View Poll Results: Which universe would win?

Voters
670. This poll is closed
  • Star Trek

    227 33.88%
  • Star Wars

    285 42.54%
  • Spaceballs

    51 7.61%
  • Farscape

    14 2.09%
  • Dune

    54 8.06%
  • Stargate

    39 5.82%

Thread: Star Wars vs Star Trek

  1. #21961
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    Except it is.
    It's not an orbital explosion.
    No, the detonation occurred within an atmosphere.

    An orbital explosion would contradict the plot and the logic of firing on the surface. You can't make up evidence and present it as valid that defies all logic. Sorry this is just a blindingly ignorant statement.
    What the fuck, did you just spout? What orbital explosion? The only explosion occurred within an atmosphere, and it wasn't the ultramegatonz that you believed it was.

    You're being evasive.
    You're focusing on Strawman
    You haven't given supporting facts to your claims...etc.
    No, speak in a way I can comprehend what you're even saying.

    The exact opposite of what?
    You use the crappy visuals of the SW OT as proof of SW durability, but when you have to do the same for Trek, you immediately claim it's useless.

    (sigh) What is wrong with you?
    Why are you wasting my time?
    You should know the answer to that already.
    Then show me the proof.

    You showed nothing.
    No source no reference, just your word for it.
    Sorry..that's not good enough and you're clearly not familiar with sourcing your information properly.
    Moron. What about that TESB novelization quote I gave you? That was nothing? And you're surprised that I call you a retard?

    Strawman Fallacy
    I never said my opinion was fact.
    Skins of Evil. Nuff said.

    Red Herring
    Logically your reckless use of the word proof has no association with my logic
    Your "logic" breaks SoD and BoP.

    Originally Posted by Ricery
    "I will take evidence over logic any day."
    You don't understand debate is all about logic.
    No, the logic you speak of is basically "it would be retarded if they didn't have X or Y with them, even if nothing supports that they did have X or Y with them". How about you provide evidence for a change?

    If you want to defeat another person's "logic" you use logic against them.
    You identify the flaw and error in their logic.
    Oh, but your "logic" turns a debate into shit pretty fast

    Instead you've flamed...followed by an avalanche of logical fallacies.
    (shrug)
    Ah, the style of substance defense the likes of yourself use. WAAAHH HE'S BEING MEAN, SO I'LL JUST IGNORE HIS EVIDENCE AND CRY ABOUT HIM PERSECUTING ME, WAAAAH!

    You can't use evidence properly if you don't have logic.
    Ditto what I said before about your "logic". Evidence is not that "logic", not by a long shot.

    You put the cart before the horse.
    Except the horse was never important from the start.

    Not in debate
    LOL. Did you just say that "logic" overrides suspension of disbelief? Are you even a debater?

    nor any where else in science.
    Oh, this was a debate about real life now? I didn't notice.

    This is just another baseless accusation.
    No proof, no justification.
    Just like you. You continue to break burden of proof and suspension of disbelief while using your "logic" as law.

    And what claim was that?
    That the ISD's shields were up when the asteroid impacted.

    Yes, You denounced logic. By definition you lost the debate.
    Originally posted by Ricery: I denounce logic...
    But I haven't

    In orbit of what.
    Not actually orbiting anything, but prove that they had shields up after leaving the asteroid field.

    That has nothing to do with the context of my post.
    You asked for evidence, I gave you it.

    Right....
    You were warned and banned before.
    You didn't have good reason for your actions.
    You couldn't follow the rules or direction...that's why you were banned.
    Are you listening to what I post anymore?

    And you're using this formula to solve for the amount of equivalent TNT to destroy asteroids?
    ...No That's kinetic energy, duh?

    A calculator is not proof of anything concerning a debate.
    It's proof of a good debater.

    The Source has been proven wrong before.
    Superfluid Gas Eruptions induced by Fusion are not Coronal Mass Ejections.
    And you complain about fallacies? Ejections must have went through your skull right? Thta SGE was an ejection. Learn English.

