Printable View
here is a thought..
pick two guys here and do a [URL="http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=101"]formal debate[/URL] according to the rules there..i would nominate
Kitamer VS TW
or
Apocolypse VS Ricery
pick a topic..
do a Formal debate..see who wins..
You would need to show your work and your sources in such a debate.
And while I continually have, the others have just said "I disproved that."
[QUOTE=TW Scott;2652341]And while I continually have, the others have just said "I disproved that."[/QUOTE]
*nearly chokes laughing*
Ah, my... I needed that laugh.
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2652398]*nearly chokes laughing*
Ah, my... I needed that laugh.[/QUOTE]
Quick question; just exactly [i]why[/i] were you banned from Spacebattles by SuperS4?
[QUOTE=ricrery;2652406]Quick question; just exactly [i]why[/i] were you banned from Spacebattles by SuperS4?[/QUOTE]
For saying I was going to ignore Leo, according to his PM...
*sighs* That guy is just... I don't know. I think he needs to lighten up just a tad... never seen a moderator as over the top as he is...
Oh, and apparently for calling White Rabbit "little wabbit" after his glorious attempt at sniping me, and for not accepting that fists are an effective weapon against the Borg...
*facepalm*
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2652438]
*sighs* That guy is just... I don't know. I think he needs to lighten up just a tad... never seen a moderator as over the top as he is...[/QUOTE]
Twisted Mentat. Check mate :p
[QUOTE=ricrery;2652449]Twisted Mentat. Check mate :p[/QUOTE]
He's retired though, so it doesn't count :P
At the moment I'm trying to get the bans overturned... and hopefully Leo thrown in the meat locker. The guy seems to just be exempt from the rules though *shrugs*
Anyway, it's 1:30am and I have class at 10... time for bed for this old man.
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2652450]
At the moment I'm trying to get the bans overturned... and hopefully Leo thrown in the meat locker. The guy seems to just be exempt from the rules though *shrugs*[/QUOTE]
I was banned for flaming Mith mainly, but what really triggered it was that I said that ships don't move in warp. Three days is bullshit.
[QUOTE=TW Scott;2652341]And while I continually have, the others have just said "I disproved that."[/QUOTE]
You say you have but there is no record which back up your assertions.
[QUOTE=ricrery;2652454]I was banned for flaming Mith mainly, but what really triggered it was that I said that ships don't move in warp. Three days is bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Well... they do move in warp - warp drive compresses space in front of the ship and expands it behind it.
I can't recall if they explained it in TOS or TNG... I'll have to look it up for ya tomorrow.
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2652460]Well... they do move in warp - warp drive compresses space in front of the ship and expands it behind it.
I can't recall if they explained it in TOS or TNG... I'll have to look it up for ya tomorrow.[/QUOTE]
I know, for sure, that they DID, at least, in ST:TNG. I have images in my mind of those scenes but I don't know what episodes they were. I'll have to do a episode-by-episode search -- unless someone has a better way..... :confused:
I know this was SHOWN, but not specifically discussed, in "The Nth Degree". Maybe they DID talk about it in that episode; I'll have to look at it again.
And yes, the ships, at least in the U.F.P., are specifically designed, architechturally, to actually [I]allow[/I] the hull to [I]warp[/I] at faster than light speeds, so that the stress on the structue is significantly reduced. This has been shown, to a great degree, on screen, with U.F.P. ships; and other unidentified alien vessels. Oh! I just remembered: they [I]have[/I] shown this effect with Romulan ships, also {during the episode on DS9 where the DS9 crew attempted to make a counterfeit memory strip(?). The warp effect on the Romulan ships was shown in flash-backs during that episode.}
(Once I have backed-up my crap on my HD, I'll download all the episodes and look for examples...)
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2652398]*nearly chokes laughing*
Ah, my... I needed that laugh.[/QUOTE]
Of course you did. After all it is hysterical how when I show my work and you don't, I'm the one accused of making stuff up by your fanboys.
Show your work and your sources!
[QUOTE=Saquist;2652456]You say you have but there is no record which back up your assertions.[/QUOTE]
Look through my posts more than once i have given calculations, links to data, links to quantifiable laws of physics, and actually provided sound reasoning for my arguments. hell, I have even improved some of ST arguments by explaining thing in a better light.
[QUOTE=TW Scott;2652800]Look through my posts more than once i have given calculations, links to data, links to quantifiable laws of physics, and actually provided sound reasoning for my arguments. hell, I have even improved some of ST arguments by explaining thing in a better light.[/QUOTE]
No, you have posted regurgitated bullshit over and over that has been disproven time and again.
And you're so called "improving" ST arguments normally involves attempting to factor out higher showings in favor of lower ones. Other times it simply involves ignoring contradicting evidence. *shrugs* Hardly an improvement... well, unless you're arguing against Trek (Oh wait...)
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2652869]No, you have posted regurgitated bullshit over and over that has been disproven time and again.
And you're so called "improving" ST arguments normally involves attempting to factor out higher showings in favor of lower ones. Other times it simply involves ignoring contradicting evidence. *shrugs* Hardly an improvement... well, unless you're arguing against Trek (Oh wait...)[/QUOTE]
Actually, I have given full out calculations on asteroid vaporization. I have explain canon facts of the SW universe. I have even suggested both sides have variable yield weaponry on starships. The last was an argument in favor of ST as all visual evidence shows that ST ship weaponry is even less destructive than 20th Century Naval weaponry.
I have given arguments with canon figures full weight. I have also admitted when I was proven wrong. But that is the point here. You have to prove it. You just can't go "Pfft, you're wrong."
[QUOTE=TW Scott;2652979]Actually, I have given full out calculations on asteroid vaporization. I have explain canon facts of the SW universe. I have even suggested both sides have variable yield weaponry on starships. The last was an argument in favor of ST as all visual evidence shows that ST ship weaponry is even less destructive than 20th Century Naval weaponry.
I have given arguments with canon figures full weight. I have also admitted when I was proven wrong. But that is the pint here. You have to prove it. You just can't go "Pfft, you're wrong."[/QUOTE]
You're right - that is the pint here... the pints you've been drinking to think you've proven anything. Especially your claim that all ST weaponry is at a sub-modern level... that one in particular was just plain dumb, even for you.
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2653086]You're right - that is the pint here... the pints you've been drinking to think you've proven anything. Especially your claim that all ST weaponry is at a sub-modern level... that one in particular was just plain dumb, even for you.[/QUOTE]
Sure, pick on a type and ,ake an ad hominem then make a reducto absurdum
I said that all visuals have shown that Star Trek ship weapons to be less destructive than Modern Naval weapons.
Have we seen a Photon Torpedo strike that is even as explosive as a modern Torpedo? No.
Have we seen ship phasers perform as well as eight or twelve inch guns? No with a an exception when it comes to drilling.
This is the reasoning behind my statement of variable.power settings.
[QUOTE=TW Scott;2653399]Sure, pick on a type and ,ake an ad hominem then make a reducto absurdum
I said that all visuals have shown that Star Trek ship weapons to be less destructive than Modern Naval weapons.
Have we seen a Photon Torpedo strike that is even as sexplosive as a modern Torpedo? No.
Have we seen ship phasers perform as well as eight or twelve inch guns? No with a an exception when it comes to drilling.
This is the reasoning behind my statement of variable.power settings.[/QUOTE]
*grins* And yet you continue to make typos and stupid errors that even the most basic of linguistic skills and/or spellcheck should pick out.
Photon Torpedo Strike - why would it look as explosive as a modern torpedo? Why should it? After all, it's generally occurring in space, not in water. And even should it happen in an atmosphere - it's a damn science fiction series... they can make their weapons behave like cheese if they so wished, but if they still blow your shit up with the force of 50+mt, that means they are 50+mt.
Yes, we have seen phasers perform far better than naval guns - they just don't have collateral damage.
Example - Q,Who, where the Enterprise blasted away parts of an (unadapted) Borg Cube large enough to, quite literally, land in. I'd like to see ANY size Naval gun do something like that against an unarmored target, much less an armored one.
Thus, the "reasoning" behind your statements is taken entirely from the lowest possible examples... typical for you, but none the less poor debating practice.