Read this

[Needa]

You know, if you would actually read some of the stuff Mr. Kennedy has written there you might learn something and prove yourselves wrong. If you know so much about Trek, why come you can be so wrong in your (biased) flames?

Are you GK? Or GK clone? Or are you part of the supposed 95% of people who like his fan fic "Portal"?

Ok, it is very, very, very tempting to fall under the dark side influence (flaming you), but I try to be as polite as possible when I'm making posts.

So just notice this points:

1-Many people around here do like Startrek.
It's not just a warsie/fascist hole.

2- It's ridiculous to think that a 300 years old space-faring civilisation (Federation of United Planets) that control only A PART of the Alpha quadron will beat a -----------) GALACTIC (-------- Empire, who posses a minimum of 25000 years old experience about space travel, that come from the Old Republic.

3- GK site contains quite a lot of canon information on his website, but sadly he relies much on pseudoscience.

4- The no laser argument of GK (Graham Kennedy), if you know what I'm talking about, is false. Turbolaser aren't laser. That's it's main argument agaisnt SW, and it's just a lot of .....

5- Read Mike's work before attacking it. I'm pretty damn sure you didn't.

6- If you attack people on this forum the way you do, don't complain if people are flaming you. Almost everyone here are polite and intelligent. They only flame when a- they are flamed b- see a stupid claim from a stupid people.

For everyone else, what kind of flame warrior is that?
[/b]

[Needa]

Hey wait, I just reread the posts, and perhaps it's me, but I never saw someone flaming you. Forget number 6.

[LMSx]

And actually, Bingo and I came here to get a kick out of watching you all flame anyone with differing ideas of your own, kinda like how a being of greater intellgence plays with the lessers. Thanks for the laughs!

Saying things like that tends to result in negative answers.

Think about that, my great superior. [/code]

[Bingo]

1-Many people around here do like Startrek.
It's not just a warsie/fascist hole.

- Really could have fooled me

2- It's ridiculous to think that a 300 years old space-faring civilisation (Federation of United Planets) that control only A PART of the Alpha quadron will beat a -----------) GALACTIC (-------- Empire, who posses a minimum of 25000 years old experience about space travel, that come from the Old Republic.

-Obviously you have never read their history. Do the 300 hundred Spartans ring a bell, and what about the American revolution

3- GK site contains quite a lot of canon information on his website, but sadly he relies much on pseudoscience.

-Point it out then. Besides if Im not mistaken he clearly states that much of his site is conjecture. Seems none of these guys has the balls or the brains to take on EAS

4- The no laser argument of GK (Graham Kennedy), if you know what I'm talking about, is false. Turbolaser aren't laser. That's it's main argument agaisnt SW, and it's just a lot of .....

[-b]-Says who. Even if they were plasma cannons like Mr Wong states that means that they have limited range and they're no more powerful than Archer's EM pistols in Broken Bow pathetic [/b]

5- Read Mike's work before attacking it. I'm pretty damn sure you didn't.

-You dont have to. His theory that the empire invented transporters but dosent use them because of ethical reasons BULLSHIT

6- If you attack people on this forum the way you do, don't complain if people are flaming you. Almost everyone here are polite and intelligent. They only flame when a- they are flamed b- see a stupid claim from a stupid people.

- I have only one thing to say about this LOL

I really hope Im not starting a flame war but what is false must be challenged. Does Star Trek have plot holes and science mistakes? yes but it has over 600 hours of screentime and has many people giving input if you dont expect inconsistancies well then your just being gullible. Overall Star trek has taken the time to input science into the show hence the tecnobabble and if you ask me has done a good job of it Star wars dosent. Mr Wong just dosent like Star Trek and seems to want to make sure we dont either. But instead of saying he dosent like it and just leaving it at that he creates an obnoxious website that insults Star trek fans perhaps Mr Wong and his followers should take some advice "To those of you who think you know it all your upsetting to those of us who do." .

[Enforcer Talen]

it's amazing that I can reply to that in one sentence - read the bloody site.