    Wrong. It's a 2.9 Billion metric tonnes
    Wongs site (if my SN is correct) says that Asteroid should be 11 Billion Metric Tonnes assuming a perfect sphere (I believe) at 1.4 km across. And it says it only takes 13 megatons to crater it. WHY?
    [/quote]

    /facepalm. Did the concept of varying density go through your head? Nickel Iron weighs 7.874 g/cm^3. Icarus has a mean density of 2 g/cm^3. Now did you figure it out? Also, his asteroids are inert and containing only one substance.

    The Wong caculator says 13 megatons gets you a crater as deep as the craters radius. That's pretty significant and...according to the Wong Caculator the Mass is even greater (assuming he means a sphere)....than the actual asteroid...and yet...only 13 megatons to crater it. Explain this to me. I'm not as good at math as you are.
    Ditto.

    Is that 150 K- what? Kilometer distance?
    Well according to that, sir it would take 8,814 similar strikes to vaporize the asteroid. 5,288,400 Megatons to destroy this asteroid completely.
    Um, Kelvins? Also, what is their definition of obliterate?

    If I have to tell you the obvious then you have no business here.
    You clearly haven't done your research. But what else is new?
    Coming from a guy who tries to calculate an explosion in space?

    Oh, and Cupcak- Erm, Apocalypse, you'd best post your reply in a format used by people with brain cells. I won't respond to that crap until you set up right.

  2. #21962
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post

    Strawman Fallacy

    My argument is that the realistic effects are irrelevant to on screen special effects that were not designed to depict reality.
    Oh, so how do you calculate how powerful they are?

  3. #21963
    Here is you: 'ooo, ooo, everything has oxygen! ooo, ooo everything has atmosphere! Brief explosions cannot be big in space!
    Just had to say that totally made me laugh...

    Ok, what you stated here, is unrelated to what I said. You missed my point. What appeared to us may look like regular technology, just like the Q appear as human to us. Obviously they are not human.
    And, everything, no matter how fantastic it might seem to us, still effect OTHER things. While I DO admit the reactions may very well not be equal every time, they are still reactions.


    While I want to respond to this...it will just end up with us going in circles, as would any mortal being trying to comprehend Q

    No. I didn't know the distinction you were trying to make in all honesty (Yes I am an ignorant fool on some things). I didn't fully understand there was a Scifi/fantasy and a "scifi/scifi". Also I do not believe you should be stating what I do and do not know, as you actually don't know what I do and do not know. Just like you did not know if I was or was not joking (I said I was, you came up with I wasnt). Or know the fact of whether or not production teams have made a mistake as you say they did in above posts. (Please don't take as attack, just if you don't know for 100%, then don't say you do or make assumptions.) Now if you do know for a fact that the production teams made a mistake, then by all means..tear me to pieces..lol. -Anyhow sorry, I just felt that needed to be addressed, back to topic...

    umm ok....more appeal to emotion fallacies from you. ...I really have no idea how to respond to that, or don't want to try I guess Don't try and make it seem as if I can't talk about anything THAT YOU HAVE SAID. I can, and I will.LOL by all means, go ahead, this is the internet after all, If I didn't want you doing that I shouldn't be here

    Making it seem like I'm nit picking YOU instead of what was SAID, is a sure sign of a complex
    MUCH BETTER THANK YOU! Instead of stating that "I have a complex" like its a fact, you stated a behavoir is a sign of me having a complex.

    Umm maybe you should stick to what you really meant instead of changing you 'meanings' constantly Just so I know what you want to finally say instead of jumping around and changing what you said all the time.

    Yea sorry about that, sometimes I am not the best at getting something across very simply - I think its a symptom of having worked at an internet help desk and having had to over explain, and over simplify things all the time to people who didn't want to listen - or could just be a character flaw

    Sorry, you'll get used to it. At least my expanded vocabulary is slowly coming back to me, not fully as I still use the wrong words at times, as you have corrected me on yourself.(having to use simple words 9 hours a day for 3 years takes its toll...at least it did on me)


    I've already stated that Majel had power of attorney, and basically approved everything that's been made after his death. Obviously not including the alternate time-line Star Trek film.

    Ahh I missed that, that totally makes me happy that Seven of Nine is canon then. No not for her hotness, but I found she had some of the most interesting character development, which at times in Star Trek with some of its characters after TNG, can be somewhat lacking -movies excluded. If I remember correctly, it suddenly stopped too though. I;m not sure, need to watch Voyager in its entirety all the way through.

