---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 23:06:20 -0700 Subject: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- Did the E-D make a sharp warp turn in "Encounter at Farpoint"? Nope. The .mpv was too large for me to u/l, so I made screencaps of virtually every scene in the sequence. You will note, that the E-D is at warp before saucer seperation, during saucer seperation, after saucer seperation, but NOT DURING THE TURN. Then the stardrive section is back at warp. http://h4h.com/louis/baldya.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyb.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyc.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyd.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldye.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyf.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyg.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyh.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyi.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyj.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyk.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyl.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldym.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyn.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyo.jpg -- "I'm sick of this canon bitching. The Trekkies have six hundred fucking hours of canon to work with. We have about TEN, not counting the novelizations, Radio scripts, etc. Stop crying because of 200GT turbolasers." --- Dalton http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 08:08:44 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:uk1pn0i10gg6ec@corp.supernews.com... > Did the E-D make a sharp warp turn in "Encounter at Farpoint"? > > Nope. > > The .mpv was too large for me to u/l, so I made screencaps of virtually > every scene in the sequence. You will note, that the E-D is at warp before > saucer seperation, during saucer seperation, after saucer seperation, but > NOT DURING THE TURN. Then the stardrive section is back at warp. More of your "warp star" silliness, I see. We already discussed this about TOS, and I even mentioned early TNG examples of it to you. In short, early TNG-era FX sometimes made the 'error' of trying to show warp-driven ships at warp from a stationary observation point, and this stationary position would not have warp stars, even if the ship was at warp. For example, in this episode, moments before the separation, the Enterprise is running from Q at high warp, but the chase is shown from a stationary observation point as two flybys without "warp stars", as you can see here: http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_101.htm You claim the stardrive section decelerated to impulse speeds, but this just isn't so. Knowing how you are, I'll go ahead and "draw it out for you": The ship was moving at a speed of at least warp 9.5, being chased by Q ( http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_104.htm ). Picard moves to the battle bridge with a plan to make good the escape of the saucer ( http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_116.htm ). Just before Yar fires torpedoes in the hopes of blinding the Q at the moment of separation (dumb idea, but they didn't know he was omnipotent at the time), Picard tells Worf: "At the moment of separation, we'll reverse power just enough to get your saucer section out ahead and clear of us." Worf acknowledges (http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_119.htm ). We see the saucer separation, and we see the saucer appear to pull ahead by several dozen meters, just as Picard said. (http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_132.htm , http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_133.htm and http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_143.htm ) As you saw in that last shot, both sections were at warp speeds. With the saucer "out ahead and clear", the stardrive section turns to face the Q. The shot of the ship is from a stationary location, and we see the ship turn on a dime and go flying back toward the Q. When it does so, there is no "warp flash" of the ship going back into warp. Why? Because it never dropped out of warp to begin with. (http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_145.htm , http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_146.htm , http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_148.htm , and http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_150.htm ) There is then a moment's reaction shot of Picard, lasting about three seconds. It should be noted that this is not long enough to allow for the special effect of the ship going into warp that you see at the end of the opening credits. When this reaction shot is over, there is a mobile (with warp stars) shot of the stardrive moving at warp. (http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_151.htm) Shortly thereafter, Picard orders the ship to come to a stop. He says "reverse power", then Data acknowledges: "Reverse power, decelerating." The deceleration of the stardrive section from warp speeds takes six seconds... we see the stars slow from "warp stars" to normal impulse-speed "stars" on the bridge. (http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_152.htm ). That is the nail in the coffin of your idea, beyond the simple fact of the way warp was portrayed in early TNG. The fact that the ship took six seconds to drop out of warp with reverse power means that the ship could not have dropped to impulse to make the hard starboard turn. It also means that the saucer section, which could not have reversed warp power, was still at warp in that shot. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 02:27:43 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > More of your "warp star" silliness, I see. Yup, canon is so "silly". > We already discussed this about TOS, and I even mentioned early TNG examples of it to you. And you were wrong there, too. > In short, early TNG-era FX sometimes made the 'error' of trying to show warp-driven ships at warp from a stationary > observation point, Concession Accepted. > For example, in this episode, moments before the separation, the Enterprise is running from Q at high warp, but the chase is > shown from a stationary observation point as two flybys without "warp stars", as you can see here: > http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_101.htm What you show here is Q's ball. Not the E-D. > You claim the stardrive section decelerated to impulse speeds, but this just isn't so. Sorry, the canon episode disagrees with you. http://h4h.com/louis/baldyi.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyj.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyk.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyl.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldym.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyn.jpg > The ship was moving at a speed of at least warp 9.5, being chased by Q > (http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101102/pages/TNG101_104.htm ). Showing warp-effect... > Picard moves to the battle bridge with a plan to make good the escape of the saucer > ( http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_116.htm ). Wow, how relevant.... [snip more loving crew shots that have nothing to do with warp effects] > We see the saucer separation, and we see the saucer appear to pull ahead by several dozen meters, just as Picard said. > (http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_132.htm , > http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_133.htm and > http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_143.htm ) Yes, idiot, these are the exact same screencaps I made. padding your post with such useless crap is hardly impressing anyone. > As you saw in that last shot, both sections were at warp speeds. Which was never in contention. (reread original post) The point you're trying to dodge is, is that the saucer and stardrive sections were NOT AT WARP when the stardrive turned away from the saucer section, supported once again by my screencaps: http://h4h.com/louis/baldyi.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyj.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyk.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyl.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldym.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyn.jpg ..and that website you're so fond of: http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/index_2.htm thumbnails TNG101_141.jpg to TNG101_150.jpg. > The shot of the ship is from a stationary location, and we see the ship turnon a dime and go flying back toward the Q. When > it does so, there is no"warp flash" of the ship going back into warp. Why? Because the scene changed to Picard stroking his chin instead of showing the warp flash. > Because it neverdropped out of warp to begin with. (To make it easier on the reader, BaldStar is referring to these screencaps: TNG101_145.jpg TNG101_146.jpg TNG101_148.jpg TNG101_150.jpg All of which clearly show that the E-D was NOT at warp, due to the absence of a warp effect. Clearly in line with the facts of the show, since the saucer section can't maintain warp by itself. > There is then a moment's reaction shot of Picard, lasting about three seconds. It should be noted that this is not long enough to allow for the special effect of the ship going into warp that you see at the end of the opening credits. Red Herring. Its more than enough time for them to go to warp, as even from a standstill, they've done it faster (Q Who?) Its amazing how much a Trekkie will whore himself to try to win an argument. -- "Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science, nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as they are might be amenable to their arguments." Darth Wong http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 15:59:38 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3d42c2f8.85925442@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 02:27:43 -0700, "Wayne Poe" wrote: Voy: Message in a Bottle - Prometheus is at warp speeds behind a Nebula class. It performs a separation into 3 parts, one part stays behind the Nebula, the other two assume flanking positions, all this is done at warp speeds. One section moved to the left, one to the right. Ergo, SF ships can move left or right with precision (they didn't collide with each other during the saucer sep) at warp. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Jul 2002 16:57:30 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <20020727125730.25100.00001721@mb-md.aol.com> -------- >On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 02:27:43 -0700, "Wayne Poe" wrote: > > > >Voy: Message in a Bottle - Prometheus is at warp speeds behind a >Nebula class. It performs a separation into 3 parts, one part stays >behind the Nebula, the other two assume flanking positions, all this >is done at warp speeds. One section moved to the left, one to the >right. Ergo, SF ships can move left or right with precision (they >didn't collide with each other during the saucer sep) at warp. > Having just watched a clip of this sequence from Stardock Alpha, I make the following observasions: None of the peices actually turn. They seperate, drift apart, and glide back to get behind the chasing ship, blasting it from the sides. Relative velocity of the three peices is on-par for Trek sublight combat, though slightly higher. Why the hell didn't the chasing ship drop speed to avoid getting attacked from behind? In the Sublight sequence: The saucer of the Prom demonstrates high maneuverability, arcing around at what looks like 45d/s. Why didn't it twist like this at Warp? -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 17:32:48 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3d42d91a.91592478@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 27 Jul 2002 16:57:30 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) wrote: >The saucer of the Prom demonstrates high maneuverability, arcing around at what >looks like 45d/s. Why didn't it twist like this at Warp? It was already in its firing position, why turn away? We've seen better turns than that, the Ent-D has a zero turning circle. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Jul 2002 17:36:24 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <20020727133624.25100.00001731@mb-md.aol.com> -------- >On 27 Jul 2002 16:57:30 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >Nitram) wrote: > >>The saucer of the Prom demonstrates high maneuverability, arcing around at >what >>looks like 45d/s. Why didn't it twist like this at Warp? > >It was already in its firing position, why turn away? > Having your ass facing your opponent is rarely considered a wise move, even in Trek. >We've seen better turns than that, the Ent-D has a zero turning >circle. Which episode? -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 20:02:36 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3d42fbe8.7643779@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 27 Jul 2002 17:36:24 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) wrote: >>On 27 Jul 2002 16:57:30 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >>Nitram) wrote: >> >>>The saucer of the Prom demonstrates high maneuverability, arcing around at >>what >>>looks like 45d/s. Why didn't it twist like this at Warp? >> >>It was already in its firing position, why turn away? >> > >Having your ass facing your opponent is rarely considered a wise move, even in >Trek. It was behind its target, facing it - its ass was not facing its opponent. >>We've seen better turns than that, the Ent-D has a zero turning >>circle. > >Which episode? The Defector, I believe. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Jul 2002 20:09:04 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <20020727160904.25100.00001768@mb-md.aol.com> -------- >On 27 Jul 2002 17:36:24 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >Nitram) wrote: > >>>On 27 Jul 2002 16:57:30 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >>>Nitram) wrote: >>> >>>>The saucer of the Prom demonstrates high maneuverability, arcing around at >>>what >>>>looks like 45d/s. Why didn't it twist like this at Warp? >>> >>>It was already in its firing position, why turn away? >>> >> >>Having your ass facing your opponent is rarely considered a wise move, even >in >>Trek. > >It was behind its target, facing it - its ass was not facing its >opponent. > Baron, allow me to explain. 1) Prom is being chased at Warp. 2) Prom seperates into three parts. Parts retain current facing, and glide apart. 