2015-06-16

The Idazmi7 Response


 . . . with apologies to Sothis5 for ganking his title.

Basically, the Idazmi fellow noted in the "Elsewhere Be Dragons" post has supposedly responded via an intermediary in the comments thereto. Well, actually, that's not quite accurate . . . he's responded via an intermediary who has posted it as a Google doc, because supposedly Idazmi cannot post to Google stuff even anonymously due to some sort of ISP thing.

I consider this rather odd given his voluminous comment postings to Google's own Youtube (which demands Google+ access), and given that Blogger is also a Google property to which one could post anonymously anyway, but let's just roll with it.

First, let's give his response a clean quoting:

*********************************************************************

1) "Other examples were more straightforwardly off-kilter, such as the comparison of soldiers which shows Star Trek's finest military choreography from the MACO military force from Enterprise versus B-1 Battle Droids, soldiers who make the Ewoks look like special forces."


"With these new battledroids we've built for you, you'll have the finest army in the galaxy" - Wat Tambor in Attack of the Clones


He was talking about the B-2, and not the B-1's you see in my video, but they aren't any more impressive than the B-1 in practice. To illustrate my point:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXTGzKkTTLk


As for why I picked MACO: Star Trek does not have many demonstrations of soldiers in combat at all, unless you want to assume that Starfleet Security officers are soldiers. I don't make that assumption, so I used MACO. I could also use the months-out-of-supply troops from AR-558: the result wouldn't change in Star Wars' favor unless I used exactly one specific scene from Episode 3 that lasts a handful of seconds, and pretended that it was indicative of the entire canon.


2) "Of course, it wasn't all bad.  The space vessel weaponry accuracy example circa three minutes in would have been hard to wank in Trek's favor given that the Federation's actual supremacy in that arena is itself a wank, and indeed Idazmi constrains himself to extreme short-range examples for both, though he does use one of the worst examples in Star Wars."


Not so. I could easily compare any space battle in the Clone Wars animated series to just about every space battle in Star Trek TOS, as well as the long range battle from “The Wounded” inTNG, and nearly any combat range statement from TOS through Enterprise, and still get a range difference that would look like Star Wars was taking a knife to an ICBM fight. It's not a "wank" if I deliberately downplayed that arena, as you admit I did. In fact, I had to cherry-pick the low end of Star Trek to make it look even slightly balanced.


3) "Kirk's quarters are on deck five, not seven.  Deck five is the deck above the two widest decks.  But other than that all is well until The Animated Series and a game get referenced."




Notice Deck 7: it contains the Emergency Bridge.




Deck 7 plan, showing the Emergency Bridge, as well as a room marked 'CSC'.




CSC, according to the legend, is the "Commanding Officer's Office"




Deck 5: there is nothing indicating that the captain or any superior officers resides on this deck. It's worth noting that I showed these very blueprints in my video: https://youtu.be/ikmTjvh_au0?t=203


4) "So instead of synthesizing the information so that "vernal", a term equating to green or spring, might be an artful reference to a star-forming region like the arm within a quadrant or some such, and that it is in any case in lowercase, this cat just jumps straight to maximum wankery, declaring it a separate galaxy to which 2250's Starfleet could travel."


14 minutes, 33 seconds into The Menagerie part 1, we see a book opened. In it is Starfleet General Order 7. The first paragraph reads:


Subject: TALOS IV in third quadrant of vernal galaxy


By all means, explain how "the third quadrant of a named galaxy could be within our galaxy. I never claimed that this wasn't a contradiction: I claimed it was canon, and it is. By the way, our Galaxy is the Milky Way,  so it is not at all unreasonable that a galaxy might be named for an unusual color. Ours was named for a resemblance to spilled milk.


5) "Also like Brian Young, Idazmi has his own unjustifiable take on canon policies.  Idazmi includes Star Trek's animated series based on incredibly tenuous evidence and flatly rejects the many policy statements contrary to his view"


Which policy statements are from StarTrek.com, and cannot be found on StarTrek.com anymore. The only remaining statements of the Animated Series being non canonical can be found on archive websites, but those statements have no relevance today, unless you can prove conclusively that they still retain importance.


6) "Blueprint inclusion sends Idazmi to some odd places.   Amusingly, this results in Idazmi claiming antimatter power for Star Wars instead of fusion.  Given his odd claim in that same video at two minutes in that phasers, being a step above lasers technologically, are therefore "inherently" more powerful, then we must assume that antimatter-powered ISDs are equal to Federation ships, right?"