    His statements were pretty clear. I'm too lazy, at the moment, to write them down....AGAIN.
    To whos statements are you referring? Majel? Just looked it up, I didn't see anything on power of attorney but I will do more research later, its kinda late...same goes for the George Lucas canon thing I was talking about.

  4. #21964
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    No, the detonation occurred within an atmosphere.
    You're so confused.

    What the fuck, did you just spout? What orbital explosion? The only explosion occurred within an atmosphere, and it wasn't the ultramegatonz that you believed it was.
    You're the one that said "orbital explosion"

    No, speak in a way I can comprehend what you're even saying.
    You interpret or spin...which leads directly to strawman fallacies.

    You use the crappy visuals of the SW OT as proof of SW durability, but when you have to do the same for Trek, you immediately claim it's useless.
    I don't think so.

    Then show me the proof.
    No. It's common knowledge.
    I don't have to do your research. Stop being a troll and do your own research and if you want someone to GIVE you something you ask for it. Why should I have to waste more of my time proving what is common knowledge to someone who is as obstinate insulting and disagreeable as yourself?

    And if you can't then you're far from intelligent, objective and as you've already proven...far from logical. But because the proof will most certainly disagree with you won't look for it, which is why you haven't looked for it.

    Moron. What about that TESB novelization quote I gave you? That was nothing? And you're surprised that I call you a retard?
    Ad Hominem

    If you only knew how ignorant this makes you look
    A moron and a retard is anyone that trust you without a source.
    You did not provide a source. A Source and Reference is a direct quote followed by the book, chapter and page number of the quote. Anything less is hear-say and inadmissible as evidence of anything.

    Skins of Evil. Nuff said.
    Non Sequitor.
    Skin of Evil has nothing to do with your accusation of my quote.

    Your "logic" breaks SoD and BoP.

    Irrelevant

    Logic does not require Suspension of Disbelief under any rule.

    No, the logic you speak of is basically "it would be retarded if they didn't have X or Y with them, even if nothing supports that they did have X or Y with them". How about you provide evidence for a change?
    Yes...You said
    Originally Posted by Ricery
    "I will take evidence over logic any day."
    You don't understand debate is all about logic.

    Oh, but your "logic" turns a debate into shit pretty fast
    Actually that would be the direct cause of your fallacies. not one of your post towards me lacks a fallacy.

    Ah, the style of substance defense the likes of yourself use. WAAAHH HE'S BEING MEAN, SO I'LL JUST IGNORE HIS EVIDENCE AND CRY ABOUT HIM PERSECUTING ME, WAAAAH!
    Persecution isn't logical.
    Your evidence was properly countered by comparative information.

    Ditto what I said before about your "logic". Evidence is not that "logic", not by a long shot.
    I do not understand your grammar.

    Except the horse was never important from the start.
    Not for someone like your self that does not understand the use of syllogisms.

    LOL. Did you just say that "logic" overrides suspension of disbelief? Are you even a debater?
    Suspension of Disbelief is overridden by logic.
    Logic gives way to physics not fiction.

    Oh, this was a debate about real life now? I didn't notice.
    Only according to you. Everyone else realizes this is fiction and not representative of real science.

    Just like you. You continue to break burden of proof and suspension of disbelief while using your "logic" as law.
    These are your claims. The burden of proving them is your.
    I have broken the back of the majority of them and the most fallacious of them.

    That the ISD's shields were up when the asteroid impacted.
    Which is a confidence statement.

    But I haven't
    But you have.

    Not actually orbiting anything, but prove that they had shields up after leaving the asteroid field.
    I don't see how.

    You asked for evidence, I gave you it.
    No you didn't.

    Are you listening to what I post anymore?
    Would you listen to your post anymore?

    ...No That's kinetic energy, duh?
    You're the one that gave that formula when the context was destroying asteroids...

    It's proof of a good debater.
    There's that poor use of the word proof.
    It's poof of nothing.

    And you complain about fallacies? Ejections must have went through your skull right? Thta SGE was an ejection. Learn English.
    If I didn't know english then you wouldn't understand anything I said.
    I cannot accept your interpretation on the grounds that the Corona is not a superfluid. This remains debunked.