3) Prom parts slow down, allowing the pursuing ship to overtake them. 4) Phasers fire. At no point did the seperate parts turn to face their adversary. >>>We've seen better turns than that, the Ent-D has a zero turning >>>circle. >> >>Which episode? > >The Defector, I believe. > I'll have to see if I can get any video clips of that... -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 21:31:06 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020727160904.25100.00001768@mb-md.aol.com... > >On 27 Jul 2002 17:36:24 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir > >Nitram) wrote: > > > >>>On 27 Jul 2002 16:57:30 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir > >>>Nitram) wrote: > >>> > >>>>The saucer of the Prom demonstrates high maneuverability, arcing around at > >>>what > >>>>looks like 45d/s. Why didn't it twist like this at Warp? > >>> > >>>It was already in its firing position, why turn away? > >>> > >> > >>Having your ass facing your opponent is rarely considered a wise move, even > >in > >>Trek. > > > >It was behind its target, facing it - its ass was not facing its > >opponent. > > > > Baron, allow me to explain. > > 1) Prom is being chased at Warp. > 2) Prom seperates into three parts. Parts retain current facing, and glide > apart. > 3) Prom parts slow down, allowing the pursuing ship to overtake them. > 4) Phasers fire. > > At no point did the seperate parts turn to face their adversary. > Why would they? The Nebula wasn't that far behind. If you want to get right behind a car on another lane that is behind you, do you turn around or simply slow down? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 10:12:21 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "The Baron" wrote in message news:3d42c2f8.85925442@news.freeserve.co.uk... > On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 02:27:43 -0700, "Wayne Poe" wrote: > > > > Voy: Message in a Bottle And what does this have to do with the thread? -- "Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science, nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as they are might be amenable to their arguments." Darth Wong http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 20:03:01 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3d42fc6a.7773140@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 10:12:21 -0700, "Wayne Poe" wrote: > > >"The Baron" wrote in message >news:3d42c2f8.85925442@news.freeserve.co.uk... >> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 02:27:43 -0700, "Wayne Poe" wrote: >> >> >> >> Voy: Message in a Bottle > >And what does this have to do with the thread? > ? I have to say something relevant? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Jul 2002 20:09:34 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <20020727160934.25100.00001769@mb-md.aol.com> -------- >On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 10:12:21 -0700, "Wayne Poe" wrote: > >> >> >>"The Baron" wrote in message >>news:3d42c2f8.85925442@news.freeserve.co.uk... >>> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 02:27:43 -0700, "Wayne Poe" wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Voy: Message in a Bottle >> >>And what does this have to do with the thread? >> > >? > >I have to say something relevant? > Well there goes our contributions to the group. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 21:42:02 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:uk4pskkilk6fc7@corp.supernews.com... > "DarkStar" wrote > > > More of your "warp star" silliness, I see. > > Yup, canon is so "silly". You would appear to think so, given how you ignore it so readily. > > > We already discussed this about TOS, and I even mentioned early TNG > examples of it to you. > And you were wrong there, too. You are the one who withdrew from the TOS argument after I proved your stupid lies were wrong. > > > In short, early TNG-era FX sometimes made the 'error' of trying to show > warp-driven ships at warp from a stationary > > observation point, > > Concession Accepted. Yep, you do think canon Trek is "silly". > > > For example, in this episode, moments before the separation, the > Enterprise is running from Q at high warp, but the chase is > shown from a > stationary observation point as two flybys without "warp stars", as you can > see here: > > http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_101.htm > > What you show here is Q's ball. Not the E-D. No shit. That is Q's ball chasing the Enterprise at high warp. > > > You claim the stardrive section decelerated to impulse speeds, but this > just isn't so. > > Sorry, the canon episode disagrees with you. > Bullshit. Moments later with reversed engines, it took the stardrive section six seconds to drop out of warp. Even when Kirk's Enterprise lost warp speed in "Arena"[TOS], Sulu was able to read off their speed reduction, and did not involve reversed engines. Your claim is that because you haven't watched enough TNG to know how warp drive is shown, the saucer and stardrive both must have magically dropped out of warp in 1/15th of a second, even though we know it takes the stardrive section 90 times longer to do that with reverse power. Dumbass. > > The ship was moving at a speed of at least warp 9.5, being chased by Q > > (http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101102/pages/TNG101_104.htm ). > > Showing warp-effect... > No shit. The Enterprise is the observation point, and it is mobile. > > Picard moves to the battle bridge with a plan to make good the escape of > the saucer > > ( http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_116.htm ). > > Wow, how relevant.... > > [snip more loving crew shots that have nothing to do with warp effects] You're the one who doesn't know TNG. I figured you could use the introduction. > > > We see the saucer separation, and we see the saucer appear to pull ahead > by several dozen meters, just as Picard said. > > (http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_132.htm , > > http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_133.htm and > > http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/pages/TNG101_143.htm ) > > Yes, idiot, these are the exact same screencaps I made. padding your post > with such useless crap is hardly impressing anyone. This is the same message I smacked you down with before, moron. The fact that you need to be led to the water like a retarded horse isn't my problem. Drink, fool! > > > As you saw in that last shot, both sections were at warp speeds. > > Which was never in contention. (reread original post) The point you're > trying to dodge is, is that the saucer and stardrive sections were NOT AT > WARP when the stardrive turned away from the saucer section, supported once > again by my screencaps: > > http://h4h.com/louis/baldyi.jpg > http://h4h.com/louis/baldyj.jpg > http://h4h.com/louis/baldyk.jpg > http://h4h.com/louis/baldyl.jpg > http://h4h.com/louis/baldym.jpg > http://h4h.com/louis/baldyn.jpg > > ..and that website you're so fond of: > > http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/index_2.htm > > thumbnails TNG101_141.jpg to TNG101_150.jpg. And therefore, you are forced to claim the stupid idea that both sections of the ship magically dropped out of warp 90 times faster than the stardrive section could. Also, since Picard said he was going to reverse