[Mr Bean]

Hmm I belive we strayed from whinny why me into I'm right and your wrong egotisctial Bullshit

At this point his Ego and IQ are at there greatist Inverses of each other he is completly immue to normal logic, Suggestions? Sterlization and Contament Producers are called for

[SirNitram]

Hmm I belive we strayed from whinny why me into I'm right and your wrong egotisctial Bullshit

At this point his Ego and IQ are at there greatist Inverses of each other he is completly immue to normal logic, Suggestions? Sterlization and Contament Producers are called for

Ignore him. He's just trolling now.

[Anarchist Bunny]

-You dont have to. His theory that the empire invented transporters but dosent use them because of ethical reasons BULLSHIT

What the fuck. WHAT THE FUCK! Where did you get this from. Frankly this reaks of your own ass. For one the empire having ethics. BAH!

[Bingo]

Actually this and the other one I posted are from another BBS. SO dont blame me.

[SirNitram]

Actually this and the other one I posted are from another BBS. SO dont blame me.

You posted them? Not under duress? Okay, I'll blame you.

[SPOOFE]

-Obviously you have never read their history. Do the 300 hundred Spartans ring a bell, and what about the American revolution

You wanna talk about ringing bells? Think about the Polish or the French during WWII.

]-Says who. Even if they were plasma cannons like Mr Wong states that means that they have limited range and they're no more powerful than Archer's EM pistols in Broken Bow pathetic

Wrongo, chucklehead. Archer's EM pistols don't unleash upwards of 200 gigatons of damage. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't know exactly what turbolasers are composed of. All we DO know is that they are not simple lasers.

You dont have to. His theory that the empire invented transporters but dosent use them because of ethical reasons BULLSHIT

No, that's something he devised to maintain an internal consistency with the fictional (read: fun) theme of his webpage.

Does Star Trek have plot holes and science mistakes? yes but it has over 600 hours of screentime and has many people giving input if you dont expect inconsistancies well then your just being gullible.

By making our complaints of such stupid mistakes being made known, hopefully we'll persuade authors from making such stupid mistakes in the future.

Overall Star trek has taken the time to input science into the show hence the tecnobabble and if you ask me has done a good job of it Star wars dosent.

Star Wars accepts that in science fiction or space opera, you're going to have to deal with fictional technologies that cannot be explained with a modern understanding of science. The difference is that Star Trek tries to create a false credibility for itself by pretending that it CAN explain such fictional super-advanced technologies.

There's no "science" to just inventing new words (Nadions? Hyperonic radiation? Teremi-thorons? All terms that have been used in Star Trek, and all that are completely fictional. That is NOT science. It is fantasy.)

[Anarchist Bunny]

Where the fuck does Wong state that the empire can use transporter technology but doesn't for ethical reasons? In his fan fic? That sounds fucked up that he would state something like that. Sounds like trekkie arguement that the Federation could build super weapons but doesn't for ethical reasons.

[LMSx]

I think it's derived from the fact that the Empire exhibits many similar technologies as the Federation, (I.E duplicators) and yet refuses to develop the duplicator technology to the Federation's level of transporters, despite being far more advanced.

Either physics (and logic ) apply differently in the SW universe, destroying suspension of disbelief, or there's some mental or ethical reason why the Empire doesn't use them.

[Darth Yoshi]

Ethics make sense, since they don't really approve of clones, and transporters in effect, kill you and then clone you. I say this because humans are physical creatures, and conversion into energy destroys the matter of our bodies, which means, death.

[Vapthorne]

"There's no "science" to just inventing new words (Nadions? Hyperonic radiation? Teremi-thorons? All terms that have been used in Star Trek, and all that are completely fictional. That is NOT science. It is fantasy.)"

Funny, I just found this webpage shortly after reading this post.
http://www.midwinter.com/~koreth/particles/

[Vympel]

Ignore him- just another childish trekkie thinking he's got the BIG ANSWER in defending ST against SW- no facts; just bluster. Best solution is to not respond unless he comes up with some credible reasons to state WHY ST can beat SW.