    /facepalm. Did the concept of varying density go through your head? Nickel Iron weighs 7.874 g/cm^3. Icarus has a mean density of 2 g/cm^3. Now did you figure it out? Also, his asteroids are inert and containing only one substance.
    Irrelevant
    The asteroid depicted by the Wong Calculator maintains a mass much larger than the actual asteroid and asserts that 13 megton bomb would crater a consistent iron density. The difference is of course that the MIT students project a detonating force of 46 times more just to push the asteroid of lesser mass.

    Ditto.
    Inarticulate.

    Um, Kelvins?
    Why do I need to know this for the equation?

    Also, what is their definition of obliterate?
    That's according to you.

    Coming from a guy who tries to calculate an explosion in space?
    Who, you?
    Last edited by Saquist; 12-13-10 at 09:50 PM.

  5. #21965
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Oh, so how do you calculate how powerful they are?
    I don't. You do remember.
    I use comparative analysis dictated by logic not some Wrong calculator. I also accept known and general authorities on the matter that don't have a reason for bias.

  6. #21966
    Purveyor of Truth and Fact Kittamaru's Avatar
    Posts
    7,367
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Oh, and what source says that? It's an obvious fact (not an opinion at all) that a persistent explosion is the side effect of an atmosphere (clearly Saquist thinks that the Tsar Bomb detonating in space would match its visual appearance when it detonated on Earth ). Here's even a link for you.

    http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad12.html



    You see that? The explosion would be very brief, not persistent like Saquist seems so inclined to believe.



    Oh, but did you forget the difference between the shockwave and the explosion?
    You didn't say shockwave, you said explosion. And the explosion of a supernova persists for far longer than a few seconds (and in fact can take months or years to fully expire IIRC)

  7. #21967
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittamaru View Post
    You didn't say shockwave, you said explosion. And the explosion of a supernova persists for far longer than a few seconds (and in fact can take months or years to fully expire IIRC)
    Oh really? A quick Google search says otherwise.

  8. #21968
    Now I would respond to Saquist, but I've given up thus far. He has made up his mind and won't listen to reason. Best to ignore him completely, since hitting a brick wall gets annoying real fast.

  9. #21969
    Purveyor of Truth and Fact Kittamaru's Avatar
    Posts
    7,367
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Researchers
    SN 2006gy

    The supernova has been named SN 2006gy. It was first spotted by Robert Quimby on September 18, 2006. A team that studies supernovae that is led by Alex Filippenko then turned multiple telescopes toward this supernova. They found that the supernova slowly brightened over the course of 70 days to its peak, and then stayed brighter than any supernova previously seen for more than three months. Now, more than eight months later, it still shines as brightly as a run-of-the-mill supernova would at its peak.
    http://berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...upernova.shtml

  10. #21970
    @Quantum_Dragon well even if you don't research it, you MUST have heard the Majel took over his role where Star Trek is concerned. It's been stated by the actors too. In fact I was just writing a message to Brent Spiner, and he mentioned Majel was basically making the decisions, and over looking the development of series' and other stuff since Gene died. We were actually talking about Whoopy and he mentioned Majel insisting on a certain piece of material related to character development in TNG. That's how the topic switched to Majel's involvement/decisions.

  11. #21971

  12. #21972
    Wow u know brent spiner im so jealous anywho for the past three pages I have read nothing besides whing and corrctions on what people said. Can we just go back to the original arguements for which this post was created. Sw vs ST vs everyone else I have yet to read anything on farscape or Dune(?) Besides lets all have a little fun its Christmas, even enemies have been known to be good to one another during this time.

  13. #21973

    The Great Wall, Part 2

    Ok so here is part 2 for the Big Ol Wall of Text!

    Go ahead and feel free to correct me on any misinterpretations or representations of either side. I feel some of this information a great many will know, but maybe not both sides, or may help those who don't know as much and will help when I get to the rest of "The Wall". I know a lot of pieces of this are conjecture, but I tried applying as much logic as I could to it with my limited information (as compared to super die hard fans).

