. . . 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.
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.