This statement is inherently flawed. It entirely possible for a civilization to have one technology and not another: the whole situation in Star Trek's episode Balance of Terror is about a Romulan ship that has superior weaponry and stealth capabilities to the Enterprise, but an inferior power system. The Empire having antimatter power, and being limited to laser weaponry is the same kind of situation.


7) "Idazmi probably considers this mere collateral damage, since blueprint inclusion allows him to claim that ISDs are shorter than Galaxy Class Starships, and then to downscale everything else from that. (...) But inventing a new canon policy seemingly just to shorten opposing manhoods is vulgar."


The size of the ship was not used to downscale anything other than the size of the ship. In fact, I was comparing the Star destroyer to the Enterprise-A, which is still smaller and has far less internal volume, but retains superior technology. All in all, the size of the ship is immaterial. Even if you removed the size comparison, the rest of that video would be completely unaffected.


8) "But at 6:00 he concludes that the Enterprise-D would one-shot an ISD with a single phaser hit."


How would it not? In fact, let's just assume that all Imperator Star Destroyers are 2 kilometers long. Sans plot armor, (something that would be very new to Star Destroyers) I can't see a Star Destroyer taking a phaser hit anywhere without being destroyed. The phaser's power alone consistently demonstrates enough power to destroy anything aside shielded or specially armored targets multiple kilometers wide, with no resistance at all, and Star Wars doesn't have much to demonstrate in the way of deflector shields, in any event.

******************************************************************

Okay, so now I'm back.

1. (re: Battle droids versus MACO)

Regarding the use of battle droids period . . . why not use clones or stormtroopers? In a Federation versus Empire fight, that's what Starfleet would be dealing with. 

To use battle droids to represent Star Wars is akin to using Klingons or Borg to represent Star Trek. I love the Voyager scene of holodeck Klingons slicing up holodeck Nazis as much as the next guy for pure campy fun, but if someone were to compare that or the human-wave TNG Borg tactics to the best outing of clonetroopers, I'd call foul just as surely as I have here.

2. (re: space weaponry ranges)

The Star Wars scene you used was of TIE fighters widely missing the Falcon from something like fifty meters max (it looks like two feet the way the shot's framed) while moving relatively slowly across the stern of the not-known-to-be-maneuvering ship. There are other examples of such misses, most likely, sure, but the camera angles and such make it especially egregious.

But in any case, that part was a compliment to you overall ... we largely agree ... so I don't see why you felt it necessary to engage.

3. (re: Kirk's quarters)

Blueprints aren't canon. Kirk heading to his quarters and commanding the turbolift to "deck five", or noting in "Journey to Babel" that he's been attacked "on deck five, near my quarters", is.

So, Kirk's quarters are not on deck seven, but deck five.

4.  (re: vernal galaxy)

Had it been "Vernal Galaxy" I might be willing to entertain your notions, but even then the rest of Trek countermands it.  Instead, it is "vernal galaxy" . . . sounds like an adjective to me.   We can guess all day as to what it might refer to . . . they didn't even have quadrant lingo solidified at the time, so it hardly makes sense to think of it in terms of later-TNG-era uses of "quadrants".   I've already suggested the possibility of it being a reference to a star-forming region of the Milky Way galaxy, though it could also be a misspell of "ventral", an alien reference that took off ("the Chodesmokers of planet Cygnus LX called this region "the galaxy's springtime""), or any number of possibilities, none of which are particularly interesting because it makes the most sense to discard the whole thing as ill-considered background text that wouldn't have been particularly readable to the viewer at the time.

That is, unless you think everything Spock was associated with in the TOS era had to be marked "Half-Vulcan Science Officer Spock".   I'll await your video on the racist Starfleet of TOS.

5.  (re: TAS canon)

No, TAS is not canon.  I'm posting to the CanonWars blog about it soon.

6.  (re: antimatter powered ISDs and "inherent" power of higher technology)

You missed the point, doing so by moving the goalpost around.   I referred to reactors using equivalent technology to deflate your point about this-or-that tech being inherently better, so you switched my point to weapons.  That was silly, but sillier still is the notion you were espousing to begin with.