    Politics, Command Structure, Morale

    POLITICS
    There may be questions as why bother mentioning politics, but in galaxy vs galaxy battle, politics within each galaxy probably will come into play. Some might argue "Butz our side Leet HaxorZ! and Pwnz NoobZ instantly!" Given that both sides have demonstrated the abilities to create super novas technologically, it would be very stupid to commit all of ones forces into one fight where either side could destroy a nearby star or two and destroy all opposing forces. Both sides I feel also would know enough to "never throw all your cards on the table".

    Another part is with politics, it would be hard for either side to commit the entire galaxies forces to join one sudden fight, especially with sides that have very bad histories together such as Federation/Borg/8472/dominion, or Imperial Remnant/New Republic/Hapan/Sith and Jedi all fighting together, would not be an easy achievement.

    Both sides have demonstrated the ability to get passed their differences when fighting a common enemy such as Voyager/Borg vs 8472 or Imperial/New Republic/Chiss/Hapan vs Vong.

    Also Star Wars, has a lot of politics in its stories, while Star Trek I find, focuses more on Diplomacy and Policy.

    Starting with Star Trek's galaxy, there is a major advantage they have and a major disadvantage. The major advantage they have is that each faction alone, seems very stable within their own internal governments. Federation for example, seems to have things well in control inside its borders for the most part, not much for internal strife. Same goes for Klingons (even with internal quarrels their system is designed around their tendencies to fight and overall is stable) and Borg, which essentially is one big @$% hive mind. Basically if most the goverments need to get something done for themselves, it gets set into motion in a fairly quick manner.

    Star Treks disadvantage is that some of the factions dam sure don't get along by nature, and would be very hard pressed to get all of them to work together. Could you imagine trying to get 8472 to work with Borg, or Borg/Federation which had teamed up against 8472? Even Federation and Borg, as Borg would probably respond with, "just let all your base belong to us..and this would be no problem" (Granted not quite what they would say, but something probably along those lines..lol).

    Or given Borg tendancy to stare straight forward (drones), a Klingon might take it as a "Challenge" as the two races don't understand each others habits, or something along those lines. The Star Trek galaxy would have a lot of differences to overcome, especially the recent dominion war, throw in Borg, and the little known about 8472. Which may not even participate if the Star Wars galaxy vows that it never wants to enter fluidic space, as Star Wars certainly (in the last 30,000 years of their history) have never tried (Based on the lack of mentioning of any form of fluidic space).

    Star Treks factional divides are also somewhat racial as well; Romulan, Klingon, Federation (mostly human but working on it) Dominion. This can also create some division among the factions. Though the federation strives to get over this, other races are still very prejudiced. Changelings distrustful of solids for example.

    Star Wars on the other hand, is the polar opposite of Star Trek in these regards. The goverments excluding Sith empires, Chiss, and Hapans, are always full of internal strife, political meddling, and bueacracy. (Sith may have some internal strife such as when a apprentice kills the master, but their society is based around this, so its kinda like Klingons, overall it doesn't effect them.) However the major government of Star Wars, Old republic, New Republic,they suffer horribly from political meddling and not being able to get the ball rolling. In the Galactic Empire's case, its corruption, pocketing of resources by its commanders and planetary governors, and internal assasinations to gain power, all ruled by fear which adds a morale element.

    (On a side note: I noticed some people question the whole concept of such a huge empire following two Sith Lords, to respond to that, a perfect example of so many following one man is in our own history and may help you understand how its possible; Hitler.)

    Ok back to topic...
    On the other hand, Star Wars factions aren't as wildly exotically different from each other like Star Trek, and thus, would be easier to get the factions to unite; such as in the Vong war. Now yes getting the Imperial Remnant to link up with republic forces not an easy thing to do, but the Empire realizing the overal threat, and in the case of a vs Star Trek scenario, would probably see an opportunity for expansion, (whole other galaxy) plunder, and advancing technology, so would join up immediately. Keep in mind the second Star Wars won..if they did win, we would see the Empire stabbing the Republic in the back. (As also witnessed in Vong war to grab some territory) Same could be said of the Borg, or some of the expansionist races in Star Trek if they won. ( I am not saying either would win at this point, just hypothetical reasoning.)

