Just because I'm rather bored...
I appologise for not reading your many fine articles before sending my first/last msg to you. Your site is really well done and researched.
That does not change the validity of my contention. That Star Trek technology is more advanced than that displayed in the Star Wars movies.
Your arguments are very good but not though. You cite dialogue that both supports your claims and some that is contradictory to them and the points that I favor but ignore visuals for canonisation. If the dialogue is contradictory but the visuals are not, why would your own rules of objectivity find in favor of the self contradictory dialogue?
Alright, I'm feeling brave, I'm sure there's a sentence in there somewhere...and it might even make a self consistent statement...you seem to be arguing that dialouge is greater than visuals....which means, that if someone on the show says that the ship is crewed by gerbils you must assume it is, even if the crew clearly are not hiding in sawdust or running around on the floor in clear plastic balls.
In the original serries, there are many instances of the Enterprise and other units engaged in FTL combat. That there is no supporting dialogue should not disqualify them from "Cannonisation". In those sceens, the ships use both phaser beams and missile weapons of several types. I am prepaired to rationalise this argument if required.
Well, then, it'd be best if there was an actual incident you could cite, though with your fucking awful grasp of english and strings of double and even triple negative statements, it's going to be hard working out what the fuck you are trying to say in the first place.
The second point is that although there are many failures of the transporter systems there are also many successfull uses. Barring plot mechanisms to negate the technology that would render the situation harmless, the technology of teleportation is an extreemly powerful one. I had also forgotten about the other side of that coin, the replicators and all of the implications thereof.
Ah, invoking the almighty plot device...it doesnt matter, those plot devices show that simple things such as dense ore can block transporters, therefore, despite it being for plot reasons, the fact that they can be blocked by ore is cannon. That means big bits or rock and metal btw, just incase you cant keep up...
Let me guess, the implications of replicators...the implication is you're wanting to go ad-infinitum with 'em. Doesnt work like that I'm afraid, they need power and raw materials to make them work.
Thirdly, that there are an infanite number of reasons why a commander might not use all of the capassity of any given system. That does not in itself, deneigh that that greater capassity does not exist or is difficult or ineffective to use. We have possessed Nuclear weapons since the end of WW-II but have not used them even in conditions were they would certainly kill less civilians than combatants.
Yes, if you come near a point, please feel free to make it?
Oh wait, there's extenuating circumstances for lower occasions and none for higher ones. That's simply bullshit. If I hold a ball in the air, and drop it, it will accellerate towards the ground, does this mean that the ball is capable of generating this force itself?
Nope, it takes me and gravity, outside influences...much like there so often is in ST.
Lastly, technology tends to cross fertilise. It is very difficult to show any real time in history where the side with supirior technology did not have a broad array of advances in many fields over it's foes.
Ah, we make really great satin....your guns and crude linen are no match for us![i], is there a real point in there anywhere?
Thease four items lead me to belive that the opening premise that ST is more advanced than SW is as true as any fantasy relationship can be.
You cite expertise as a factor in this anallissis. I am an expert in WSA. In 1986, I was paid 6,650 per month in salery and more in bennies and other compensation for that skill. While your arguments are very good and enlightening, I saw nothing that could change this and several points that might be flawed.
Is...is that the sound of you jacking off over the keyboard?
What you were paid nearly two decades ago means shit about the logical validity of your arguments.
I will read more before I am prepaired to argue them though and hope that you will consider my points before then. I also appologise for my grammar and spelling. One half of my brain has a 185 point IQ, while the other resembles "Forest Gump" and they are disconected by one of the origional casses of Dyslexia on record. ( I would sincerely appreciate a spell checker for this feedback device.)
Sincerely, Stewart Davies.
Ah, so one half is smart and the other is a retard....is only the retard allowed near the keyboard?
Also, since you're meant to be smart, never fucking figure to use a word processor and then copy and paste across?
1. I am new at this sort of thing,( on line debates) and love your site.
2. I found it so interesting that I went looking for more sites of a similer nature.
3. I wrote a game rules book for fun and profit that is based on "space ship combat" of the type seen on screen.
4. As part of that effort and my background as a weapons system expert I was forced to define the technology levels of the various jondre.
5. I like your analissis of the various factors that can be used to weigh the various effects.
6. Please excuse my grammar and spelling.
Consider it excused, but dont use it as an excuse...
I have stated my belifes in the prior two letters and have had some thoughts since then.
I doubt you have any thoughts from your evidenced lack of intelligence or logic.
A. There are so many inconsistancies and defects of logic in both sources that some allowance must be made as you state for the authors intention.
Ah, the good old, [i]but clearly the author intended
approach. Only one person can tell you what the author intended and that is the author, anyone else is just making bullshit up as they go along, this is the reason for the Canon policies of both paramount and lucasfilm, to set out what is part of the intent and what is not.
B. The single best "excuse" for most of these defects is that the opperators simply chose not to use all of what they had or could. The logic of this is perfectly good and can be shown to mirror current affairs. (Afganistan is one of the most desolate and perfect places to test or use nuclear weapons on the face of the planet and yet when given the most severe justification for their use, we chose not to. When a few "tactical" weapons would surely have caused many fewer casualties than fighting it out with small arms and air power. Because of the futility of resistance it would have demonstraited. The threat of mass radiation poisoning is shear folly, as approximatly 1/2 of all such devices ever detonated in the history of the world were fired in the American south west. +-2050 total with 1054 being US tests! If I remember correctly. The vast majority being at the Nevada test site.
Ah, great, here we go....we havent blown up every nation that has offended us....so you cant assume demonstrated firepower is the best they have.
Here though you run into a problem, in afghanistan the minimum amount needed to do the job was used, to establish an upper limit rather than a lower one, you look to see what it CANT achieve. For example in the episode of TNG featuring the Pegasus and the phase cloak device, it is stated that the entire payload of photorps on the enterprise would not be enough to blast apart the asteroid, therefore, their upper limit is below the firepower needed to destroy that asteroid...managing to keep up?
B. Therefore if they chose to use less than the maximum capability that they possessed you can never use the lesser to deneigh the maximum.
That's another B. there, and the same applies.
C. One of your best arguments is the differance of speed potential. The above applies to this to as we donot know why they did not or could not use the capabilities that they had previously demostraited. Star Trek speeds every bit as high or faster than any demonstraited in star wars.
Bull and shit, all it takes to disprove that is one word Voyager
C1. In my origional analisis, I looked at the first TV series and saw that they had demonstraited several vastly different speed ranges. First in the opening credits, many billions of multiples of "C". (I simply used the minimum, average and maximum density of stars in this galixy, that I got from the director of the Hyden Planetarium in Chicago, devided by time, to find speeds, all very much higher than anything that you ascribe to any ships in the Star Wars "universe".) Secondly, the "movement" shots traveling or in combat between ships in the several combat stories. Using the same technique, I was able to compute speeds of 173,000,000 "C" to 900,000,000 "C". Finaly there was "orbital" speed.
What a steaming load of bullshit. Nine hundred million times the speed of light, based on the assumption that the movement of the "stars" averaged with densitiy from some guy you cant name...
C2. The fact that all of those several episodes show combat at what is obviously supra "C" speeds and enormious ranges, leads me to conclude that this was not only possable, but prefered for some reason. Why should the TNG battles be fought at less than this speed but at equal ranges in some cases? I can think of many reasons that have nothing to do with capassity and more that have to do with tactics. I can recall one show were the Enterprise is fooled into beliveing they are at war with some poor defenceless blokes by a new crew member and Worf thinks he is the boss, were combat ios also at super light speed including phaser fire.
Yet again, irrelevant bullshit without a proper point to it....unless dialouge is indeed superior to visuals...and your calculations based on figures you got from some guy down the pub told you...
C3. In one of the movies, I can't remember which title, the enterprise with Kirk comanding, (makes so many tactical mistakes that he should have been shot, your coments about authors not being skilled in the Millitary Arts comes to mind)! But also demonstraits prodigious speed like you describe for many ships in the SW universe. It goes from the Planet of Peace? located at the triple point nutral zone between the Federation, Klingon and Romulan boarders to the center of the Galixy in under 16 hours if I remember corectly, but in any case a distance of 50,000 to 60,000 LY in under one day, so that Spock's. brother could meet "god?"
Except it isnt the centre of the galaxy....
...only the dialouge indicates such and is over ridden by the visuals....although, there's always the counter using your own choice argument, the almighty plot device
...unfortunately, the only VS debates it is really a factor in are those involving Discworld, where the plot device is a real part of the proceedings.
C4. That it is also plain that they can maneuver tightly at warp speed is shown dramaticly more than a few times in all of the serries shows and movies. In SW, jumping to "light speed" is not always easy and requires carefull calculations, at least for some ships.
Where the fuck is it "shown dramatically"? Refrences are needed to prove a point, but you seem allergic to providing them.
D. Disintigration by Phaser. Is shown many times and is just one of several uses of that weapon. To say that the "physics precludes such effects is counter to your own arguments for other actions in both settings. On possable solution to the boiling water dilema, is that the phaser some how alows the charges of the various sub atomic particles to "nutralise" each other without further release of energy and they simply colapse. After all the vast majority of all volume inside every atom is empty space. No weapon shown in SW has an equivilant effect.
So we're back to NDF.....which is great....why does it do almost fuck all to dense materials such as the good ol' packing crates or walls?
E. That the Empire must build the DS serries of units to destroy a planet is further proof that their technology is less advanced than that repeatedly shown in ST. Were it is possable for a standard shuttle to do this same job. It is a tenant of technology that as it advances, it gets smaller. That is also demonstraited in ST were their ships are a tiny fraction of those in the SW universe but have demonstraited several different techniques for planetary destruction. It was also said that the same small device could destroy things at great distances from it's point of detonation. That implies that a shuttle could destroy the entire fleet at Yavin or Endor including the DS-2 and the moon. The ability to destroy planets was also shown by the Romulans.
For the sake of fuck, you really are a bloody moron arent you?
The death star was designed to deal with heavily shielded or defended planets that the fleet could not perform a Base-Delta-Zero
operation on...I'd love to know when the romulans have destoryed a planet...if its your mix up with the bio-weapon thing....we can do similar shit today if we put our mind to it....does that make us of great technological prowess than the Empire?
F. The ability to manipulate others defenses is also a trait of technological supiriority. We do it in todays Electronic Warfare arena were two new lines of software code can negate the Iraqi ADN. That they have shown the ability to softkill their opponents shields is further proof of their power. Using the reasoning that technology difuses from higher to lower, then it implies that SW shields would be useless against anyone who could swich them off from afar.
Baseless bullshit...ST claims to have over ride codes for controlling fed ships...there's no such crap ever mentioned in SW's, though they do have ECM and ECCM....
G. Your own examples show ST sensors to be much advanced over SW equipment. The thing to remember is that there might be many variables that change the range at which it is effective, just like a modern sonar. Able to track many targets at the fourth convergance zone, 140 nauticle miles, but still miss a fishing boat at a half a mile. I like your argument for FTL sencors in SW. But the dialoge and effects shown discredit performance in the same league as that shown in ST.
Where and when idiot?
H. Transporters are a further set of proofs that the ST universe is more capable than anything shown in the SW films.
Ah, but what about your precious plot device?
Transporters have been shown to be useless in so many situations, that they would provide no real advantage....
I. Replicators are the other side of the Teleportation devices nature. In ST they can interchange Matter and Energy. The "Duplicators" you describe clearly need "Raw Matierials" to build new things and thus are atleast a step or two below the technology demonstraited in ST.
Replicators require raw material and energy.
J. Scale! That in SW is clearly millions of times as large as that in ST. However, that is a misleading point. History clealy shows that each advance in technology makes it's possessor at least two if not three or more orders of magnatude more powerful than their predisesors. It does not take many F-86H's and their sattendant technology to win WW-II for either side. I have gamed this several times and the outcome is the same no matter who plays wich side. Furthermore, it does not take many Pantom-II's to win Koria or F-15c's to win Viet Nam. The F-15 is perhapse the first of the next generation of weapon so technologicly overpowering that it has killed it's enemies without their having recourse.(+120 wins, no losses and no ties) The F-22 is possed to do the same, were modeling and gamming show that only 48 and their support services are needed to defeet any other airforce currently deployed in the world and any that might be fielded in it's life span. The effect of technology overmach is that powerful, that you can not pick a venue were the numbers of the lower tech side can over come the advantage of the technologicaly supirior side.
One man with an assault rifle against the entire roman army....he looses. That's your basic premise and it's bullshit.
I like your site very much and look forward to your reply if you can manage it. Sincerely, Stewart
You are dumber than a rather stupid box of rocks
I also want to touch upon this...
PS I studied Kendo while in Japan and Ethiopia, so I know a little bit about sword work too. (Not much as I got bored with all the rote exercises and quit after only a year and a half but enough to know that nothing I've seen in the movies is that good without wire work.) PPS My reflexes and strength alowed me to beat my origional Japanise instructor more than he beat me after the first two months in class. 60 pounds, 0.13 second reflexes and a 228 bench press will do that for you.
What a fuckload of bullshit....unless of course your "instructor" was actually another of these guy at the pub type people. I've spent over five years studying sword combat, and besides the Force jumps, there is nothing to what they were doing...infact, in terms of martial arts, a lot of it sucked donkey balls...
Tell me Baron Von numbnuts....do you sufer from some form of munchausen syndrome?