"Higher" technology is not inherently more powerful.  It can be more or less powerful.   If I have a fusion-powered ship of energy requirements X for acceleration to a set speed and then I get a working antimatter power system, my energy requirements may actually drop 'cause I'm not hauling a crapton of fuel around, along with the extra bulk of ship to contain it.   If I keep the ship's mass the same, then my endurance is now through the roof, and most likely my maximum output as well for similar reactor size.

But in any case, that's all academic.   Star Wars vessels run on fusion, not antimatter.  So even if you want to argue that ISDs have antimatter but they're only using a reactor on par with the Delta Flyer, you'd still be wrong.

7.  (re: ISD size)

In concert with the rest of your videos, the size insistence smells of weiner-reduction surgery against your foes.   At the old STrek-v-SWars forums someone happened upon the concept via canon analysis, but coming at it via old blueprints then trying to shoehorn just doesn't seem proper.

8.  (re: phasers one-shotting an ISD)

I imagine a properly-aimed shot of sufficient dwell time might do the trick, but I don't think any old phaser shot will do.

19 comments:

  1. Recall that Idazmi once claimed a full salvo from the Enterprise-D would "destroy the entire Imperial fleet."

    That is crazy.

    IMNSHO he "wanks" to Star Trek much worse than any Warstard did in Michael Wong's heyday. To be perfectly honest I think he is someone who was run off of Wong's board because his arguments sucked and the Stardestroyer Net crowd cleaned his clock. Not so with you but that is a different story...there are a heaping helping of very poor pro Trek debaters who give others a bad name. Idazmi is among the worst I have seen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I covered the quote you reference in the last post.

    Depending on what you mean, I think I reject the assertion that opens your second paragraph. If you mean he inflates Trek worse, I reject that. I would think him equal-but-opposite to Wong, minus the personality cult. If on the other hand you're suggesting that he has crusty copies of The Star Trek Fact Files stashed under his bed for easy single-handed access, then perhaps that would be more true than for Wong himself ... but not any "Warstard". I can think of more than a couple of them who have likely purchased multiple ICS books because they keep getting to a point where they just won't open anymore.

    As for poor debaters ... well, we were all n00bs at some point, on both sides. The vocal and vitriolic radical left pulls them into the fray, and even folks more in the middle. That's how it worked for me, after all. I imagine if I wrote up the GalaxyClassStarship.Net parody and allowed comments, you'd see a swarm of "very poor pro Wars debaters who give others a bad name" ... even moreso than SDN already has.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well Guardian, I must inform you that Idazmi has posted round two, same doc.
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bqHOGaBVIBBZ6zkCukF6DuvbjFnyQik9PB53APodt5Y/edit

      As a side: In your opinion, would metaphasic shields be more effective against TL's?

      Delete
    2. I am so disinterested in this, but let's give the man his say and properly reply.

      1. You say you could have used Ewoks, but that's the whole point. Why not stick with the main baddies likely to fight the Federation? Oh, and my comparison was extremely valid, thank you very much.

      2. "Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things." I am not going to argue small potatoes to death when we are in general agreement.

      3. I find it hard to believe you are arguing with the canon deck five for Kirk's TOS quarters, as in canon-from-the-frickin'-show deck five. It's deck five, dude. Six shalt thou not count, neither count thou four, excepting that thou then proceedest to five. Seven is right out.

      But alas, you are, on the basis of blueprint utilization in the background of TMP-era films. Okeedokee. Find me a screenshot of the CSC label, and also one of where CSC (translating literally, "a random-ass letter sequence") is translated as captain's quarters. I'll even let you slide on the fact that those prints show the TOS configuration of the ship and not the TMP refit.

      If thou cannot, then, being naughty in my sight, thou mayest snuff it.

      4. Regarding the "vernal galaxy" doc, you ignore the point about alternatives to it being another galaxy and focus on my comment that it wouldn't have been readable at the time, protesting that it was the focus of the screen. That's true, it was, for two seconds or so. Then we cut away and see it again for another couple of seconds. And this with the haze and bleed of small 1960's era TV resolutions.

      You know, some of your videos feature screenfuls of text that you only leave up for a couple of seconds, because you assume pause functionality. There was no such thing then.

      What's funny is that you then reference the WNMHGB snapshots of medical paperwork on Dehner and Mitchell as equally "fully detailed". Um, no. Delman and Eldman, 1498 and 8149 Streets, and ages too young (plus lopping off several inches from both characters) doesn't strike me as full detail. They just made up something officialish looking and wiggled letters around so it wouldn't look like the exact same data for both.