    Star Wars also does not have as much as a racial divide as Star Trek among its major factions. Yes all the factions are human majority, but they never really show racial prejudice when aliens are involved (the Empire accassionally, but they just as likely to employ non-humans as well when it suits them :such as the bounty hunter Bossk) This is also because humans seem to just have majority numbers in the galaxy as well.

    COMMAND
    The command structure for the two different galaxies would also come in to play.

    For Star Wars, they have already demonstrated the ability to put Imperials, Chiss, Republic, and Hapan in one command structure and be able to coordinate well together (Imperials and Republic forces albeit reluctantly, but they have done it). They also do well following orders when in the battle, as long of course, no ones being ordered to be a useless sacrifice.

    Star Wars commanding officers (with the exceptions of very accasional political care baring in Imperial goverment) for the most part seem to be fairly competant and not overly prideful (as we see even amongst imperial ship captains in the movies) and actually have earned their position, Fleet commanders however, depending on the faction, have a tendancy to express the exeptional ability to state the obvious a little late, such as "Its A TRAP!"

    Star Trek on the other hand, I would think would have much more trouble integrating a successful command structure amongst all the races and factions. A: because of the differences races concepts of command, and B: because of the difficulty in maintaining cohesion and getting captains to listen to commands from a previously (and still) hated ally.

    For example (purely conjecture I know), the Borg may have difficulty when getting told an order from a fleet commander in the heat of battle saying to "move here". The collective might have trouble distinguishing the difference of someone yelling general orders to the "individual" cube than to the entire collective.

    Another example would be the Klingon tendancy to charge in with "Its a good day to Die!" though durring the dominion war I think they demonstrated their ability for self control and waited until the orders came through for the attack.

    On top of that, some races may not like taking order from another races commanding officer.

    To combat this, you probably would end up with all the subdivisions of the fleets being purely by race, such as klingon battle group, and dominion battlegroups.

    I couldn't be sure how Borg would be organized, but due to all races extreme dislike, distrust, and fear of assimilation, Borg would probalby have to be in their own seperate (though super large due to cube size) battle groups, as them being in the middle of someone elses fleet might create some sort of weariness of them in the midst of a battle. Thats not to say each fleet may have its own dedicated tactical cube for boarding or tanking, but then I don't think other races would want Borg having assimilated star destroyers that have several hundreds of weapon emplacements "Borg Enhanced". Giving them even more ships, people (100,000 stormborgers anyone?) and more firepower (and hyperspace technology). If anything Borg would be requested to destroy targets and not "assimilate". (However more on the Borg will be in a Borg section as they are so fascinating and there is so much room for rambling, I find they need their own dedicated section of "The Wall'

    MORALE

    Lastly morale comes into play. Star Wars I think will suffer a lot more internally on the morale side due to its internal political issues, or rule by fear policies of imperial government. The Hapan and Chiss however are happy to serve "their houses" and so we won't as much as a morale issue. Also the New Republic, and Imperial citizens will by now begin to start suffering from war weariness on its civilian side of things. To Star Wars benefit however, may get the initial higher battle moral as they do get the moral boost of having "Heroes" in a fleet as well as them being recognizable across the Star Wars galaxy, something I feel Star Trek lacks. So a "Hero" giving a speech or being present in a battle will help combat morale issues that may occur withn a New Republic or Imperial fleet. I am not meaning hero in a video game term either, just war heros, or very well known figure heads, or even Jedi. However politically again, Star Wars may be hurting. (Also note that Star Trek Federation Starship captains have a tendancy to boost morale of crew through speaches, but not something -That I have seen- that would be experienced fleet or multi-racial wide)

    Star Trek on the morale issue is very interesting. The Federation hardly ever has wars, and so they are a lot more prone to any form of "War Weariness" To make up for that though, you have those races, such as the Klingon, who love to fight, and certainly don't suffer from any kind of morale issues. Or the Jen Hadar (I know spelling) come off as the type who just fight to the death. Lastly there is the Borg, "ehh few million drones -we the collective, don't care."