[SPOOFE]

Funny, I just found this webpage shortly after reading this post.

Indeed. An excellent database for the silly, fictional terms that people like Bingo think are "real science".

[Mr Bean]

Ahh yes the fun "Science" of Star Treck, Quantum events manfesting themselevs on the macro level and the ever fun *cracks in the event horizons of black holes...

[Ender]

WHat happened to the Constiution?

The Constitution does not apply here, for several reasons. The web is not a soley American thing. Hence the "World Wide" in front of it. You seem to go along with the same belief as most of the rest of my ignorant countrymen that everything revolves the USA. You are so far off the mark it isn't funny. The web is both its own entity and part of other countries, so American laws and protections do not apply. They especially don't count here, as this is a privately owned forum. MW pays for the bandwidth out of his own pocket, and as a result it's his to do with as he wishes.

You know, if you would actually read some of the stuff Mr. Kennedy has written there you might learn something and prove yourselves wrong. If you know so much about Trek, why come you can be so wrong in your (biased) flames?

I have read it. About the only thing its good for is the listing of ship names.

[Ender]

1-Many people around here do like Startrek.
It's not just a warsie/fascist hole.

- Really could have fooled me

Right, we are all warsies (which is why we have a good sized group of Fivers, I'm using the nick of an OSC character, and I'm a DOOMer), and we all hate trek (which is why most of us readily admit that had it ended at TOS, there would be no doubt that Trek was at Culture levels)

2- It's ridiculous to think that a 300 years old space-faring civilisation (Federation of United Planets) that control only A PART of the Alpha quadron will beat a -----------) GALACTIC (-------- Empire, who posses a minimum of 25000 years old experience about space travel, that come from the Old Republic.

-Obviously you have never read their history. Do the 300 hundred Spartans ring a bell, and what about the American revolution

What, the Revolution where the French were sending us supplies and going after the British on their own as well? And YOU seem to be the one who doesn't know history, what with you selecting 2 examples but ignoring the Indian Wars, the Spainards Conquest, Roman expansion, All of early WW2, etc,etc,etc

3- GK site contains quite a lot of canon information on his website, but sadly he relies much on pseudoscience.

-Point it out then. Besides if Im not mistaken he clearly states that much of his site is conjecture. Seems none of these guys has the balls or the brains to take on EAS

Have you ever read his ship descriptions? It's like 3 lines of Green, 5 of Yellow, and 2 pages of white. Alot of Canon my sweet patootie

4- The no laser argument of GK (Graham Kennedy), if you know what I'm talking about, is false. Turbolaser aren't laser. That's it's main argument agaisnt SW, and it's just a lot of .....

[-b]-Says who. Even if they were plasma cannons like Mr Wong states that means that they have limited range and they're no more powerful than Archer's EM pistols in Broken Bow pathetic [/b]

See ICS and my bit on weapons range for more proof you don't have a clue what you are talking about

5- Read Mike's work before attacking it. I'm pretty damn sure you didn't.

-You dont have to. His theory that the empire invented transporters but dosent use them because of ethical reasons BULLSHIT

Go look at a copy of Essential Guides to weapns and technology. One of the last entries is "<insert name I can't remember>'s Magical Hoop", a teleporter. In Wars, transporter tech has been reduced to a magicians trick.

6- If you attack people on this forum the way you do, don't complain if people are flaming you. Almost everyone here are polite and intelligent. They only flame when a- they are flamed b- see a stupid claim from a stupid people.

- I have only one thing to say about this LOL

You came here with the specific purpose of starting shit and then complain about being flamed.

"TROLL! TROLL IN THE FORUMS!"