      The reality is that in production you spend only what you think is necessary. The guy or guys making the Talos IV document may or may not have gotten guidance from the producers on the details, but made it good enough to look all official if someone caught a word or three depending on how long the camera lingered. Maybe the art department even hoped it would fully pass muster, who knows? But in the end, it was just a quick piece of fluff.

      But even had that not been so, it *still* wouldn't mean what you claim it means.

      Delete

    3. 5. TAS is not canon, and I will have an extensive post on that soon. So hush.

      6. You are arguing my send-up of your nonsense about higher tech being inherently more powerful re: phasers versus lasers, in which I poked that in your view your peculiar antimatter powered ISDs should be equal to Federation ships. You keep protesting with reference to other technologies that are not equal. You are missing the point.

      However, you are improving, as you acknowledge that things using the same tech (nuclear reactors) can be unequal. Now, will you acknowledge that lesser tech could be more powerful than a thing of higher tech? Or do you still insist that all higher tech is more powerful than all lower tech?

      7. Oops, nope ... in this one you claim a fusion-powered ISD would be outmatched in power by the antimatter-powered Delta Flyer. Hey, regular shuttles have antimatter too, ya know. Why'd you stop at the Flyer?

      Also, I think its cute how you try to turn a thing around and suggest I call you a radical just for disagreeing, a la how everyone who disagrees with Brian Young is a hate-filled obsessed Trek fanatic sissy.

      No, I call you a radical on account of your pattern of radicalism, which was the very subject of the "Elsewhere" post. Someone coming up out of the blue arguing for antimatter ISDs would not be a radical, unless they also had the whole set of your claims.

      8. Regarding phaser one-shotting, you suggest that I am requiring ISD armor withstand the phaser shot. No, I just think a 1.6 kilometer mass of shielded steel isn't going to be vaped by a single quick poke of a phaser beam.

      If you pinned me down right now and told me to ballpark it in my head, I'd wager that if both ships were parked and exchanging fire face to face, the shields go in 10 seconds of sustained fire, maybe 20, and the ship in another 5 or so assuming targeting of the core, which explodes in Wars when exposed a la Trek, if not as powerfully.

      So we are in a very broad general vague agreement, I just think you go way off the rails with the whole bit where one alpha strike kills the entire Imp fleet.

      And, in concert with the rest of your claims that are similarly inflationary with Trek and deflationary with Wars, that is radicalism.

      Delete
    4. Incidentally,let's ponder my mental math. I am thinking of an ISD shield as something that should be able to withstand at least 20 of the largest-known megaton-scale small-town-killing heavy shots (hits are required, of course, so that'd be like 40-60 heavy shots fired against it at range), and comparing that to around 5 megatons for phasers (I think I specified 1-10 per second on my comparison page versus 100 megaton torpedoes, but YMMV). There's wiggle room on both, so I am guesstimating 10-20 seconds dwell time instead of the 4 suggested by 20/5.

      And I am giving the ship five seconds. That may be generous given what we've learned in the past year or two about SW vessel density being so low, but I will roll with it for now.

      For what it's worth, I do think that outside of a nose-to-nose scenario, the ISD reactor could be sent to oblivion in less time. And I also think a proper Galaxy torpedo spread could do the deed, and certainly a full-on alpha strike as used against the Borg. But I don't think a phaser poke is gonna pop an ISD like a balloon.

      Now I realize there are many counterpoints that could be brought up ... TCW shows us weakling fighters as cruiser-killers and generally lower firepower and shield resilience (when shields even appear to exist) overall. And I know phasers can be parked well above my estimate yet remain somewhat canon-backed.

      So yeah, Trek's highest and Wars' lowest make it a total curbstomp for Trek. But that's kinda the point, innit?

      Given the astonishing and unassailable Federation range and accuracy advantage, it doesn't even make sense to plant your standard on tenuous ground.

      Delete
    5. This is a copy-paste message made specifically to tell you that Idazmi7 has updated his arguments with a response. This is found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bqHOGaBVIBBZ6zkCukF6DuvbjFnyQik9PB53APodt5Y/edit

      LLAP/MtFbWY
      (Live Long and Prosper/May the Force be With You)

      Delete
    6. 1. "all of them are similarly armed"

      I thought you said you could have used Ewoks. But in any case, B-1s and clones may be similarly armed, but they're not similarly brained.