power just enough to let the saucer section get out ahead, the saucer section must have managed this feat without warp engines to reverse! Your position is stupid. You ignore the canon method of showing warp travel, and the instances from this very episode that prove you wrong. Fool. > > > The shot of the ship is from a stationary location, and we see the ship > turnon a dime and go flying back toward the Q. When > it does so, there is > no"warp flash" of the ship going back into warp. Why? > > Because the scene changed to Picard stroking his chin instead of showing the > warp flash. > There wasn't time for them to go to warp, as I already showed you. > > Because it neverdropped out of warp to begin with. > > (To make it easier on the reader, BaldStar is referring to these screencaps: > > TNG101_145.jpg > TNG101_146.jpg > TNG101_148.jpg > TNG101_150.jpg > > All of which clearly show that the E-D was NOT at warp, due to the absence > of a warp effect. Clearly in line with the facts of the show, since the > saucer section can't maintain warp by itself. There is no warp effect when the observation point is stationary, as it is in those scenes. It's just the same as the high-warp flybys we saw earlier in the episode, and all the other examples of warp flybys past stationary observation points throughout TNG. Just because the ship was turning around this time and not flying by does not mean the ship was not at warp. Further, your argument that the saucer section can't maintain warp by itself ignores the fact that it also can't reverse warp power by itself. It takes time for a warp-driven object to fall out of warp, as evidenced by the fact that Picard had to reverse power just enough for the stardrive section to back off a bit, as we saw. If the saucer would drop out of warp the moment it separated, the ship would have been destroyed, dumbass. > > > There is then a moment's reaction shot of Picard, lasting about three > seconds. It should be noted that this is not long enough to allow for the > special effect of the ship going into warp that you see at the end of the > opening credits. > > Red Herring. Its more than enough time for them to go to warp, as even from > a standstill, they've done it faster (Q Who?) Its amazing how much a Trekkie > will whore himself to try to win an argument. > What scene of "Q Who?" The shot of the ship zipping forward and turning right? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 17:39:16 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > Yup, canon is so "silly". > You would appear to think so, given how you ignore it so readily. Tell me how your "Tng-era effects" whine enters into the canon of Star Trek? > You are the one who withdrew from the TOS argument after I proved your > stupid lies were wrong. Sorry, I just didn't have the time to keep cutting and pasting the truth to you, since, like an ignorant jackass, you can't accept the truth. > No shit. That is Q's ball chasing the Enterprise at high warp. Oh, so now you have canon proof that Q uses a warp drive? Please state it. And I hope you don't say something completely stupid, like " I never said Q was using warp drive. I said he was at warp speed. Tasha confirms this by reading off his speed in the episode." because that will make you look like a TOTAL asshole. > Bullshit. Moments later with reversed engines, it took the stardrive section > six seconds to drop out of warp. So? They did it faster before the turning scene. Its canon; it happened. > Even when Kirk's Enterprise Kirk's Enterprise has nothing to do with this thread. Please stay on topic. > Your claim is that because you haven't watched enough TNG to know how warp > drive is shown, I've never claimed that. Fuckface. > No shit. The Enterprise is the observation point, and it is mobile. Doesn't matter. Warp effect is present. THAT matters. > You're the one who doesn't know TNG. I figured you could use the > introduction. Oh no....I don't know TNG! How will I live with myself? I know enough about it to kick your ass in every discussion. > > Yes, idiot, these are the exact same screencaps I made. padding your post > > with such useless crap is hardly impressing anyone. > This is the same message I smacked you down with before, moron. Ah, I see. You're just blindly cutting and pasting bullshit without checking if the facts are still relevant. I see. > And therefore, you are forced to claim the stupid idea that both sections of the ship magically dropped out of warp 90 times > faster than the stardrive section could. I'm not forced to claim anything, as the canon speaks for itself: The stardrive section was NOT AT WARP when it made the turn. > Your position is stupid. You ignore the canon method of showing warp travel, > and the instances from this very episode that prove you wrong. Your position is idiotic. You ignore the canon which shows when a ship IS and ISN'T at warp, and deliver an instance to attempt to prove your retard theory which has nothing to do with the E-D and warp drive. Idiot. Concession Accepted. -- "Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science, nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as they are might be amenable to their arguments." Darth Wong http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:17:44 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:uk6f9paegv8oe1@corp.supernews.com... > "DarkStar" wrote Let's make life easier, shall we? http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=655 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:59:08 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > Let's make life easier, shall we? > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=655 Uh huh. You were fine with crossposting to sd.net, spacebattles and here, until someone started kicking your ass on a regular basis. Concession Accepted. -- "Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science, nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as they are might be amenable to their arguments." Darth Wong http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 06:05:27 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:uk9fcfeurvbnb5@corp.supernews.com... > "DarkStar" wrote > Let's make life easier, shall > we? > > > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=655 > > > Uh huh. You were fine with crossposting to sd.net, spacebattles and here, > until someone started kicking your ass on a regular basis. > > Concession Accepted. Riiiiight. This is why you've withdrawn, of course. As for me, since you're the only one saying anything here, there's nothing new to point out... it's just crossposting of your silly responses and my replies. I figure this way is better, if we're just going to be saying the same thing over and over again: http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=655&start=30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 00:15:47 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > > Uh huh. You were fine with crossposting to sd.net, spacebattles and here, > > until someone started kicking your ass on a regular basis. > > > > Concession Accepted. > Riiiiight. This is why you've withdrawn, of course. Nope, I just see no need to keep posting canon proof you are obviously not equipped to handle, due to you being a fucking idiot. -- "Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science, nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as they are might be amenable to their arguments." Darth Wong http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:28:09 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:uk9qt93h16d6cb@corp.supernews.com... > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > > Uh huh. You were fine with crossposting to sd.net, spacebattles and > here, > > > until someone started kicking your ass on a regular basis. > > > > > > Concession Accepted. > > > Riiiiight. This is why you've withdrawn, of course. > > Nope, I just see no need to keep posting canon proof you are obviously not > equipped to handle, due to you being a fucking idiot. You're the one ignoring the canon proof that destroys your argument... your efforts to twist facts to suit theories are not justification for your claim of victory. Instead, it gives me every right to say "concession accepted." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:20:00 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > "Wayne Poe" wrote > > Nope, I just see no need to keep posting canon proof you are obviously not > > equipped to handle, due to you being a fucking idiot. > You're the one ignoring the canon proof that destroys your argument Nope, sorry. I've given canon visual evidence you're wrong. Has anyone in all the forums you posted to bought your incorrect and deluded version of events? Concession Accepted. -- "Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science, nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as they are might be amenable to their arguments." Darth Wong http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:43:34 +0800 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ukbqe63idgie39@corp.supernews.com... > Nope, sorry. I've given canon visual evidence you're wrong. Has anyone in > all the forums you posted to bought your incorrect and deluded version of > events? Concession Accepted. Don't be so confident making this statement. He might have posted it in TrekWars. You know, that forum I heard a while back that makes SB look like rocket scientists? Or maybe Aleskya bought it. :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:06:24 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <4Qy19.446084$vq.24310197@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ukbqe63idgie39@corp.supernews.com... > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote > > > > Nope, I just see no need to keep posting canon proof you are obviously > not > > > equipped to handle, due to you being a fucking idiot. > > > You're the one ignoring the canon proof that destroys your argument > > Nope, sorry. I've given canon visual evidence you're wrong. Has anyone in > all the forums you posted to bought your incorrect and deluded version of > events? Concession Accepted. The truth is not democratic. It doesn't matter if everyone agrees, or if no one agrees. The simple fact is that your argument is contrary to canon in numerous ways. Unless and until you can come up with a new argument or revise your old ones so that they no longer ignore or attempt to rewrite canon fact, I accept your concession. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 30 Jul 2002 16:10:01 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <20020730121001.20520.00000376@mb-cg.aol.com> -------- >"Wayne Poe" wrote in message >news:ukbqe63idgie39@corp.supernews.com... >> >> "DarkStar" wrote >> >> > "Wayne Poe" wrote >> >> > > Nope, I just see no need to keep posting canon proof you are obviously >> not >> > > equipped to handle, due to you being a fucking idiot. >> >> > You're the one ignoring the canon proof that destroys your argument >> >> Nope, sorry. I've given canon visual evidence you're wrong. Has anyone in >> all the forums you posted to bought your incorrect and deluded version of >> events? Concession Accepted. > >The truth is not democratic. It doesn't matter if everyone agrees, or if no >one agrees. > >The simple fact is that your argument is contrary to canon in numerous ways. >Unless and until you can come up with a new argument or revise your old ones >so that they no longer ignore or attempt to rewrite canon fact, I accept >your concession. > Good, then you'll be leaving. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:16:17 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > "Wayne Poe" wrote > The simple fact is that your argument is contrary to canon in numerous ways. The simple fact is, you ignore clear canon visual evidence which shows that the stardrive is NOT AT WARP when it made its turn. Concession Accepted. http://gallery.passion4art.com/members/spankythedolphin/baldyani.gif -- "Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science, nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as they are might be amenable to their arguments." Darth Wong http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:02:57 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3D479986.5090306@shaw.ca> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > http://gallery.passion4art.com/members/spankythedolphin/baldyani.gif Didn't someone already prove that that same shot was used for a non-warp turn later in the series. If they look identical there's no reason to not believe they are identical. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 14:26:11 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <7yb29.14444$P8.359518@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D479986.5090306@shaw.ca... > Wayne Poe wrote: > > > http://gallery.passion4art.com/members/spankythedolphin/baldyani.gif > > Didn't someone already prove that that same shot was used for a non-warp > turn later in the series. "Arsenal of Freedom"... the ship was not at warp, and the same shot was used. This does not affect my argument. We know that warp could be shown from stationary observation points without warp stars, but in this case the saucer separation occurred at impulse, as stated and shown (no warp stars during separation, unlike Farpoint). The use of the turn footage in Arsenal doesn't change Farpoint facts. Think of it this way: they could have used the scene of the ship whooshing past at warp without warp stars as a shot of fast impulse travel... it could probably look about the same... but that doesn't mean the shot always represents impulse in every other episode, too. Poe demands warp stars every time, when in fact they were not used every time warp was represented, by design... this means his argument is contrary to canon fact, based on a false conclusion about how warp is shown. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 22:53:19 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3D49BBC7.8000604@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>Wayne Poe wrote: >>>http://gallery.passion4art.com/members/spankythedolphin/baldyani.gif >> >>Didn't someone already prove that that same shot was used for a non-warp >>turn later in the series. > > "Arsenal of Freedom"... the ship was not at warp, and the same shot was > used. This does not affect my argument. Yeah it does. No matter what you say we can always point to that episode and say, 'It wasn't at warp in AoF, so it couldn't be at warp in EaF.' The two shots are identical in every detail. The conclusion drawn from them will also be identical in every detail. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 16:18:53 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D49BBC7.8000604@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "Arsenal of Freedom"... the ship was not at warp, and the same shot was > > used. This does not affect my argument. > Yeah it does. No matter what you say we can always point to that episode > and say, 'It wasn't at warp in AoF, so it couldn't be at warp in EaF.' > The two shots are identical in every detail. The conclusion drawn from > them will also be identical in every detail. You're making WAY too much sense.... -- "Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science, nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as they are might be amenable to their arguments." Darth Wong http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:05:30 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D49BBC7.8000604@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > >>Wayne Poe wrote: > > >>>http://gallery.passion4art.com/members/spankythedolphin/baldyani.gif > >> > >>Didn't someone already prove that that same shot was used for a non-warp > >>turn later in the series. > > > > "Arsenal of Freedom"... the ship was not at warp, and the same shot was > > used. This does not affect my argument. > > Yeah it does. No matter what you say we can always point to that episode > and say, 'It wasn't at warp in AoF, so it couldn't be at warp in EaF.' > > The two shots are identical in every detail. The conclusion drawn from > them will also be identical in every detail. The scenes are not identical... unless you want to claim that Minos is just a few light-hours from Farpoint, and that every use of stock footage places the Enterprise in the exact same location every time. After all, the same exact stars are in the same exact place. We know that the saucer sep in AoF occurred at impulse, and we know that the saucer sep in EaF occurred at warp. Therefore the scenes, though they look similar, represent different things. We also know how long it takes a ship to drop out of high warp as of EaF, and how long it takes a ship without warp propulsion to drop out of warp, as per "Arena". My points and the canon stand. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@trek-wars.info> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 18:55:20 +0100 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- In article , afinalunity@hotmail.com says... > > Yeah it does. No matter what you say we can always point to that episode > > and say, 'It wasn't at warp in AoF, so it couldn't be at warp in EaF.' > > > > The two shots are identical in every detail. The conclusion drawn from > > them will also be identical in every detail. > > The scenes are not identical... I think the word you are looking for here is "context" In Arsenal of Freedom, taking the stock footage in context it happens at impulse (there's no indication they are at warp, and plenty they are at impulse) In Encounter at Farpoint, taking the stock footage in context it happens at Warp (there's plenty of indication they are at warp, and the only indication they are at impulse is the lack of warp streaks that are assumed to always be there at warp, so unless it is possible to prove warp streaks must always exist for vessels at warp, despite this being clearly not the case as you previously referenced, the context shows they were at warp. The poor analogy I'd usually put here is left as an exercise for the reader) -- Lord Edam de Fromage AIM: Sorborus www.trek-wars.info Genuis is always allowed some leeway, once the hammer has been pried from its hands and the blood has been cleaned up ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 06:07:08 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@trek-wars.info> wrote in message news:MPG.17b4d7cf3e56394a9896c2@news.cis.dfn.de... > In article , > afinalunity@hotmail.com says... > > > > Yeah it does. No matter what you say we can always point to that episode > > > and say, 'It wasn't at warp in AoF, so it couldn't be at warp in EaF.' > > > > > > The two shots are identical in every detail. The conclusion drawn from > > > them will also be identical in every detail. > > > > The scenes are not identical... > > I think the word you are looking for here is "context" (tips hat) Someone at SD.Net also mentioned the lack of downwarp flash & stretch or star transition... we see downwarp flash most notably in "Endgame"[VOY] with the Rhode Island, and of course TNG showed star transition (from "warp stars" to "background stars") all the time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 23:40:34 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@trek-wars.info> wrote > In Encounter at Farpoint, taking the stock footage in context it happens > at Warp (there's plenty of indication they are at warp, and the only > indication they are at impulse is the lack of warp streaks that are > assumed to always be there at warp, That and the accepted fact that the saucer section can't maintain warp. So the impulse turn has yet more standing. Not only have we seen starships take MUCH less than 6 seconds to drop out of warp (TNG's "The Schizoid Man" and VGR's "Equinox") hardly ever see every single aspect of a starship's maneuver. Just as we didn't spend 12 hours watching the Enterprise run silent in "Balance of Terror", we need nor have seen a drop to impulse or jump back to warp in "EaF". We didn't need to, since the lack of warp streaks tell the tale. > so unless it is possible to prove > warp streaks must always exist for vessels at warp, despite this being > clearly not the case as you previously referenced, Ah, yes; the "stationary camera" excuse. http://h4h.com/louis/baldyo.jpg Oops. -- "Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science, nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as they are might be amenable to their arguments." Darth Wong http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@trek-wars.info> Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 14:08:09 +0100 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- In article , louis@h4h.com says... > "Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@trek-wars.info> wrote > > > In Encounter at Farpoint, taking the stock footage in context it happens > > at Warp (there's plenty of indication they are at warp, and the only > > indication they are at impulse is the lack of warp streaks that are > > assumed to always be there at warp, > > That and the accepted fact that the saucer section can't maintain warp Can't it? You haven't provided the proof behind your claim so I don't see how it can be accepted or a fact, but lets look at it logically. They CAN seperate at warp - this much is established in Encoutner at farpoint. If the saucer cannot maintain warp for at least a short period of time then as soon as it seperates from the drive section it would drop the impulse - and the drive section would necessarily slam right into it. conclusion - the saucer must be able to maintain warp for at least a short period of time. > > so unless it is possible to prove > > warp streaks must always exist for vessels at warp, despite this being > > clearly not the case as you previously referenced, > > Ah, yes; the "stationary camera" excuse. No, the "you have not shown that warp streaks must