    On initial engagements however, with the exception of the Borg, I think Star Trek vessels will have a bit of a morale issue because of the initial size of Star Wars ships in comparison, and then throw in numbers after that. (Now this is just a first impression at the start of a battle, they don't know that Star Wars ships are weaker, or stronger, just a hell of a lot bigger, and a hell of a lot more of them.) So I think this will actually be detrimental to Star Trek at first. Except for the Borg. But I think even Klingons will be taken aback by the sheer size of Star Wars vessels (Before they yell at each other "Its a Good Day to Die!" with a smile) ..lol -always seems to boost their morale.

    Now these are just my impressions on each universe, obviously not absolutely how it would be, but I feel it would be close to this. So I think in a way, the two universes would be balanced somewhat on these scales, maybe not in the same ways, which I will go into discussion on the different strengths, and weaknesses effects as I get further along into technology, tactics, and scenarios.
    Last edited by Quantum_Dragon; 12-14-10 at 05:04 PM.

  14. #21974

    Normal talking!

    Yeah I had a similar reaction too. But I have to say that once the Imperials, the Hapes and Corran Horn got invovled....(particularly the author the writes the Horn books) The tempo picked up, the suspense deepened and the stories made more sense.
    Yes indeed it has, though I felt totally bad for the Hapans, their first major battle and centerpoint station happened. I did enjoy the WTF response of both sides and Vong essentially going oh #@%$ and retreating..lol. Though I felt that their should have definately been a little more communication between centerpoint and the Hapan battle group so that wouldn't have happened.



    Where are you so far?
    You know I really don't remember, I stopped reading them a while ago due to some real life stuff and haven't gotten back on it. I know after the death of the lusankya, sacking of Coruscant and Anakins death at least. That reminds of the appearance of Lord Nyax. I felt the sudden appearance of Lord Nyax (dude with all the sabers all over him) was random, and unneeded.


    Exactly. It just took way to long. I was kinda irritated that this New Republic was turning out just like the final stages of the last republic.

    I didn't like Anakin dying....
    He was the one character that I liked aside from the standard star wars characters...but...what a way to go. What he did was find a whole new level. It was litterally like "Force Unleashed."...I want to go back and read that.
    I know, considering the developing relationship of him and Tahiri I was also very saddened by his death, and now that I have learned Tahiri's fate, its like they can't stop poetically killing Star Wars characters after the vong war
    All that dam struggle for nothing.

    AND when they figured out "stutter fire" from the lasers confused the Dovin Basils and overloaded them. I don't remember if they ever figured a way how to stop the grutchin though.
    That completley took me by surprise of them finding that out, but it makes perfect sense, and thought it was pretty clever. As for the grutchin, "juking" as they say in the books, I think was there only solution ..lol

    @Apocalypse2001

    Yea I found out that Majel was Genes wife, and the voice of the computer, thats enough info for me to agree with her being able to approve canon. After all "computers are always right" same can be said by some of wives too..lol (Yea I didn't even know Gene was ever married, like I said I never followed what happened behind the scenes much, probably will more now)

  15. #21975
    OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Posts
    5,262
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Originally Posted by Kittamaru
    You didn't say shockwave, you said explosion. And the explosion of a supernova persists for far longer than a few seconds (and in fact can take months or years to fully expire IIRC)
    Oh really? A quick Google search says otherwise.
    actually i gotta agree with ricery on this one..the actual explosion doesn't last that long..the effects of that explosions lasts for a very long time..(debris and such..)

  16. #21976
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Now I would respond to Saquist, but I've given up thus far. He has made up his mind and won't listen to reason. Best to ignore him completely, since hitting a brick wall gets annoying real fast.
    Yeah you really should have given up long ago once you decided to denounce logic. You never had a chance, Ricery. You wanted to screw around with egos and insults, you didn't want a real debate.

    You wanted an argument.
    I and the moderators took your "fun" from you so don't want to play anymore.
    This was never about facts and logic for you...it was a test of wills. Foolishness and immaturity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    That's not what it says.
    You completely misrepresented the Response to the question.
    You said explosions can't last more than a second and this clearly says more.
    Last edited by Saquist; 12-14-10 at 06:17 PM.

  17. #21977
    I'll probably regret this if I have to respond again to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    Yeah you really should have given up long ago once you decided to denounce logic.
    What is your definition of logic, anyway? Thus far, your "logic" is that something has to be true without any evidence. I'd denounce that shit 1,000,000 times over and not regret it.