I really hope Im not starting a flame war

yeah right

but what is false must be challenged. Does Star Trek have plot holes and science mistakes? yes but it has over 600 hours of screentime and has many people giving input if you dont expect inconsistancies well then your just being gullible. Overall Star trek has taken the time to input science into the show hence the tecnobabble

For another example of Trek level "science", see how Sir Arthur and his knights determine if a woman is a witch for the peasents in "Montey Python and the Holy Grail"

and if you ask me has done a good job of it Star wars dosent. Mr Wong just dosent like Star Trek and seems to want to make sure we dont either. But instead of saying he dosent like it and just leaving it at that he creates an obnoxious website that insults Star trek fans

The current stuff from B&B is far more insulting to Trek fans then Wong could ever hope to be

perhaps Mr Wong and his followers should take some advice "To those of you who think you know it all your upsetting to those of us who do." .

"He who claims to know everything, Knows nothing" - Confucius

[clay55]

I have been monitoring this discussion with interest, and yet some dismay. I'm not a user or contributor of this board, I'm just a visitor, nor am I Star Wars fan of any high degree. I'll just say I'm from the Star Trek web community. And I hope you're still willing to accept such visitors. Many of you guys seem to be predominantly Star Wars fans, that's what the board is geared to. That's fine, no problem here. But I can see no rational reason to flame and criticise Trek, or even compare Trek with Wars. They are complete chalk and cheese. One is a long running televion series mainly, on air for 36 some years, the other a series of motion pictures, also for a long time. Both are high standing, and both are of great popularity, enjoyed by millions world-wide. Both are science fiction, but the resemblance ends there, doesn't it, or am I wrong?

Alright so someone from Trek land has come into your back yard and has ruffled a few feathers. I neither condemn or condone it. I have no interest in kintergarten bickerings. There's not enough in common between the two series' to draw any sensible comparison. It will either be that you prefer one or the other, or simply like both. I'm a die hard Trekker, but I went to see Attack of The Clones in May, and enjoyed it. I don't believe I've been that entralled at the cinema since Return of The Jedi in 1983, i think it was. Above all I'm a fan of science fiction. But perhaps I like Trek more because there is more material to delve into and enjoy. I don't know. But I can't see the point in arguing over which is the greater slice of sci-fi, or which has the better ships. If such a debate had any value or merit one might as well do Star Wars against Stargate as well, and try and figure out if a Star Destroyer was better than a Goa-uld Mothership. It's pointless, futile, and stetching it too far. But if that's what you enjoy discussing that is of course fine.

The bottom line is: if we, as combined fans of science fiction movies and television, can have sensible, friendly debate and discussion, together, and not argue over lasers versus phasers, duplicators versus replicators, it will make the entire experience of Star Trek and Star Wars fandom a more pleasant and united genre for us all to be involved with and enjoy. Okay?

[Mr Bean]

Gee thats great clay55 but there is this little thing preventing the Human Utopia you describe

Human Nature
We WANT to be Better/Smarter/Faster than anyone else, We strive to succede(Or not hey we got a slacker or two here)

And in the end its just not possible to get a bunch of people togther and tension and what-not, not be created

That being said normaly this board is a place of Civil well thought out exchange it is usaly, The brain dead mornic trolls who come by and ruin it for everyone

Luckly most of us have been trained at the same places of thought and intelect that our patron Mr Wong Runner of this Website and Former where at so When the inevtable idiot/fool/passerby wanders by we do our best to educate them

If they refuse to learn we move to the school of hard knocks, Failing that we intinate tatical nuclear strikes

As it can be said with few execptions, Unless you BRING IT, it will not be brought.

[Isolder74]

-Obviously you have never read their history. Do the 300 hundred Spartans ring a bell, and what about the American revolution

Didn't the Spartans hold off the Persians long enough for the Atheneans to raise a collalition to defeat the Persians. and the Americans played the attrition game very well.

Does Star Trek have plot holes and science mistakes? yes but it has over 600 hours of screentime and has many people giving input if you dont expect inconsistancies well then your just being gullible.

By making our complaints of such stupid mistakes being made known, hopefully we'll persuade authors from making such stupid mistakes in the future.

you mean like calling a short Intermitent Contact

Overall Star trek has taken the time to input science into the show hence the tecnobabble and if you ask me has done a good job of it Star wars dosent.