      The fact is that on the ground, the Federation's armed forces have superior personal weapons, personal defenses, and mobility via field transporters, but the clones would be much more formidable than some dumb battle droids. Even stormtroopers are demonstrably brighter, but only to a point.

      2. Agreeing to disagree is not conceding. And why remind me of what I brought up in your favor?

      3. So you cannot locate your blueprint and translation of CSC in the films. Very well, then ... TOS is operative. Deck five it is, as blueprints are not canon.

      4. I'd be more prone to acknowledge your scoring a point here if you hadn't pulled that crap of saying I lied. In actuality I had forgotten the second pages, which should've been fairly obvious by my utter lack of reference to them compared to references to the sloppy Delman / Eldman first pages. Instead of a reminder or excited 'a-ha' moment for you, you simply jumped to the claim that I lied. So sorry, no point this round.

      The fact remains that while TOS did show a high level of workmanship in such momentary background-level fluff (moreso than in many TNG data screen inserts that were just numbers or jokes), the assertion that "vernal galaxy" must and can only refer to a separate and distinct galaxy to which Starfleet vessels could travel in the 2250's is unsupported and unsupportable, and your continued efforts to defend this claim of yours via irrelevancies (even ones where you catch me snoozing at the wheel) are evidence for your radical Trek inflationism.

      How about you try to argue either (a) that "vernal galaxy" must and can only refer to another galaxy, or (b) evidence of easy transgalactic travel in the TOS era. Preferably both.

      Delete


    7. 5. I will take as much time as I like, f*** you very much. If you wanna see it so bad, then shut up and stop distracting me from it.

      6. Let me repeat the point since you missed it again. Higher tech need not mean "inherently" more powerful. If something is both then great, but the former does not necessarily require the latter.

      7. You said regarding the ISD: "By using fusion, they'd be so far behind in both technology /and/ power generation that a Delta Flyer would be a far more severe threat to a Star Destroyer than it already is." Now, to me, the suggestion that the fusion-powered ISD would lag behind in power generation, which you have separated from technology, clearly suggests greater power generation on the part of the Flyer, which also has greater technology generally in your statement. However, you seem to think an antimatter powered ISD has greater power generation but can be threatened by the Flyer's superior technology.

      You call this a strawman and now suggest you do not assert greater power generation. Mmkay.

      8. Yes, my words are that Trek's highest versus the lowest for Wars have Trek owning Wars. It goes the other way if you deflate Trek with a focus on, say, the cannonball ST5 torpedo only versus 1.5 megaton turbolasers. Hence my follow-up words that this is the very point.

      In other words, one should not compare only the highs of A with only the lows of B.

      Case in point, Brian Young's new artillery video features an implied comparison between the "ultritium BBs" (as I have jokingly called them) in "Nor the Battle to the Strong" with an AT-AT at maximum firepower from TESB. He spends like two minutes pointing out how the BBs, seen in use by Klingons screwing with a doctor and a civilian, don't compare to modern 60mm mortars in blast and kill radius (which he quotes as 35 and 20m, respectively). He's ignoring that a blast radius of 20m is achieved by a *wearable earring* composed of ultritium resin in the 2350's ("Wrongs Darker Than Death or Night"[DSN6]), consistent with other ultritium appearances. That's a dick move. To his credit, he later fawns praise on Kirk's photon grenade, but only to a point.

      And that, my lad, is "doing it wrong". And, bless your heart, you do the same sort of thing. I realize that going over everything in detail takes more time and lacks the punch desired in a short video format, but it is what it is.

      Anyway, I think we can close #1, #2 (but for an answer to my query), #3, #5, #6, #7, and #8 for now. But feel free to do as you wish. I consider them concluded.

      Delete
    8. This is a copy-paste message made specifically to tell you that Idazmi7 has updated his arguments with a response. This is found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bqHOGaBVIBBZ6zkCukF6DuvbjFnyQik9PB53APodt5Y/edit

      LLAP/MtFbWY
      (Live Long and Prosper/May the Force be With You)

      Delete
    9. Since you're starting to get crankier, and since I obviously got delayed, let's wrap up.

      First, do yourself a favor and re-read the "Elsewhere Be Dragons" post.

      http://weblog.st-v-sw.net/2015/06/elsewhere-be-dragons-partisanship.html

      The introduction to you (before the "oops") is in the context of agreeable work on your part wherein I noted only hints and whiffs of inflationism. The fact that you're trying so hard to nitpick even my relatively complimentary points with your #1-#3, and even claiming that I am trying to dismiss a complaint relating to this section quickly because it supposedly hurts the evidence of my opinion of you (evidence which came *after* the "oops"), is utterly absurd. Similarly, demanding I admit non-existent falsehood on my part from that section regarding my noting your use of a crap example for Star Wars is utterly preposterous.

      As I indicated in that intro, generally speaking, certain minor over-the-top bits on even a centrist's part are certainly excusable given the swarming and wildly over-the-top extremism of the Star Wars tech inflationists, which "can tend to push some to argue rightward out of spite" and simple defiance against extreme Otherness.

      Indeed, the fact that you would still argue for Deck Seven in #3 suggests a level of spite and defiance against even me which carries you beyond all reason. A product authorized for licensed production by Gene Roddenberry does not supercede statements from The Original Series, and that's the end of the story. Deck Five's not a big loss for your efforts to claim massive yield for a phaser on overload compared to Deck Seven, so I don't see why you're spending your preciously scarce intellectual capital on that. You should invest more wisely.

      (Hell, Kirk drops the phaser down a chute in "The Conscience of the King"[TOS1], so you could still claim the even bigger Deck Six if you're that desperate. But noooo ....)

      Once into the actual points against you like your "vernal galaxy" nonsense, your irrationality comes into full flower. The fact remains as I have repeatedly stated it ... you have no evidence that it refers to another galaxy, and all the rest of Star Trek that says it doesn't. Instead of taking that head-on you've argued sideways.

      Now, this one is fun because you actually got a taste of victory on a sideshow topic, and, just as you are a sore loser about Deck Five or the fact that higher-tech /= "inherently" more powerful, you are a sore winner on the side point.

      Yes, I was snoozing through a prior post (come to notice, it was also the one where I prefaced it noting my disinterest), so when you were praising WNMHGB's info screens as being of highest canon quality despite being shown for quick flashes in a pre-recorder era, I remembered the hideously cheap screens *I remembered*, which were the ones with Delman and Eldman. Googling those, I found images of them under those terms on MA so I could reference the crappy number switcheroos, but the other pages didn't pull up in that search, and I never bothered re-watching the episode. This was obvious by my not even referring to the other sheets at all.

      With this one (and quite lonely) sideshow gotcha moment in which we were both right about different things, you have gone insane with glee, and seem to think that you have achieved such unlimited authority therefrom that you can push it all the way into a repeated effort to prosecute me as a liar.

      Delete
    10. Now, to review, I think your excitement is due to the fact that you lied . . . by your own explicit admission, might I add . . . in our first encounter in my Youtube comments.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VsRvLpQpFc

      There, when calmed, you admitted to making large-scale edits to your posts, whereas you'd previously and repeatedly claimed to have only made minor grammatical fixes. These large-scale edits only appeared to me after I had replied, which naturally annoyed me as a dishonest move, and your lies about it only made it worse.

      But here, even with my mea culpas regarding snoozing and recollection, and my acknowledgement of a high degree of workmanship in the quick unreadable-in-the-60's background fluff materials (other than the Delman/Eldman pages, of course), you persist in calling me a liar, "quite horribly wrong" (exaggerate much?), and declare that I should have acknowledged I had no idea what I was talking about.

      Y'know, after all the nonsense you've been spouting about canon and everything else, to demand that *I* should preface my remembrances with "not that I know what I'm talking about" is pretty ballsy.

      And the sad part is, as I said, even with any snooze on my part, you're *still* no closer to proving in any way your radically-inflationist claim that Talos IV is in another galaxy to which Earth vessels could effortlessly travel.*

      Even if we assume you have a defense for the many other points I made against you in the "Elsewhere" post that you skipped (choosing instead to hit the complimentary ones), the fact is that you are still making (and defending, however poorly) radically inflationist claims. I mean, sure, you're not claiming things as wacky as that Thomas guy, but you're still a lot closer to him and his megayottawatt phaser emplacements on a 16 kilometer Sovereign Class (versus 2 kilowatt turbolasers) than most anyone else. You certainly aren't occupying the center.

      As noted, your claim of a single poke with a ship's phaser popping a combat-ready ISD like a balloon is a stretch, and your notion of a Galaxy Class alpha strike destroying the entire Imperial fleet is ludicrous. Take offense to comparisons to Young and Wong if you wish, but I for one can't help but be reminded of SDN claims of a lowly TIE defeating the combined forces of the Alpha Quadrant.

      To end on a positive note, you are good with video and although I admire a healthy dose of defiance, you need to contain yours a little better and use it as motivation rather than a source of argument. That is to say, if you disagree with something, don't just shoot off at the mouth with any knee-jerk rejection that comes to mind, but instead understand what is being said in the context of the larger argument, and do your homework. I may have snoozed for a moment myself but as you saw, I acknowledged my error, while you still insist on Deck Seven.

      The critical thing for you is not to let your defiance take you to universally silly places. The "inherently" argument makes you look stupid for refusing to acknowledge a basic fact of reality. Similarly, even if the ISD is demonstrably smaller than 1600 meters (from the canon, mind you, not your silly blueprints), the simple fact is that in some contexts, size does not matter.

      (Y'know, if you scale the 160km Death Star II solely off the scene of the X-Wing circling around the DS2 reactor, you can get it down to a whopping nine kilometers in size: http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=449 Even if it were only 9,000 meters, though, and powered by the proverbial AA battery, the Death Stars still own planet-killing.

      But for crying out loud, please don't go claiming 9km Death Stars now.)

      Delete
    11. (* Indeed, want another snooze on my part? I've referred to your "vernal galaxy" problem as "a separate and distinct galaxy to which Starfleet vessels could travel in the 2250's" . . . that ignored the return in the 2260's ("The Menagerie"), and more damningly ignored the crash in the 2230s by a slow little survey ship from Earth that didn't even have a subspace distress signal. Indeed, the ship's lightspeed distress signal was picked up by the Enterprise 18ly away, which was traveling from Rigel VII to "Vega Colony", an active colony a century prior, and thus probably around Vega, 25 light-years from Earth.

      In other words, your claim of another galaxy requires that a slow and low-tech Earth survey ship traveled to another galaxy easily, and also requires that the Enterprise under Pike, while traveling between two nearby points in our galaxy (whichever Rigel it may have been), engaged in a rather circuitous course taking it to a point 18 light-years from a planet in another galaxy.

      That's like suggesting it is totally plausible that someone might end up on the outskirts of San Francisco while driving from New York to Washington.

      That's nonsense.)

      Delete
    12. I know it has been a long time, but I wanted to respond to one thing:

      Yes, Imzadi or whoever definitely "wanked" far harder than Wong or his followers did. Evidence? Even Wongites never claimed a single Imperial warship could destroy the whole Federation Starfleet with ONE salvo. Idaz...whatever DID say such a thing.

      I admit Wong and his lot made incredible claims, but none were that crazy.

      Delete
  3. I've tried to reply a couple of times but it doesn't seem to be working?

    Hopefully third time lucky!

    Guardian, if you want any more material to bring to the fray against Idazmi7 (who is one of the worst pro-Trek debaters currently active) then by all means feel free to borrow from me: http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/sci-fi-analysis/star-trek-vs-star-wars/the-idazmi7-responses/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 97,000 ships in Starfleet? Holy $#!+ ...

      Delete
    2. I've seen some not unreasonable arguments that Starfleet might have over ten thousand vessels - but Idazmi7's arguments are not reasonable - his entire basis for it is based off NCC numbers being concurrent. He insists the 97,000 number meshes up with the 2,800 Dominion reinforcements being a threat, because Dominion ships are vastly more powerful than Federation ones. Of course, he can't actually demonstrate this (in fact, his basis for Dominion ships being vastly more powerful is based on technological tricks, like subspace transporters and shield-piercing weapons, the latter of which the Federation overcame by the time of 'A Call to Arms').

      He also mangles the DS9 timeline and insists warp drive can cross the galaxy in a matter of weeks (ignoring the plot point about the wormhole and the entirety of Voyager).

      In short, he's a dishonest fanwhore.

      Delete
    3. While one could argue the point that my reference to him as dishonest and radical and your comment of "dishonest fanwhore" are the same thing, I like yours less. This dispute is not license for SDN-esque dogpiling and insults.

      Delete
    4. 'Shrug' I'm not usually that harsh, but sometimes a spade needs calling a spade. He's been pretty blatant about calling me a liar in the past, and his cronies were full of insults and smears over Christmas, so he reaps what he sows as far as I'm concerned.

      Delete