    You never had a chance, Ricery. You wanted to screw around with egos and insults, you didn't want a real debate.
    Uh huh, do you have any evidence for this bullshit? You have already confirmed that SoD is irrelevant to you, as is real science (unless it helps you, which shouldn't be surprising ).

    You wanted an argument.
    I and the moderators took your "fun" from you so don't want to play anymore.
    This was never about facts and logic for you...it was a test of wills. Foolishness and immaturity.
    Uh huh, keep being a tosser, see how no other debater will take you seriously.

    That's not what it says.
    You completely misrepresented the Response to the question.
    You said explosions can't last more than a second and this clearly says more.
    Right, but is one explosion, or a chain that is considered "the explosion"?

  18. #21978
    In case nobody here has figured it out. Ricrery belongs to the group of people that most of us refer to as jack******.

    Ricrery, its fiction, get a life.

    You'd think you'd learn your lesson after getting banned multiple times. It's called anger management ricrery and you have some serious problems with it. Normally I'd have stopped caring about this thread after lengthy debating but the fact is ricrery you are utterly arrogant and a complete ass.

    If you cannot debate in a civil and non infentile manner then you should best stop trying. It's fiction ricrery, the only thing more pathetic then your manners is the fact that you consider fiction to be so important to get worked up over.

    Now, the fact is that the Q are omnipotent. There is no reason to believe otherwise. And considering that the physics in star wars are based off of relativity in the same way as star trek then that means that the Q do have influence and bearing in the star wars universe. And since it is "star wars vs. star trek" as in all of wars versus all of trek then the Q would eliminate star wars without a second thought.

  19. #21979
    Quote Originally Posted by fedr808 View Post
    In case nobody here has figured it out. Ricrery belongs to the group of people that most of us refer to as jack******.
    I'm soooo sad... Wait, no I'm not. Sorry, cupcake, but your hatred is a giant compliment to me.

    Ricrery, its fiction, get a life.
    Oh no, I'm actually debating, how evil of me

    You'd think you'd learn your lesson after getting banned multiple times. It's called anger management ricrery and you have some serious problems with it. Normally I'd have stopped caring about this thread after lengthy debating but the fact is ricrery you are utterly arrogant and a complete ass.
    Good, more compliments from a guy who constantly says "fuck you" to physics and uses no limits fallacies. Really, do you actually consider yourself viable at all?

    Now, the fact is that the Q are omnipotent. There is no reason to believe otherwise. And considering that the physics in star wars are based off of relativity in the same way as star trek then that means that the Q do have influence and bearing in the star wars universe. And since it is "star wars vs. star trek" as in all of wars versus all of trek then the Q would eliminate star wars without a second thought.
    Oh, but I thought the Feds could beat the GE Empire by themselves. Oh Fed, are you getting reluctant about that? Has your constant dribble about "they use more advanced fictional (oh God) weapons in their universe, clearly they are more advanced in firepower" or some similar crap finally become a joke even to you? Oh, now I might have to take you seriously. Now I know Hig feels

  20. #21980
    OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Posts
    5,262
    Quote Originally Posted by fedr808 View Post
    Now, the fact is that the Q are omnipotent. There is no reason to believe otherwise. And considering that the physics in star wars are based off of relativity in the same way as star trek then that means that the Q do have influence and bearing in the star wars universe. And since it is "star wars vs. star trek" as in all of wars versus all of trek then the Q would eliminate star wars without a second thought.
    use the 'Q' luke..

    or

    looks like Q has been in the Midi-chlorians again..

Similar Threads

  1. By Fettman in forum SciFi & Fantasy
    Last Post: 10-18-11, 02:02 PM
    Replies: 33
  2. By USS Athens in forum SciFi & Fantasy
    Last Post: 03-16-10, 04:47 PM
    Replies: 291
  3. By superstring01 in forum SciFi & Fantasy
    Last Post: 03-11-10, 01:57 PM
    Replies: 60
  4. By Orleander in forum SciFi & Fantasy
    Last Post: 07-11-09, 08:33 PM
    Replies: 27
  5. By Asguard in forum Computer Science & Culture
    Last Post: 09-13-08, 02:15 AM
    Replies: 0

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •