck does that prove? How big is the shaft? How long is it, how thick is it, is it hollow, solid, or what? What's the table made of? Is it high-grade dura-steel or low-grade junk? Can't answer than can you? Without knowing all of the above you can't prove shit. Back to school you flunkie and try again when you learn something.



Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2003-09-01 12:11am
Offline
NARF
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-11 11:45am
Posts: 9833
Location: In Transit ...
ATTENTION!

I really want to see one of these threads kept completely clear of observers, if this is the Mike vs AJT thread, then please do not post in it, so that it can be read more easily.

Thankyou for your attention. :wink:



Image ~+::My Photo Gallery::+~
Η ζωή, η ζωή εδω τελειώνει!
"Science is one cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on" - Masuka 'Dexter'
"Angela is not the woman you think she is Gabriel, she's done terrible things"
"So have I, and I'm going to do them all to you." - Sylar to Arthur 'Heroes'

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2003-09-05 05:39pm
Offline
Youngling
User avatar

Joined: 2002-09-18 06:13pm
Posts: 114
Location: Earth, a planet of dreams...
Sorting through that kind of bull, along with a large amount of homework and social activities, made it difficult to finish this even as soon as this.

But, know your enemy as you know yourself, and victory will always be yours. To that end:


Quote:
Your re-definition of canon ignores public statements made by Lucasfilm, not to mention Lucas himself who stated quite clearly that the EU "intrudes" upon his universe everywhere but the films themselves. That's exactly what we've all said since day one; the EU matters but can't override the films.


My only quarrel with this is that you claim the Empire uses things like neutronium hulls, but we've seen and heard no evidence for this in the movies. Seems like you are overriding the canon.


Quote:
Your total ignorance of all things mechanical shows through again. I can take a thin rod of the highest strength steel you can find, put a crystal on the end of it, and do the exact same thing.


Then, are you saying that durasteel is no better than normal, modern steel? If you could do the same thing with modern steel, doesn't this mean that the Empire's building materials are no better than ours?

You even support my previous statement by accepting the quote as a part of the debate, instead of dismissing it out of hand, and therefore part of the canon (which it is not).

Fascinating.

Quote:
By a max-yield blast which does the same to a Klingon of probably twice the mass, thus proving that it's obviously a chain-reaction weapon. Also note that the reaction takes a while to eat through her body. None of this is news to anyone.


Yes: The Star Trek Encyclopedia defines a phaser as a "directed nadion beam", which disrupts the atomic bindings of matter. What exactly IS a blaster, then? From what is seen, it could be some sort of simple plasma-based weapon, though that doesn't really work given how refined the beams are.

Nevertheless, no matter how a blaster works, the phaser is a canon demonstration of "desentigration", which is still an energy blast and therefore requires a good deal of it to do the things within it's demonstrated capabilities. It takes 2.7 kilojoules alone to vaporize a single kilogram of water at 37 degrees C, or 98.6 degrees (In other words, standard human body temperature). Multiply that by 68 (weight of a reasonably average adult human male in kilograms), and you get a minimum power rating of 202.5 kilowatts (or 0.2 megawatts).

The sad truth is, all energy weapons work on the basis of a chain reaction. That is, the disruption of matter interactions, whether it to be stunning or vaporizing. Therefore, there is no real reason for phasers to be set apart from other energy weapons, or vica-versa. Aside from their means of power (nadion beams).

Quote:
Since the norandium was SET ON FIRE, it's ridiculous to credit it to phaser power. Do you believe that the careless smoker who started the BC wildfires had a cigarette capable of enormous quantities of energy output, comparable to the entire fire?


The remaining norandium was set on fire from the phaser blasts. True, it does no good to my argument, but it does not hurt, either.

Quote:
It also does not indicate that phasers are powerful, hence it is useless for establishing your position. However, when you consider the fact that thin-walled metal packing crates are routinely used for (impregnable) cover during firefights, it's pretty obvious that phasers are useless against certain materials.


And blasters can just blow through any old thing, right? Usually during those firefights, the phasers are set within the range of "stun" to "kill", not "vaporize". Why? Because there's no need to use that much energy out of your weapons if your targets are people, not obstructions. It does not mean phasers are weak-It's simple common sense to save the energy of your weapons if needed.

Quote:
Yes, phasers are very effective against organic tissue. However, they are also almost totally ineffective against starship bulkheads, thin-walled packing crates, etc. Meanwhile, Imperial blasters blow chunks out of walls on starships and (according to the ANH novelization) they can be used to blow a hole right through a DS wall. In fact, both the boarding of Tantive IV and the taking of the DS detention centre were characterized by such levels of wall damage that the entire area was quickly choked with smoke and debris.


Considering that we've seen phasers used to obliterate rock walls (ST:I), blow apart control panels ("Interface"), and blast through thick power cables to a ship's main reactor (ST:FC), I feel fairly certain they'd be able to blow holes in walls.

Your assumption that the phasers in question were at full power is erroneous, as I've already pointed out. As for Imperial blasters, the most powerful we've seen them is, indeed, blowing holes in walls. Which doesn't require larger amounts of energy than vaporizing people. It probably takes even less.

Oh, were those [i]durasteel[*i] walls the stormtroopers were shooting at? That were no better than modern-day steel?

Quote:
Also note that battledroids have chest armour in excess of an inch thick; far more than the packing crates which are used as cover in ST phaser firefights, yet they are blown away easily by SW blaster fire. And of course, there's Han Solo, using his hand blaster to blow torso-sized chunks out of the Docking Bay 94 walls prior to the Falcon's lift-off in ANH.


And yet, they, too, are easily pierced by blasters. With a single shot.

The ANH novel goes, "a dug-out pit... holding what could only marginally be refered to as a starship." So, Han was blowing out chunks of what amounts to DIRT. Packed dirt, but dirt nonetheless. Most likely held together by cement or a reasonable fascimile thereof.

Quote:
All of this is canon, even if you use Darkstar's bullshit definition. Suck it up, kiddo.


Thank you for supporting me.

Quote:
Perhaps you missed the part about how they "ripped long gashes in metal surfaces". Angle of incidence obviously plays a part here.


No doubt it does, but it doesn't change the fact they still bounced off mirrored surfaces.

Quote:
That is not the definition of a laser, dumb-ass. Light is already pure energy. Moreover, the behaviour of blasters is totally unlike a real laser. One could go blue in the face listing the differences.


Yes. However, if it isn't a laser, then what is it?

Quote:
"Blasters and lasers seem to work exactly the same?" Have you ever seen a high-powered laser in action? I have. They are not even remotely similar.


If you'll review the post, I was refering to the shipboard turboLASERS the Empire employs. Please stop trying to lead away from the main subject.

Quote:
Even at high power, they are useless against packing crates, which are routinely used as cover in firefights. All you need is body armour made of packing crate material, and you're good to go.


I've already addressed this.

Quote:
Either that, or:

1) They have poor quality control, or
2) Their emitters point slightly downwards from the factory, so you can hold your hand in a more ergonomically comfortable position while firing forwards
3) They are manually adjustable, and Riker likes his to point down

An auto-aiming system is more preposterous than all of those explanations in light of the fact that they so often miss even at close range (see "Conspiracy" for a good example).


Pointed at a 45 degree angle? That's not ergonomic-That's insane. Considering that phasers have been shown to fire perfectly straight from the barrel, as well as at an angle, it seems inconceivable that there are phasers pointed either way. Thus, variable axis targeting. Perhaps an advanced auto-aim system-There are other explanations. But, in light of the facts, it seems a logical conclusion.


Quote:
On firepower: you have failed to establish any advantage in firepower; in fact, one of your own quotes describes blasters tearing long gashes in starship bulkheads; something no phaser has ever been seen to do. While the chain-reaction "eating away" effect of phasers is really neat, it is of little tactical usefulness against enemies wearing body-covering armour.


First, I've addressed the gashes, and the phaser blast effects. Oh, and the power settings, as well. And Stormtrooper armor can be pierced by a single shot from a blaster, which was shown repeatedly throughout the Original Trilogy. Given that I've established phasers have demonstrated greater power output (vaporizations, anyone?), I sincerely doubt that armor provides any real protection from a phaser.

Quote:
On versatility: leave the Swiss army knives to the Boy Scouts. Soldiers need a reliable, powerful weapon that gets the job done. A blasters can stun someone or it can blow a hole clean through a wall if necessary; that's all you need. The fact that you can use a phaser to heat up a rock is great for camping trips, but I'd rather be the guy with the better gun.


And the fact a phaser has shown itself able to vaporize people, blow through obstructions, and "auto-aim", not to mention the variable settings, shows who would have the better gun. A blaster hasn't. And neither have you.

Quote:
On range: you have not even ATTEMPTED to establish greater range for phasers. In fact, we have seen SW blasters being used at ranges of several kilometres (AOTC); when have we seen this kind of range being used with ST phasers?


You are correct. No comment.

Quote:
Against packing crates, phasers are useless. If stormtrooper armour is as tough as a packing crate, the Feddies might as well throw their phasers away and wave the white flag (leaving aside their enormous combined-arms advantage, of course).


Stormtrooper armor is hardly as strong as a packing crate, if a single shot from a blaster pierces it. On Feddie surrender: Like the Federation would surrender to scum wearing hopelessly thin, pitiful armor, with aim worse than a one eyed monkey.


Quote:
Prove that the average Starfleet grunt's aim is better than that of a Stormtrooper. A Starfleet detachment was overrun by a bunch of screaming idiot Jem'Hadar charging through a chokepoint JUST AFTER THEY WERE RESUPPLIED WITH FRESH WEAPONS; that is totally unacceptable. Also look at the pitiful Starfleet grunt performance during the boarding action in "Nemesis", where they were literally a stone's throw away and couldn't hit the Viceroy as he calmly walked across the hallway


A Starfleet detachment outnumbered ten to one, with most of it's troops exhausted after a grueling 120 days on that rock. Fresh weapons wouldn't do as much good as you'd think.

On Nemesis: Hardly WALKED. He dove for the chute while under cover. True, a Fleeter should have been able to get him, but it's somewhat hard when you're busy holding off a couple of Remans firing on your position in a narrow corridor.

I'd like to see a Stormtrooper do it, despite the fact that they have consistently (consistently!) missed targets relatively unobstructed, at only a few meters range (Firing seemingly randomly while boarding the Tantive IV, ANH. Luke, Han and Chewie, in ANH, in at least three firefights. The escape from Bespin, TESB, etc.).


Quote:
Quite pathetic. It's clear that you don't recognize how to connect evidence to conclusion properly. Your glaring scientific ignorance is also quite clear in your use of Darkstar's moronic "durasteel rod" argument and your claim that blasters and lasers work identically.


And it's clear how you use simple assumptions in your arguments and pass them off as "facts". There is no evidence that Starfleet phasers are blocked by packing containers: You use the assumption that they were all their full power level in those instances and ignore glaring evidence that phaser can indeed blow through obstructions just as easily (if not better than) a blaster. Given that their demonstrations of "power" are little better than setting a small fire to Leia's arm, blowing up walls of dirt and concrete, and piercing "strong" Imperial armor with only a single shot, and the fact that we've never seen them show they can do more than that, it's difficult to believe that blasters have the power to vaporize anyone or anything of appreciable size and strength. If they did, surely we would have seen a demonstration of it?

Quote:
PS. your shameless attempt to include an EU topic (the "durasteel rod" bit) for discussion while simultaneously barring me from doing so (in the other thread, which makes this hard to follow) is just more evidence of your weaselly nature. Either debate cleanly or admit that you're hopelessly overmatched.


First off, the durasteel staff (ie, a sturdy pole that shouldn't be easy to bend) bit was independent from the main topic, and was merely shown to demonstrate how embarrassing it would be to your side if the EU was considered canon. At no point did I pursue it further in the thread. Your bringing it into the debate, when it was not a part of the thread (merely "there"), has made you the responsible party for violating the canon.

As for being "hopelessly overmatched", I admit your victory in the catagories of ignorant statements and falsehoods. We will see, in the end, who is overmatched.



"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics..." Admiral Rickover


Wolverine: Woah! It's me...
Cyclops: Oh yeah? Prove it!
Wolverine: ... You're a dick.
Cyclops: ... Okay then...

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2003-09-05 08:03pm
Offline
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
Quote:
Sorting through that kind of bull, along with a large amount of homework and social activities, made it difficult to finish this even as soon as this.

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.
Quote:
Quote:
Your re-definition of canon ignores public statements made by Lucasfilm, not to mention Lucas himself who stated quite clearly that the EU "intrudes" upon his universe everywhere but the films themselves. That's exactly what we've all said since day one; the EU matters but can't override the films.

My only quarrel with this is that you claim the Empire uses things like neutronium hulls, but we've seen and heard no evidence for this in the movies. Seems like you are overriding the canon.

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).
Quote:
Quote:
Your total ignorance of all things mechanical shows through again. I can take a thin rod of the highest strength steel you can find, put a crystal on the end of it, and do the exact same thing.

Then, are you saying that durasteel is no better than normal, modern steel? If you could do the same thing with modern steel, doesn't this mean that the Empire's building materials are no better than ours?

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?
Quote:
You even support my previous statement by accepting the quote as a part of the debate, instead of dismissing it out of hand, and therefore part of the canon (which it is not).

Fascinating.

YOU made the quote part of the debate by including it, and it is quasi-canon. Read the Star Wars Encyclopedia which (while this may come as a shock to some) is a more definitive statement on Lucasfilm policy than RSA's website.
Quote:
Quote:
By a max-yield blast which does the same to a Klingon of probably twice the mass, thus proving that it's obviously a chain-reaction weapon. Also note that the reaction takes a while to eat through her body. None of this is news to anyone.

Yes: The Star Trek Encyclopedia defines a phaser as a "directed nadion beam", which disrupts the atomic bindings of matter. What exactly IS a blaster, then? From what is seen, it could be some sort of simple plasma-based weapon, though that doesn't really work given how refined the beams are.

Who cares? The point is that on metallic targets, phasers have never demonstrated serious power, while blasters can tear through starship bulkheads and walls.
Quote:
Nevertheless, no matter how a blaster works, the phaser is a canon demonstration of "desentigration", which is still an energy blast and therefore requires a good deal of it to do the things within it's demonstrated capabilities. It takes 2.7 kilojoules alone to vaporize a single kilogram of water at 37 degrees C, or 98.6 degrees (In other words, standard human body temperature). Multiply that by 68 (weight of a reasonably average adult human male in kilograms), and you get a minimum power rating of 202.5 kilowatts (or 0.2 megawatts).

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?
Quote:
The sad truth is, all energy weapons work on the basis of a chain reaction. That is, the disruption of matter interactions, whether it to be stunning or vaporizing. Therefore, there is no real reason for phasers to be set apart from other energy weapons, or vica-versa. Aside from their means of power (nadion beams).

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.
Quote:
The remaining norandium was set on fire from the phaser blasts. True, it does no good to my argument, but it does not hurt, either.

Then it is pointless to bring it up, isn't it? We might as well discuss the weather.
Quote:
And blasters can just blow through any old thing, right?

They can tear long gashes in starship bulkheads; you quoted that yourself. Show me evidence of a phaser doing the same.
Quote:
Usually during those firefights, the phasers are set within the range of "stun" to "kill", not "vaporize". Why? Because there's no need to use that much energy out of your weapons if your targets are people, not obstructions. It does not mean phasers are weak-It's simple common sense to save the energy of your weapons if needed.

And fail to kill a target who you could kill otherwise? Spare me.

"They've got us pinned down! We're dropping like flies!"
"They're using packing crates for cover. Just turn up the power and kill them!"
"No sir, I want to conserve my power in case I might need it later!"

This doesn't seem absurd to you?

BTW, try to recognize that the onus is on you to show that a phaser can blow through a packing crate, rather than just trying to concoct flimsy explanations for all the times that it couldn't.
Quote:
Considering that we've seen phasers used to obliterate rock walls (ST:I), blow apart control panels ("Interface"), and blast through thick power cables to a ship's main reactor (ST:FC), I feel fairly certain they'd be able to blow holes in walls.

Obviously, you have never studied the structural differences between metallic bulkheads and control panels, rock, or power cables. Rock is much, much easier to shatter than metal, in case you didn't know. Never mind control panels and power cables.
Quote:
Your assumption that the phasers in question were at full power is erroneous, as I've already pointed out.

The onus is still on you to show that phasers can blast through metal.
Quote:
As for Imperial blasters, the most powerful we've seen them is, indeed, blowing holes in walls. Which doesn't require larger amounts of energy than vaporizing people. It probably takes even less.

You have not established that they vapourize people. Show me the evidence of the necessary vapour.
Quote:
Oh, were those [i]durasteel[*i] walls the stormtroopers were shooting at? That were no better than modern-day steel?

Your false inference, not mine. Han Solo's blaster vapourizes tiny pits out of that type of wall while blowing torso-sized chunks out of the wall of a docking bay designed to handle thrust backwash from starships taking off.
Quote:
Quote:
Also note that battledroids have chest armour in excess of an inch thick; far more than the packing crates which are used as cover in ST phaser firefights, yet they are blown away easily by SW blaster fire.

And yet, they, too, are easily pierced by blasters. With a single shot.

Yes, that's the point I was making. A blaster can punch through inch-thick armour effortlessly; are you trying to help me with my argument rather than yours?
Quote:
Quote:
And of course, there's Han Solo, using his hand blaster to blow torso-sized chunks out of the Docking Bay 94 walls prior to the Falcon's lift-off in ANH.

The ANH novel goes, "a dug-out pit... holding what could only marginally be refered to as a starship." So, Han was blowing out chunks of what amounts to DIRT. Packed dirt, but dirt nonetheless. Most likely held together by cement or a reasonable fascimile thereof.

You can't honestly be this dense. Nuclear ICBM silos are dug into the ground too; does this mean the silos are made of dirt?
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps you missed the part about how they "ripped long gashes in metal surfaces". Angle of incidence obviously plays a part here.

No doubt it does, but it doesn't change the fact they still bounced off mirrored surfaces.

Which, in turn, doesn't change their destructive ability, which is greater than that of a phaser. Modern shells can bounce off sloped armour under the right conditions; does this mean that they are harmless? You would happily stand in front of one?
Quote:
Yes. However, if it isn't a laser, then what is it?

Something other than a laser. According to the ICS2, it's some kind of exotic massless particle beam. But the point remains that you were wrong about it being a laser.
Quote:
Quote:
"Blasters and lasers seem to work exactly the same?" Have you ever seen a high-powered laser in action? I have. They are not even remotely similar.

If you'll review the post, I was refering to the shipboard turboLASERS the Empire employs. Please stop trying to lead away from the main subject.

Please stop trying to pretend you're winning. My rebuttal applies to both blasters and turbolasers equally; neither of them act like modern lasers. Or are you honestly so dense that you don't realize this?
Quote:
Quote:
Even at high power, they are useless against packing crates, which are routinely used as cover in firefights. All you need is body armour made of packing crate material, and you're good to go.

I've already addressed this.

By appealing to the "variable-yield" catchall excuse, even though they could easily win all of those "shoot 'n duck" firefights if they just turned up the power according to you. I guess they don't do it because they're just suicidal.
Quote:
Quote:
Either that, or:

1) They have poor quality control, or
2) Their emitters point slightly downwards from the factory, so you can hold your hand in a more ergonomically comfortable position while firing forwards
3) They are manually adjustable, and Riker likes his to point down

An auto-aiming system is more preposterous than all of those explanations in light of the fact that they so often miss even at close range (see "Conspiracy" for a good example).

Pointed at a 45 degree angle? That's not ergonomic-That's insane.

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.

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?
Quote:
Considering that phasers have been shown to fire perfectly straight from the barrel, as well as at an angle, it seems inconceivable that there are phasers pointed either way. Thus, variable axis targeting. Perhaps an advanced auto-aim system-There are other explanations. But, in light of the facts, it seems a logical conclusion.

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.
Quote:
Quote:
On firepower: you have failed to establish any advantage in firepower; in fact, one of your own quotes describes blasters tearing long gashes in starship bulkheads; something no phaser has ever been seen to do. While the chain-reaction "eating away" effect of phasers is really neat, it is of little tactical usefulness against enemies wearing body-covering armour.

First, I've addressed the gashes, and the phaser blast effects. Oh, and the power settings, as well.

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.
Quote:
And Stormtrooper armor can be pierced by a single shot from a blaster, which was shown repeatedly throughout the Original Trilogy.

Too bad that has nothing to do with phasers.
Quote:
Given that I've established phasers have demonstrated greater power output (vaporizations, anyone?), I sincerely doubt that armor provides any real protection from a phaser.

Except that you have NOT demonstrated greater power output from phasers.

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.
Quote:
Quote:
On versatility: leave the Swiss army knives to the Boy Scouts. Soldiers need a reliable, powerful weapon that gets the job done. A blasters can stun someone or it can blow a hole clean through a wall if necessary; that's all you need. The fact that you can use a phaser to heat up a rock is great for camping trips, but I'd rather be the guy with the better gun.

And the fact a phaser has shown itself able to vaporize people, blow through obstructions, and "auto-aim", not to mention the variable settings, shows who would have the better gun. A blaster hasn't. And neither have you.

There is little point endlessly repeating your claims of vapourization and auto-aiming only to remind you that you have demonstrated neither.
Quote:
Quote:
On range: you have not even ATTEMPTED to establish greater range for phasers. In fact, we have seen SW blasters being used at ranges of several kilometres (AOTC); when have we seen this kind of range being used with ST phasers?

You are correct. No comment.

Thank you.
Quote:
Quote:
Against packing crates, phasers are useless. If stormtrooper armour is as tough as a packing crate, the Feddies might as well throw their phasers away and wave the white flag (leaving aside their enormous combined-arms advantage, of course).

Stormtrooper armor is hardly as strong as a packing crate, if a single shot from a blaster pierces it.

Leap in logic. You are assuming that a single shot from a blaster would not pierce a packing crate, even though it can tear a gash in a starship bulkhead. Do you believe that starship bulkheads are not as strong as lightweight packing crates?
Quote:
On Feddie surrender: Like the Federation would surrender to scum wearing hopelessly thin, pitiful armor, with aim worse than a one eyed monkey.

That kind of infantile remark does not help you. You have not shown this armour to be pitiful except to point out that a shot from a blaster weapon which blows torso-sized chunks out of a ferrocrete docking bay can put a small hole in it. Not exactly a triumph on your part.

As for their aim, stormtroopers effortlessly blasted their way into Tantive IV, and the only times they appeared to have bad aim were when they were ordered to let their quarry get away (Tarkin's homing beacon on the Falcon wouldn't have done much good if the Falcon never took off, would it?)

Besides, you completely ignore the combined-arms advantage. A large stormtrooper force will have scout vehicle support and squad-level heavy weapons at a minimum. Only someone totally ignorant of military history could seriously disregard the importance of combined-arms tactics.
Quote:
Quote:
Prove that the average Starfleet grunt's aim is better than that of a Stormtrooper. A Starfleet detachment was overrun by a bunch of screaming idiot Jem'Hadar charging through a chokepoint JUST AFTER THEY WERE RESUPPLIED WITH FRESH WEAPONS; that is totally unacceptable. Also look at the pitiful Starfleet grunt performance during the boarding action in "Nemesis", where they were literally a stone's throw away and couldn't hit the Viceroy as he calmly walked across the hallway

A Starfleet detachment outnumbered ten to one, with most of it's troops exhausted after a grueling 120 days on that rock. Fresh weapons wouldn't do as much good as you'd think.

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.
Quote:
On Nemesis: Hardly WALKED. He dove for the chute while under cover. True, a Fleeter should have been able to get him, but it's somewhat hard when you're busy holding off a couple of Remans firing on your position in a narrow corridor.

Wrong. He WALKED. If you continue to dispute this, I am more than capable of capturing a video clip and posting it to the Web to prove this.
Quote:
I'd like to see a Stormtrooper do it, despite the fact that they have consistently (consistently!) missed targets relatively unobstructed, at only a few meters range (Firing seemingly randomly while boarding the Tantive IV, ANH. Luke, Han and Chewie, in ANH, in at least three firefights. The escape from Bespin, TESB, etc.).

Wrong. They killed all of the Rebels in Tantive IV who weren't smart enough to run. At DS1 and Bespin, they were obviously ordered to let the Rebels get away, as their ships had been prepared for other purposes by Vader in both cases.
Quote:
Quote:
Quite pathetic. It's clear that you don't recognize how to connect evidence to conclusion properly. Your glaring scientific ignorance is also quite clear in your use of Darkstar's moronic "durasteel rod" argument and your claim that blasters and lasers work identically.

And it's clear how you use simple assumptions in your arguments and pass them off as "facts". There is no evidence that Starfleet phasers are blocked by packing containers:

Yes there is; the fact that they have never shot through one even when it would have quickly won a battle.
Quote:
You use the assumption that they were all their full power level in those instances and ignore glaring evidence that phaser can indeed blow through obstructions just as easily (if not better than) a blaster.

Ah yes, your power cables, control panels, and rocks, not to mention your habit of totally disregarding the material-dependent nature of phasers. Sadly, you don't see what's wrong with your reasoning.
Quote:
Given that their demonstrations of "power" are little better than setting a small fire to Leia's arm, blowing up walls of dirt and concrete, and piercing "strong" Imperial armor with only a single shot, and the fact that we've never seen them show they can do more than that, it's difficult to believe that blasters have the power to vaporize anyone or anything of appreciable size and strength. If they did, surely we would have seen a demonstration of it?

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?
Quote:
Quote:
PS. your shameless attempt to include an EU topic (the "durasteel rod" bit) for discussion while simultaneously barring me from doing so (in the other thread, which makes this hard to follow) is just more evidence of your weaselly nature. Either debate cleanly or admit that you're hopelessly overmatched.

First off, the durasteel staff (ie, a sturdy pole that shouldn't be easy to bend) bit was independent from the main topic, and was merely shown to demonstrate how embarrassing it would be to your side if the EU was considered canon. At no point did I pursue it further in the thread. Your bringing it into the debate, when it was not a part of the thread (merely "there"), has made you the responsible party for violating the canon.

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.
Quote:
As for being "hopelessly overmatched", I admit your victory in the catagories of ignorant statements and falsehoods. We will see, in the end, who is overmatched.

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.

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.



Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: I am NO Coward PostPosted: 2003-09-20 04:25pm
Offline
Youngling
User avatar

Joined: 2002-09-18 06:13pm
Posts: 114
Location: Earth, a planet of dreams...
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."

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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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). 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.

Quote:
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.


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

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. 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. 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.

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.

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

Quote:
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.
Quote:

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. 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.

Quote:
They can tear long gashes in starship bulkheads; you quoted that yourself. Show me evidence of a phaser doing the same.


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.

Quote:
And fail to kill a target who you could kill otherwise? Spare me.

"They've got us pinned down! We're dropping like flies!"
"They're using packing crates for cover. Just turn up the power and kill them!"
"No sir, I want to conserve my power in case I might need it later!"

This doesn't seem absurd to you?


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). 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?

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.

Quote:
BTW, try to recognize that the onus is on you to show that a phaser can blow through a packing crate, rather than just trying to concoct flimsy explanations for all the times that it couldn't.


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.


Quote:
Obviously, you have never studied the structural differences between metallic bulkheads and control panels, rock, or power cables. Rock is much, much easier to shatter than metal, in case you didn't know. Never mind control panels and power cables.


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.


Quote:
You have not established that they vapourize people. Show me the evidence of the necessary vapour.


Gee Wong, I wonder: If they "vanished" when they were shot, where did they go? The land of pink fuzzy distortions? Phasers have been said to be able to "vaporize" things. The fact they've made things vanish kind of supports the fact that they vaporized them. 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.

Quote:
You can't honestly be this dense. Nuclear ICBM silos are dug into the ground too; does this mean the silos are made of dirt?


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), 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.


Quote:
Which, in turn, doesn't change their destructive ability, which is greater than that of a phaser. Modern shells can bounce off sloped armour under the right conditions; does this mean that they are harmless? You would happily stand in front of one?


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. 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. 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.

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.


Quote:
Something other than a laser. According to the ICS2, it's some kind of exotic massless particle beam. But the point remains that you were wrong about it being a laser.


Sue me.


Quote:
Please stop trying to pretend you're winning. My rebuttal applies to both blasters and turbolasers equally; neither of them act like modern lasers. Or are you honestly so dense that you don't realize this?


Again, sue me. When something's called a laser, it seems logical to assume it's based upon the modern-day laser. And don't try your "ICBM silo" stunt again: Semantics get you nothing but time.

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?


Quote:
By appealing to the "variable-yield" catchall excuse, even though they could easily win all of those "shoot 'n duck" firefights if they just turned up the power according to you. I guess they don't do it because they're just suicidal.


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.

Quote:
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? 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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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".


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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. 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.


Quote:
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. 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.

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.



Quote:
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.



"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics..." Admiral Rickover


Wolverine: Woah! It's me...
Cyclops: Oh yeah? Prove it!
Wolverine: ... You're a dick.
Cyclops: ... Okay then...

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: I am NO Coward PostPosted: 2003-09-20 11:23pm
Offline
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
Andrew Joshua Talon wrote:
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."

Actually, it's much easier to come up with a response when you don't have to carefully embellish the facts. That's why I can rattle these responses off the top of my head. But go ahead, continue trying to make your tardiness into a virtue. Everyone knows it takes this long because you run to Darkstar looking for advice, not because you have an actual life.
Quote:
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.

You honestly think you're winning, don't you? You couldn't find a half-hour in two weeks to make a response?
Quote:
The mockery of fools no longer bothers me.

Yes, your confidence is quite obvious. Not that confidence means anything; Hitler giddily planned victory celebrations in his bunker while Allied shells rained down on Berlin, and the Iraqis were quite convinced that there were no Americans in Baghdad.
Quote:
A "canon" source which is regarded only as canon as the EU continuity (that is, not at all).

According to you. Not according to Lucasfilm. And Lucasfilm overrides you. Moreover, your argument on canonicity (or perhaps I should say "Darkstar's argument", since you have no real arguments of your own) hoists you by your own petard. If a single line from the series creator outweighs official statements from the corporation, then Gene Roddenberry's "It isn't Star Trek until I say it's Star Trek" line makes all of Star Trek past about the 5th or 6th season of TNG non-canon. Better yet, his preface to the ST:TMP novelization makes all of TOS non-canon "exaggeration" too. Whoops!
Quote:
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.

How eagerly I accept figures which have been approved by Lucasfilm, you mean. And yes, those officially approved figures do help my side, which is precisely why you want to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore them.
Quote:
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.

Funny how that dictionary definition says nothing about the thickness of the staff, eh? Instead, it only says that it's stout, and if you made a staff out of a high-strength steel, it could be very thin while still retaining stoutness. Your endless semantics whoring avails you nothing; you have no diagrams or pictures of this staff, so you have constructed an argument based entirely on the word "staff", with an attendant assumption that "stout" = "thick".
Quote:
Oh yes, concrete walls and bulkheads made out of a material an emotional woman can bend. I'm shaking.

At the right thickness, an emotional woman swinging a staff could bend 4340 steel, dumb-ass. A staff is not a support pillar.
Quote:
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.

Since cooking pots are typically made of aluminum, an extremely light material that can actually catch fire, this doesn't prove much. Nor does it disprove the fact that phasers can't punch through the kind of metal you would use for armour, which is much denser.
Quote:
Keep in mind the fact that, in "The Arsenal of Freedom", Tasha notes that whatever melted the tritanium was "beyond our technology".

In other words, you concede that their weapons can't possibly damage the stuff that they use to construct their starship bulkheads. Thank you.
Quote:
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.

Please quantify those strains. And while you're at it, since you use the TM as a source, remember that according to the TM, the E-D is so feeble that it sags in Earth-normal gravity without its "structural integrity field". If this is the standard for Trek material strength, you lose.

By the way, as long as we're on the subject, Imperial vessels are far larger, which requires far stronger materials. They can make planetfall with 700 metre long ships, remember?
Quote:
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. 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.

And since SW ships go even faster than ST ships, this argument avails you nothing. Moreover, it ignores the fundamental concept of the warp drive, which creates a localized region in which your velocity relative to local space is actually not superluminal, or even relativistic. The TM even talks about the advantages of avoiding relativistic travel because it would desynchronize clocks.
Quote:
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.

Since the doors are holographic, you don't even know what they're supposed to be made of so you're reduced to idle speculation, and they're not even intended to serve as blast doors, this is just another waste of breath on your part.
Quote:
Quote:
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.

What kind of moronic retort is that? I crow that you can't produce evidence of vapourization and you retort that I can't either? Of course I can't, because no such evidence exists! That's the whole point!
Quote:
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". Perhaps so quickly that the vapor was reduced to lone particles-It's difficult to speculate on this.

You obviously don't know what "vapourized" means. If you vapourize something, there should be vapour, dumb-ass. But please, by all means, elabourate on this "lone particle" theory; I'm sure it will be most amusing.
Quote:
Quote:
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".

Actually, if the energy beam has shut off, then all of its energy must be already present in the target, and enough energy to vapourize a human being would have an explosive effect within milliseconds (which, at 24 frames per second for movies, might as well be instantaneous).
Quote:
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. 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.

Thanks for that boatload of unsupported, unquantified speculation. Got anything useful to add?
Quote:
Quote:
They can tear long gashes in starship bulkheads; you quoted that yourself. Show me evidence of a phaser doing the same.

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.

Mere repetition of your earlier claim that a holographic door is equivalent to a real bulkhead.
Quote:
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). 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?

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.

Are you really this dense? I just showed how they are using less than the amount of juice they need to take out an opponent, otherwise they would turn it up to the point where they can eliminate their targets through the packing crates. So unless you can provide evidence of them being able to actually do this, you have nothing.
Quote:
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.

So this is a door which "remained intact", eh?
Image
Looks to me like your definition of "intact" is drastically different from that found in the rest of the English-speaking world. And how about the quote from the ANH novelization? "Several troopers had tried coming through the elevator, only to be crisped one after another by Chewbacca. Disdaining the elevators, they had blasted a gaping hole through a wall." And how about "Kenobi turned his attention to the sandcrawler. He pointed out where single weapons' bursts had blasted away portals, treads, and support beams."?
Quote:
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.

Of course it's a logical foundation for an argument. Unfortunately for you, it's a logical foundation for my argument, not yours. Phasers have never demonstrated effectiveness against dense material, and the only time they are consistently effective is against rock ... which has similar density to aluminum cooking pots.
Quote:
Quote:
You have not established that they vapourize people. Show me the evidence of the necessary vapour.

Gee Wong, I wonder: If they "vanished" when they were shot, where did they go? The land of pink fuzzy distortions? Phasers have been said to be able to "vaporize" things. The fact they've made things vanish kind of supports the fact that they vaporized them. 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.

So transporters vapourize things? The Iconian stargate vapourizes things? The Rutian subspace transporter vapourizes things? Ben Kenobi vapourized himself? "Vapourize" means "turn into vapour", dumb-ass. No vapour, no vapourization.
Quote:
Quote:
You can't honestly be this dense. Nuclear ICBM silos are dug into the ground too; does this mean the silos are made of dirt?

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), 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.

This is astounding. You still insist that the walls of Docking Bay 94 were made of dirt? Here's a hint: dirt does not look like this:
Image
And no matter how hard you try to convince people that this is dirt, you will fail. It is obviously concrete. By the way, in case you have trouble with materials identification, I have provided a helpful picture for you:
Image
Please keep this in mind; someone may ask you to differentiate between dirt and concrete someday, and the knowledge might come in handy.
Quote:
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.

Oh no, they can only blow through walls according to the ANH novelization, take down battledroids with inch-thick chest armour, take down sandcrawlers the size of apartment buildings, etc.
Quote:
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. 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.

So you figure that a lightweight Star Trek "shhh" door is impressive, but one-inch thick armour, concrete, and support struts for apartment building-sized sandcrawlers are flimsy and pathetic? It's always amusing to watch someone spiral into the depths of self-delusion.
Quote:
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.

Nonsense. Even if we assume that both sides' weapons are lethal to the other side, the stormies will take it easily. They have combined-arms tactics, heavy squad-level weapons which can punch a hole through the hull of a starship, light armour support (and possibly heavy armour for a large force), repulsorlift recon vehicles, and NBC protection. And don't tell me you wax poetic over the superior marksmanship of Starfleet troopers who couldn't hit this guy as he casually strolled across the hallway:
Image
That's a range of about five metres at most, pal. That's what we normally call "spitting distance". And the guy not only sauntered across the hallway, but he even took a few seconds to stand still at the entrance to the crawlspace and glare at Riker with contempt before diving in! Clearly, the Alpha Quadrant powers are in awe of the marksmanship (not to mention fictitious auto-aiming systems) of the mighty Federation's soldiers. And these were two of their best people: Worf and Riker!
Quote:
Quote:
Something other than a laser. According to the ICS2, it's some kind of exotic massless particle beam. But the point remains that you were wrong about it being a laser.

Sue me.

Interesting way of conceding the point.
Quote:
Quote:
Please stop trying to pretend you're winning. My rebuttal applies to both blasters and turbolasers equally; neither of them act like modern lasers. Or are you honestly so dense that you don't realize this?

Again, sue me. When something's called a laser, it seems logical to assume it's based upon the modern-day laser. And don't try your "ICBM silo" stunt again: Semantics get you nothing but time.

Let me get this straight: you're basing your entire argument off the word "staff" and "laser", and you think I'm the one appealing to semantics for attempting to use an analogy? I can't see you doing too well on those SAT tests, kid. You don't even know what semantics are.
Quote:
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?

Your "surefire evidence" is your assumption that Trek materials are far stronger than Imperial materials even though the Feds can't make a 600m long ship which won't sag like Joan Rivers' wrinkled tits in Earth gravity (TM pg. 19) while 700m Acclamators can easily take off and land on Coruscant. Nice of you to simply ignore all of my counterpoints and pretend that insulting you is all I had to offer, though.
Quote:
Quote:
By appealing to the "variable-yield" catchall excuse, even though they could easily win all of those "shoot 'n duck" firefights if they just turned up the power according to you. I guess they don't do it because they're just suicidal.

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.

Since nobody hides behind anything as insubstantial as a packing crate in SW firefights, this "rebuttal" is rather wide of the mark.
Quote:
Meaning that you're implying Federation troopers are better trained that Imperial ones?

Observation contradicts that speculation on your part.
Quote:
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.

So you're saying they only use this "auto-aim" system at very close range, where accuracy is not much of an issue anyway. Thanks for rendering your entire line of attack utterly useless.
Quote:
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.

Then explain why he couldn't hit a man standing 5 metres away in Nemesis, wise-ass. You can practice your witty bon mots all day long, but when a simple picture proves all of your bullshit wrong, you still lose. And if hand phasers have an auto-aiming system that rifles don't, then why do they use rifles during boarding actions, where all of the fighting takes place at pistol range? Only an idiot would deliberately turn off an auto-aiming system which would make his fire far more accurate, or choose a weapon which lacks said system when he has obviously shitty marksmanship and intends to engage in close-quarters fighting. It would be suicide.
Quote:
Let me repeat slowly for you: "O-F-F-S-W-I-T-C-H".

Let me repeat slowly for you: "S-U-I-C-I-D-E".
Quote:
(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.

Pot calling the kettle black. I'm talking to someone who bases his entire argument on the use of the words "staff" and "laser", and who ignores photographic evidence.
Quote:
Oh, and BTW: I HAVE explained, thank you.

I hate to break it to you, but Darkstar's habit of telling people he's already done something when he hasn't is one of his weakest tactics. In fact, it's one of the things people love to make fun of.
Quote:
Quote:
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. 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.

So much arrogance, so little intelligence. The fact is that I am actually qualified to teach you, you little high-school dipshit. And you have quite obviously not bothered reading that paragraph before answering it, because you have not explained how one would go about measuring the energy state B of the system. How did you evaluate the enthalpy of the resulting mass, hmmmm?
Quote:
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. And they didn't have a machine gun, though it sure as hell would have come in handy.

Concession accepted: an automatic weapon such as a machine gun or an E-Web would have annihilated the entire Jem'Hadar charge, therefore a squad of stormtroopers is much more dangerous than a Federation squad. So sorry, but you just conceded the whole argument.
Quote:
Phasers are a bit too narrow-field of fire.

A bullet travels on a pretty straight line too, dumb-ass.
Quote:
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.

Oh yes, of course. When you send troops into hostile enemy territory to secure a vital strategic target, you send completely combat-incapable techies :roll:
Quote:
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 have already conceded that a single machine gun would have stopped them, so an E-Web would have done the same. For that matter, a superbattledroid opening up on full-auto would have done it.
Quote:
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.

See earlier rebuttal.
Quote:
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're the one basing your whole argument on the words "staff" and "laser", dumb-ass. By the way, it is perhaps the weakest tactic in all of debating to denigrate your opponent's physical strength, particularly since you have no way of knowing whether he is actually stronger than you.
Quote:
Quote:
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.

Tu Quoque fallacy. I have given examples of where you have lied, and where the photographic evidence clearly disproves your bullshit. You retort by simply saying "no, YOU'RE doing it!". That's kindergarten-level debating, kiddo.
Quote:
Quote:
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?

Still hurling empty accusations, eh? Name one important issue which I've "dodged". I'm the one citing real evidence, while you're desperately grasping at vague connotations from dictionary definitions of words.
Quote:
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.

Your neurotic hatred and heightened emotional state are quite obvious without you having to point them out, thanks.

These exchanges are growing to unwieldy length, so I will summarize for the benefit of viewers:

Debate Summary

Debate Summary:
  1. AJT feels that Darkstar canon policy overrides Lucasfilm canon policy.
  2. AJT feels that the word "staff" automatically means "large circumference". Perhaps he's been watching too much gay porn.
  3. AJT feels that ST ships are made of much stronger material than SW ships because they can travel at FTL. The fact that SW ships also travel at FTL, and at much greater velocities, is apparently lost on him.
  4. AJT feels that wrecking a huge sandcrawler, punching through inch-thick armour plate, or blowing through a DS1 door or wall are all far less impressive than taking out a holographic door.
  5. AJT does not know how to visually distinguish dirt from concrete.
  6. AJT believes that if something disappears without any effect on its environment, it must have turned into vapour.
  7. AJT believes that Federation weapons have all kinds of firepower and neat auto-aiming features which would have been really useful in combat, but they choose to turn them off.
  8. AJT accidentally conceded the whole argument by admitting that a single machine gun (and by extension, a stormtrooper unit's E-Web) would have outperformed the entire Federation unit at AR-588.

And just for fun, here's a couple of pictures which might be interesting for our viewers. See if you can guess which of AJT's claims is completely demolished by these pictures.

Image
Image



Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2003-09-22 11:45am
Offline
NARF
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-11 11:45am
Posts: 9833
Location: In Transit ...
ATTENTION! AGAIN!

I really want to see one of these threads kept completely clear of observers, if this is the Mike vs AJT thread, then please do not post in it, so that it can be read more easily.

Thankyou for your attention. :wink:

I have posted this (again) so as to drive the point home to everyone. I am sorry if I psyched anyone out, but you have now been warned that posts in this thread other than Mikes or AJT will be DELETED!



Image ~+::My Photo Gallery::+~
Η ζωή, η ζωή εδω τελειώνει!
"Science is one cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on" - Masuka 'Dexter'
"Angela is not the woman you think she is Gabriel, she's done terrible things"
"So have I, and I'm going to do them all to you." - Sylar to Arthur 'Heroes'

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2003-10-14 11:03am
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-09-10 05:35pm
Posts: 6730
Location: Where The Sea Meets The Sky
I claim this thread in the name of Mars. Ain't that lovely?

Even with Crown's bit...I think I'll let this one stay

If AJT wants to have this thing reopened so he may whin...bitc...retort to Mike, he can PM Ghost Rider or anyone of the Supermods and request this thread to be reopened.



Image

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group