Star Wars accepts that in science fiction or space opera, you're going to have to deal with fictional technologies that cannot be explained with a modern understanding of science. The difference is that Star Trek tries to create a false credibility for itself by pretending that it CAN explain such fictional super-advanced technologies.

There's no "science" to just inventing new words (Nadions? Hyperonic radiation? Teremi-thorons? All terms that have been used in Star Trek, and all that are completely fictional. That is NOT science. It is fantasy.)

this is a very good point

[Master of Ossus]

1. The Three Hundred Spartans LOST the battle. In fact, the body of one of their kings was desecrated during the fight (Miles O'Brien and Julian Bashir will back me up on this one). And guess what? They had the same technology, or very similar technology (and, actually, a little better technology), as the Persians they were fighting.

2. Guess what? The Americans were actually using BETTER technology than the British Expeditionary Forces were, just in smaller quantities. American gunpowder was of higher grade. American rifles were better than the British (except for one British rifle that saw EXTREMELY limited service). American warships were far better than their British counterparts, employing advanced design features, weapons, and materials that the British never matched. They were less numerous, yes, and there were no American ships-of-the-line, but the American ships were, gun for gun, better than their British counterparts. And American tactics were FAR better. Starfleet would have none of these advantages over the Empire. In fact, they would be horribly slaughtered in most of these categories.

Also, Mr. Bean is totally right. Human nature runs contrary to utopia, despite what SCVN keeps trying to say. Human nature is also static, and does not change in just a few hundred years, also contrary to what SCVN would have us believe. The fact is that human nature has not changed since people first walked on two legs, and it likely never will. Only human attitudes can change, and not enough for people to create a utopian society as the one described here (communist countries never made it, neither did Brook Farm, or any of the other "utopias" created in the 19th century, why should a new utopia succeed now?). Utopias tend to be excellent ideas, and beautifully crafted. Further, the depth and idealism of their creation draws people, but they would never work. Sorry.

[Isolder74]

1. The Three Hundred Spartans LOST the battle. In fact, the body of one of their kings was desecrated during the fight (Miles O'Brien and Julian Bashir will back me up on this one). And guess what? They had the same technology, or very similar technology (and, actually, a little better technology), as the Persians they were fighting.

Yes, but we forget the Sparten's objective. To hold as long as they. Do we also forget the Alamo they all died but houston's army had the time to build his strength to the point of defeating the Mexicans. sometimes its the objective that matters.

2. Guess what? The Americans were actually using BETTER technology than the British Expeditionary Forces were, just in smaller quantities. American gunpowder was of higher grade. American rifles were better than the British (except for one British rifle that saw EXTREMELY limited service). American warships were far better than their British counterparts, employing advanced design features, weapons, and materials that the British never matched. They were less numerous, yes, and there were no American ships-of-the-line, but the American ships were, gun for gun, better than their British counterparts. And American tactics were FAR better. Starfleet would have none of these advantages over the Empire. In fact, they would be horribly slaughtered in most of these categories.

True but this better describes the War of 1812 than it does the Revolutionary War. The American Navy didn't truely exist until the Contitution because The Articles Of Confederation didn't allow the national government to have a navy. BYW John paul Jones was truely a pivateer since he couldn't get congress to authorize the navy so he built his own from merchant ships.

Also, Mr. Bean is totally right. Human nature runs contrary to utopia, despite what SCVN keeps trying to say. Human nature is also static, and does not change in just a few hundred years, also contrary to what SCVN would have us believe. The fact is that human nature has not changed since people first walked on two legs, and it likely never will. Only human attitudes can change, and not enough for people to create a utopian society as the one described here (communist countries never made it, neither did Brook Farm, or any of the other "utopias" created in the 19th century, why should a new utopia succeed now?). Utopias tend to be excellent ideas, and beautifully crafted. Further, the depth and idealism of their creation draws people, but they would never work. Sorry.

Totally agree

BTW I'm a big history buff.