Star wars vs star trek......what the hell

[User1442]

So what the hell is up with this. It seems like all the trekkies are a bunch of whiny oafs always spouting conjectures about how the federation would kick the empires ass with no evidence to back them up. They come out with the stupidest scenario's and if you disagree their so stubborn on their points that all you can think is "gay fanboy here!"

Meanwhile the star wars fans are always assuming that their stuff is better. I mean yes, statistical probability states that with a force as large as theirs they could do it, but does that mean they would? NO! I mean how many battles have been fought in the past where a superior number of forces was defeated by a smaller one.

Pretty much i think it would be much more productive if people from both sides got together, stopped bickering like a bunch of virgin fanboy's and got the facts straight. Then when all thats said and done, LIVE WITH IT!

[Khas]

The last part of that post is what this site is about. Or at least what it TRIES to be about. It all started as something fun, but over the years has become 'serious business'. Why can't it go back to the old days?




Mainly because of two people who shall remain anonymous, but arrogance from both parties plays in as well.

[User1442]

Im not saying its a stupid argument. I love star wars vs star trek. But i've heard so many stupid posts and arguments on both sides it makes me want to track this people down and buy them a damn hooker.

[Khas]

Been hangin' out at Spacebattles, I see...

[Sunburst]

This is the least biased place I've found on the web to debate. Everywhere else seems to be biased towards Wars...heavily, and although this site is biased towards Trek I've noticed most people are open to everyone's ideas. Actually discussion happens here without petty bickering.

Here's the thing, these are fictional universes with fictional rules of physics, which break their own rules. There's really no black and white comparison, so everything ends up being a judgement call. And people with strong opinions will only become more devout in their belief when they find more people that believe like they do. It becomes a snowball effect.

[User1442]

Not petty bickering, but stubbornness. Posting stupid conjectures with no evidence. Making idiotic assumptions. Favoring one side and ignoring any reasoning on another part.

For instance, Mike wong has a page full of hate mail. On every single point that the other person has made, he totally shreds them. Does this mean that Mike wong is right? No! Does this mean that there aren't questions he couldn't answer? NO! On the other hand the people that debate with him, are so stubborn that even when he totally rips their theories apart, they STILL won't say their wrong. I mean, take St-vs-sw.net or whatever that one site is. He had a debate with Mike wong and got his ass kicked. You can see his debate in full on stardestroyer.net

However, on st-vs-sw.net he continues whining about how he won........i mean seriously, he say's he won and yet he got his ass handed to him.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

I mean, take St-vs-sw.net or whatever that one site is. He had a debate with Mike wong and got his ass kicked. You can see his debate in full on stardestroyer.net

I gave that debate to the St-vs-sw.net guy by quite a margin.

He presented his arguments well and honestly while wong abused science and at the same time claimed to base his arguments on it with handwaves towards things that did not apply to the situation but sounded good, at one point wong even deliberatly altered a dictionary quote so its meaning suited his argument (or at least suited darkstars less) rather than disproved it.

[User1442]

I mean, take St-vs-sw.net or whatever that one site is. He had a debate with Mike wong and got his ass kicked. You can see his debate in full on stardestroyer.net

I gave that debate to the St-vs-sw.net guy by quite a margin.

He presented his arguments well and honestly while wong abused science and at the same time claimed to base his arguments on it with handwaves towards things that did not apply to the situation but sounded good, at one point wong even deliberatly altered a dictionary quote so its meaning suited his argument (or at least suited darkstars less) rather than disproved it.

I just reviewed his page and I concede that your right (on most points). And this goes along with my point exactly. The ability to say "hmmm, maybe im wrong....lets review the facts again....oh wait......i grossly miscalculated." This is something most warsies and trekkies can't seem to do.

I am in no way trying to state i am superior. I can be pretty stubborn on certain topics too. Its just that these people are akin to rabid dogs, never listening to reason.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

I just reviewed his page and I concede that your right (on most points). And this goes along with my point exactly. The ability to say "hmmm, maybe im wrong....lets review the facts again....oh wait......i grossly miscalculated." This is something most warsies and trekkies can't seem to do.

I am in no way trying to state i am superior. I can be pretty stubborn on certain topics too. Its just that these people are akin to rabid dogs, never listening to reason.

It is always the same when the supporters of one side argue with another and especially when the actual "teams" they support can never actually meet and duke it out for real to decide the matter.

And lets face it even if they did the losing side would make up excuses ect ect just like we see after sporting events ect.

Plus if total aggreement ever happened it would be the end of a entertaining hobby for a lot of people, and for others the end of lots of opportunities to scream abuse post foul language and screen shots and generally vent toxin at others in a place of relative safety.

[User1442]

I do agree with you their, it is an entertaining hobby. I in no way want it to end. Its just..i dunno.....frustrating to see all these people spout crap. I have no problem with a well played argument.....but crap is crap. Dumping chocolate syrup on it won't help. It just makes it look like more crap, and it'll still takes like crap.

