Starfleet Jedi

Seriously, do you have to break up the thread like that? Now my response to Praeothmin's post is in a completely different thread and my response doesn't make sense.

Any reply to what you said in response to Praeothmin's post would be, I felt, on the topic of what sort of environment SDN is as opposed to SFJ. That would fit rather well into this thread.

So my apologies if you feel it makes you look bad, but it's done and I have yet to install a thread merge tool, so there's no going back.

It doesn't make me look bad. It's just out there on it's own making no sense. Someone just coming into the argument would have no idea what that means.

Batman wrote:It would show that you actually UNDERSTOOD those calcs.

Whether I understand the calc or not doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is if its correct.

Batman wrote:The same way they are supposed to, by showing they actually match what's shown onscreen? Which vivftp's calcs spectacularly fail to do, which I assume factored into him disavowing them?

Than the calc is wrong, it's not my job to prove a calc, its the other persons job to disprove it.

Cpl Kendall wrote:You know, this would be alot more effective if you'd pack your butt on over to SDN and complain there rather than bunker down here where no one can hear you.

A question. Why is he supposed to go to SDN to do this? If you've got a problem with what's being said on this site, then why don't you adress the issues here, where they were brought up in the first place?

I think it a bit strange that you seem to think members on other forums have to come to SDN in order to defend a claim (or even make it in the first place). This site is no more bunkered down then SDN, and you can move around freely on both.

OmniBack wrote:

Batman wrote:It would show that you actually UNDERSTOOD those calcs.

Whether I understand the calc or not doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is if its correct.

Batman wrote:The same way they are supposed to, by showing they actually match what's shown onscreen? Which vivftp's calcs spectacularly fail to do, which I assume factored into him disavowing them?

Than the calc is wrong, it's not my job to prove a calc, its the other persons job to disprove it.

I think the point here is that if the person using the calc doesn't understand it enough to properly apply said calc to a particular situation, then they are are the one at fault, and should have known better. On the other hand, if the person applying the calc uderstands enough to apply someone else's work to a particular situation, then yes, you are right; the other side of the arguement should be required to show that the calc improperly describes the situation, and then the debate can go from there.
-Mike

OmniBack wrote:

Batman wrote:It would show that you actually UNDERSTOOD those calcs.

Whether I understand the calc or not doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is if its correct.

Which you can't judge UNLESS you actually understand it.

Batman wrote:The same way they are supposed to, by showing they actually match what's shown onscreen? Which vivftp's calcs spectacularly fail to do, which I assume factored into him disavowing them?

Than the calc is wrong, it's not my job to prove a calc, its the other persons job to disprove it.

Bzzt. Wrong. When you use a calc in support of your point yes it IS your job to prove it's right.

Batman wrote: Which you can't judge UNLESS you actually understand it.

And if the person I'm debating does understand he CAN.

Batman wrote:Bzzt. Wrong. When you use a calc in support of your point yes it IS your job to prove it's right.

No if I make statement A than I have to provide support for statement A *IE* a calc, it doesn't mean I have to prove the calc.


The calc is what it is whether its right or wrong, its up to the other side to counter it and show fault in the calc and/or disprove it.

OmniBack wrote:

Batman wrote: Which you can't judge UNLESS you actually understand it.

And if the person I'm debating does understand he CAN.

Give that unlike you we know vivftp's numbers from those calcs are GARBAGE (which apparently even vivftp understands) I suspect we understand them a lot better than you do.

Batman wrote:Bzzt. Wrong. When you use a calc in support of your point yes it IS your job to prove it's right.

No if I make statement A than I have to provide support for statement A *IE* a calc, it doesn't mean I have to prove the calc.

Yes it does.

The calc is what it is whether its right or wrong, its up to the other side to counter it and show fault in the calc and/or disprove it.

No it isn't. And I like how you a) ignore that I dismembered those calcs over at SDN and b) that vivftp HIMSELF told you he did no longer support them, possibly on account of them being complete and utter garbage.

Batman wrote: Give that unlike you we know vivftp's numbers from those calcs are GARBAGE (which apparently even vivftp understands) I suspect we understand them a lot better than you do.

Obvioulsy, I stay away from calcs unless its something simple.

And you're basically just proving my above point.

Batman wrote:Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

Batman wrote:No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Batman wrote:And I like how you a) ignore that I dismembered those calcs over at SDN

That's not the issue, I'm 'ignoring' it because its irrelevant to the issue.

Batman wrote:and b) that vivftp HIMSELF told you he did no longer support them, possibly on account of them being complete and utter garbage.

You *DO* remember it was *ME* that posted that on SD, yes?

OmniBack wrote:

Batman wrote: Give that unlike you we know vivftp's numbers from those calcs are GARBAGE (which apparently even vivftp understands) I suspect we understand them a lot better than you do.

Obvioulsy, I stay away from calcs unless its something simple.
And you're basically just proving my above point.

Actually, you're proving mine.
quote]Yes it is.

Batman wrote:And I like how you a) ignore that I dismembered those calcs over at SDN

That's not the issue, I'm 'ignoring' it because its irrelevant to the issue.

Me showing those calcs to be complete and utter garbage is irrelevant to you using those calcs? DO elaborate.

Batman wrote:and b) that vivftp HIMSELF told you he did no longer support them, possibly on account of them being complete and utter garbage.

You *DO* remember it was *ME* that posted that on SD, yes?

So how exactly does that affect the fact that the guy who did those calculations disavowed them?
Likely on account of them being utter garbage?

Batman wrote: Actually, you're proving mine.

Not really.

Batman wrote:Me showing those calcs to be complete and utter garbage is irrelevant to you using those calcs? DO elaborate.

Whether or not you prove them as incorrect after I use them has no barring on whether they should have been used.

Batman wrote:So how exactly does that affect the fact that the guy who did those calculations disavowed them?

Nothing, which is not what I'm talking about so don't twist the issue.

You claim that I ignored the fact that Viv didn't support the calcs, when in fact it was *I* who posted it on SD in the first place.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

You know, this would be alot more effective if you'd pack your butt on over to SDN and complain there rather than bunker down here where no one can hear you.

Why?
I just told you why I had no interest of going to SDN.
I won't go there just because you feel I should.
Like Leetelboi said, why should I need to?
You can debate me here all you want, why would we need to go anywhere else?

Praeothmin wrote: Why?
I just told you why I had no interest of going to SDN.
I won't go there just because you feel I should.
Like Leetelboi said, why should I need to?
You can debate me here all you want, why would we need to go anywhere else?

So a bunch of assclowns on SDN can back him up (ie flame you).

OmniBack wrote:

So a bunch of assclowns on SDN can back him up (ie flame you).

I don't see why calling them names helps anything.
It may be allowed on SDN, but it isn't here.

Cpl Kendall and I may disagree, but he was still polite to me.
I intend to continue to be polite with him.