[Khas]

This is the least biased place I've found on the web to debate. Everywhere else seems to be biased towards Wars...heavily, and although this site is biased towards Trek I've noticed most people are open to everyone's ideas. Actually discussion happens here without petty bickering.

ASVS is pretty unbiased, and so was TFC back when it was up.

[Praeothmin]

I mean, take St-vs-sw.net or whatever that one site is. He had a debate with Mike wong and got his ass kicked. You can see his debate in full on stardestroyer.net

I gave that debate to the St-vs-sw.net guy by quite a margin.

He presented his arguments well and honestly while wong abused science and at the same time claimed to base his arguments on it with handwaves towards things that did not apply to the situation but sounded good, at one point wong even deliberatly altered a dictionary quote so its meaning suited his argument (or at least suited darkstars less) rather than disproved it.

So did I.
While I do not agree with all of Darkstar's arguments (he is known as 2046 here), he certainly presented more facts and evidence in favor of his arguments than Wong ever did.
With every piece or argument he brings either numbers (so anyone good at math can try to take them apart) or screencaps supporting his side of the debate.

But you are right Leon, sometimes people are thick headed for the wrong reasons... :)

[Khas]

I just realized that the versus debate has become little more than this in most places.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

I mean, take St-vs-sw.net or whatever that one site is. He had a debate with Mike wong and got his ass kicked. You can see his debate in full on stardestroyer.net

I gave that debate to the St-vs-sw.net guy by quite a margin.

He presented his arguments well and honestly while wong abused science and at the same time claimed to base his arguments on it with handwaves towards things that did not apply to the situation but sounded good, at one point wong even deliberatly altered a dictionary quote so its meaning suited his argument (or at least suited darkstars less) rather than disproved it.

So did I.
While I do not agree with all of Darkstar's arguments (he is known as 2046 here), he certainly presented more facts and evidence in favor of his arguments than Wong ever did.
With every piece or argument he brings either numbers (so anyone good at math can try to take them apart) or screencaps supporting his side of the debate.

But you are right Leon, sometimes people are thick headed for the wrong reasons... :)

Yea i do not agree with a couple of his ideas but i will admit that even those are superbly presented in regards to supporting material ect.

[Mr. Oragahn]

The last part of that post is what this site is about. Or at least what it TRIES to be about. It all started as something fun, but over the years has become 'serious business'. Why can't it go back to the old days?

I beg to disagree, sir.
It has always been serious business, in that it's ultimately a very techy and versus-orientated board, and JMS' personal pages precisely reflect that.

It doesn't mean we can't have other debates, though, and I think we have proved we could do that. However, as far as I am concerned, I have little passion for silly debates, sorry.

Now, what amuses me is the kind of people who think they're being smarter by pointing out the plebes focusing on firepower, for example, and doing bits and bobs over pixels and numbers instead of talking about scenarios in a more armchair general way.
First, we do both (and more), and secondly, it's fine and all to establish strategies and speculate about diplomacy, but what happens when you have finally proved that you can build A and B types of ships over X weeks and can move their to target C within Y weeks, only to realize that your ships don't even have... the firepower (or the range, sensors, shields or STL mobility) to threaten the enemy?
:)

This is the least biased place I've found on the web to debate. Everywhere else seems to be biased towards Wars...heavily, and although this site is biased towards Trek I've noticed most people are open to everyone's ideas. Actually discussion happens here without petty bickering.

Here's the thing, these are fictional universes with fictional rules of physics, which break their own rules. There's really no black and white comparison, so everything ends up being a judgement call. And people with strong opinions will only become more devout in their belief when they find more people that believe like they do. It becomes a snowball effect.

The bias at SBC is so glaring that the only people arguing STvSW over there are the same old warsies and then some recent semi-trolls with multiple accounts (infinity/zing/geul, etc.), and that's all.

Trekkies have largely withdrawn to exclusively pro-Trek forums, with a very exceptions like here (although there's a pro Trek tendency, obviously) and the scifi forum, with its metalong versus threads.

Not petty bickering, but stubbornness. Posting stupid conjectures with no evidence. Making idiotic assumptions. Favoring one side and ignoring any reasoning on another part.

For instance, Mike wong has a page full of hate mail. On every single point that the other person has made, he totally shreds them. Does this mean that Mike wong is right? No! Does this mean that there aren't questions he couldn't answer? NO! On the other hand the people that debate with him, are so stubborn that even when he totally rips their theories apart, they STILL won't say their wrong. I mean, take St-vs-sw.net or whatever that one site is. He had a debate with Mike wong and got his ass kicked. You can see his debate in full on stardestroyer.net

However, on st-vs-sw.net he continues whining about how he won........i mean seriously, he say's he won and yet he got his ass handed to him.

I think you're largely incorrect about the true outcome of the debate between Robert Scott Anderson and Mike Wong.
If anything, if you spend more time over this board - assuming you are here for good reasons - youwill see the evidence, and not necessarily the new kind but sources formerly ignored or quoted out of context, which prove RSA largely right over time.

Now it doesn't mean he's right about everything, far from it.