always be there for a ship at warp, and Darkstar has shown they occasionally aren't" excuse > http://h4h.com/louis/baldyo.jpg > > Oops. I don't see how a still image of a ship at warp with warp streaks would disprove the previously demonstrated ability of a ship to be at warp without the warp streaks -- Lord Edam de Fromage AIM: Sorborus www.trek-wars.info Genuis is always allowed some leeway, once the hammer has been pried from its hands and the blood has been cleaned up ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 08:48:19 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@trek-wars.info> wrote > > That and the accepted fact that the saucer section can't maintain warp > Can't it? Nope. It has no warp engines, and there is no canon proof it has a "warp sustainer" field like torpedoes do. Unless you can prove otherwise. > They CAN seperate at warp This wasn't contested. Moving on... > If the saucer cannot maintain warp for at least a short period of time This wasn't contested. It maintained warp long enough to be free and clear of the Stardrive section, as seen in "EaF". http://h4h.com/louis/baldye.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyg.jpg Once it was, also as seen in "EaF", it had dropped to impulse along with the Stardrive section. http://h4h.com/louis/baldyi.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyj.jpg > then as soon as it seperates from the drive section it would drop the > impulse - and the drive section would necessarily slam right into it. Didn't happen, because as was seen in "EaF", the Stardrive section dropped to impulse as soon as the Saucer section did to prevent such a tragedy. http://h4h.com/louis/baldyi.jpg http://h4h.com/louis/baldyj.jpg > conclusion - the saucer must be able to maintain warp for at least a > short period of time. Which it did- It maintained warp long enough to be free and clear of the Stardrive section, as seen in "EaF". > > Ah, yes; the "stationary camera" excuse. > No, the "you have not shown that warp streaks must always be there for a > ship at warp, and Darkstar has shown they occasionally aren't" excuse No, "DarkStar has shown they aren't there when Q uses warp" excuse. We're talking about the E-D. He has also used the "Warp streaks don't appear when the camera is stationary" excuse to buy out of the canon fact that the Stardrive section was not at warp when it made its turn. http://h4h.com/louis/baldyk.jpg > > http://h4h.com/louis/baldyo.jpg > I don't see how a still image of a ship at warp with warp streaks would > disprove the previously demonstrated ability of a ship to be at warp > without the warp streaks So you can't see how an image from a stationary camera showing warp streaks from a ship at warp disproves DarkStar's assertion that stationary cameras are unable to show warp streaks when ships are at warp? -- "Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science, nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as they are might be amenable to their arguments." Darth Wong http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 03 Aug 2002 19:30:07 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <20020803153007.12271.00001191@mb-fj.aol.com> -------- Alright let's settle this the easy way. Darkstar's Premis: The Enterprise D makes a turn a warp Visual: The EntD makes a quite sharp U turn. Taking a peice of flimsy and a marker I traced the path of the U turn from the'innermost' point of the EntD I then clocked the turn at 2 sec (I'm being generous here the stop watch actually read 2sec 42). For almost a full second the Ent D was at a right angle to the directions it had been travaling in. I then with the aid of the trusty pause button moved the flimsy over a stationary EntD (same shot), which barly fit in the space encompased by the turn. What does this mean? If the Ent was at Warp 1, the inner turn surface should be 299,793 km wide minimum. instead its just barly larger than the Ent D Conclusion: The turn was to sharp to have been produced by an object travaling anywhere near c. Skywarp:"Starscream, What's Megatron's plan this time? Starscream:"Who cares? You just Know it's going to be evil. And evil is always fun." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 22:03:57 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3D4B01BF.6060809@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>DarkStar wrote: >>>"C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>Wayne Poe wrote: >>>>>http://gallery.passion4art.com/members/spankythedolphin/baldyani.gif >>>> >>>>Didn't someone already prove that that same shot was used for a non-warp >>>>turn later in the series. >>> >>>"Arsenal of Freedom"... the ship was not at warp, and the same shot was >>>used. This does not affect my argument. >> >>Yeah it does. No matter what you say we can always point to that episode >>and say, 'It wasn't at warp in AoF, so it couldn't be at warp in EaF.' >> >>The two shots are identical in every detail. The conclusion drawn from >>them will also be identical in every detail. > > The scenes are not identical... Yes they are. They look identical, cause they are identical. It's the same scene, they just reused the footage. > unless you want to claim that Minos is just a few light-hours from > Farpoint, I thought they were at high warp. Minos and Farpoint could easily be neighbouring systems. > and that every use of stock footage places the Enterprise in the exact > same location every time. After all, the same exact stars are in > the same exact place. Wouldn't that be a hoot. Small universe or what? > We know that the saucer sep in AoF occurred at impulse, and we know > that the saucer sep in EaF occurred at warp. But the turn didn't. > Therefore the scenes, though they look similar, represent different > things. Not similar, exactly identical. > We also know how long it takes a ship to drop out of high warp as of > EaF, and how long it takes a ship without warp propulsion to drop out > of warp, as per "Arena". My points and the canon stand. We also don't know how long it took between camera angles. There was no clock visible on the screen at the time. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 06:41:00 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <0WK29.78276$cm.2562241@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D4B01BF.6060809@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > >>DarkStar wrote: > >>>"C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > >>>>Wayne Poe wrote: > > >>>>>http://gallery.passion4art.com/members/spankythedolphin/baldyani.gif > >>>> > >>>>Didn't someone already prove that that same shot was used for a non-warp > >>>>turn later in the series. > >>> > >>>"Arsenal of Freedom"... the ship was not at warp, and the same shot was > >>>used. This does not affect my argument. > >> > >>Yeah it does. No matter what you say we can always point to that episode > >>and say, 'It wasn't at warp in AoF, so it couldn't be at warp in EaF.' > >> > >>The two shots are identical in every detail. The conclusion drawn from > >>them will also be identical in every detail. > > > > The scenes are not identical... > > Yes they are. They look identical, cause they are identical. It's the > same scene, they just reused the footage. Scene, not shot. > > unless you want to claim that Minos is just a few light-hours from > > Farpoint, > > I thought they were at high warp. Minos and Farpoint could easily be > neighbouring systems. No, not if the saucer drops out of warp in 1/15th of a second and then travels at impulse to Farpoint in a matter of hours. By necessity of Poe's assertion of no warp after separation, added to your assertion that identical footage equals identical situation, a point 28 seconds at warp five from the planet Minos is also just a few hours from Farpoint in the Deneb system at impulse speeds. Let's do the math, and I'll be very generous to show you just how much sense this makes. It was going to take the Enterprise 300 years to travel 2.7 million light years in WNOHGB, for a speed of 9000c. Assuming, generously, that warp five would be 4000c, that would put them 0.0038 light years (about 36 billion kilometers) from the planet Minos during separation in AoF. Assuming, again generously, that maximum impulse speeds were just shy of lightspeed, and giving the saucer section a full week to arrive, they would have travelled 0.019 light years (just under 180 billion kilometers). Assuming maximum separation, this would put the two systems 216 billion kilometers (.02 light years) apart. The closest star to ours is about 4 light years away, known as either Proxima Centauri or Alpha Centauri C, because at 13,000 AU (1.9 trillion km) from Alpha Centauri A and B, it is close enough to be considered a part of the system. In other words, assuming maximum/absurd values in order to create maximum distances, you still end up with the stars of these two systems being way too close. On the other hand, if you give warp five ~500c and top-end impulse speeds of .25c (with the saucer arriving at Farpoint within one day), you end up with a maximum separation of Minos and Farpoint of 4.5 billion kilometers plus 6.5 billion kilometers, for a whopping 11 billion kilometers. That is 73 AU, about one and a half times Pluto's maximum orbit distance from the sun. > > and that every use of stock footage places the Enterprise in the exact > > same location every time. After all, the same exact stars are in > > the same exact place. > > Wouldn't that be a hoot. Small universe or what? "Sir, weren't we here just last episode, even though you say we're in a totally different system now?" "Shut up, Wesley." > > > We know that the saucer sep in AoF occurred at impulse, and we know > > that the saucer sep in EaF occurred at warp. > > But the turn didn't. Yes, it did, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. > > > Therefore the scenes, though they look similar, represent different > > things. > > Not similar, exactly identical. Albeit in different context. > > > We also know how long it takes a ship to drop out of high warp as of > > EaF, and how long it takes a ship without warp propulsion to drop out > > of warp, as per "Arena". My points and the canon stand. > > We also don't know how long it took between camera angles. There was no > clock visible on the screen at the time. And no indication of missing seconds or the passage of unseen time, either. How long did this gap last? Years? Weeks? Days? Hours? May I also insert "unseen missing time" into Star Wars? :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 07:56:51 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3D4B8CBA.2000002@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>>"Arsenal of Freedom"... the ship was not at warp, and the same shot was >>>>>used. This does not affect my argument. >>>> >>>>Yeah it does. No matter what you say we can always point to that episode >>>>and say, 'It wasn't at warp in AoF, so it couldn't be at warp in EaF.' >>>> >>>>The two shots are identical in every detail. The conclusion drawn from >>>>them will also be identical in every detail. >>> >>>The scenes are not identical... >> >>Yes they are. They look identical, cause they are identical. It's the >>same scene, they just reused the footage. > > Scene, not shot. The scene is the same, the shots are the same. >>> unless you want to claim that Minos is just a few light-hours from >>> Farpoint, >> >>I thought they were at high warp. Minos and Farpoint could easily be >>neighbouring systems. All this rides on the flawed premise than Star Trek makes sense. THEY REUSED STOCK FOOTAGE! That pretty much precludes making total sense of it. They had a sun just a few light seconds away from a habitable planet in Generations. >>> and that every use of stock footage places the Enterprise in the exact >>> same location every time. After all, the same exact stars are in >>> the same exact place. >> >>Wouldn't that be a hoot. Small universe or what? > > "Sir, weren't we here just last episode, even though you say we're in a > totally different system now?" > "Shut up, Wesley." Makes as much sense as any other theory. >>> We know that the saucer sep in AoF occurred at impulse, and we know >>> that the saucer sep in EaF occurred at warp. >> >>But the turn didn't. > > Yes, it did, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. The exact same shot, which is pixel for pixel identical, is not a Warp Turn. Ergo, this shot is not a warp turn. >>> Therefore the scenes, though they look similar, represent different >>> things. >> >>Not similar, exactly identical. > > Albeit in different context. Who care? There's not a pixel different, there's no way to claim there's any difference between the two scenes. >> > We also know how long it takes a ship to drop out of high warp as of >> > EaF, and how long it takes a ship without warp propulsion to drop out >> > of warp, as per "Arena". My points and the canon stand. >> >>We also don't know how long it took between camera angles. There was no >>clock visible on the screen at the time. > > And no indication of missing seconds or the passage of unseen time, either. Your claim that it takes so several seconds (or was it minutes) to slow down is all the evidence I need. > How long did this gap last? Years? Weeks? Days? Hours? May I also > insert "unseen missing time" into Star Wars? :) If it's the only way to make sense of the situation. For instance, how long did Luke train with Yoda before Han, Liea and Chewie were captured? C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 02:37:47 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D4B8CBA.2000002@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: I see dead person, they don't know their dead. Make them go away. -- Our Friend Caffeine . . . . Or Why Johnny Can't Blink -New Slogan for the Coffee Shop/Restaurant that I work at. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 13:11:21 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D4B8CBA.2000002@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>>"Arsenal of Freedom"... the ship was not at warp, and the same shot was > >>>>>used. This does not affect my argument. > >>>> > >>>>Yeah it does. No matter what you say we can always point to that episode > >>>>and say, 'It wasn't at warp in AoF, so it couldn't be at warp in EaF.' > >>>> > >>>>The two shots are identical in every detail. The conclusion drawn from > >>>>them will also be identical in every detail. > >>> > >>>The scenes are not identical... > >> > >>Yes they are. They look identical, cause they are identical. It's the > >>same scene, they just reused the footage. > > > > Scene, not shot. > > The scene is the same, the shots are the same. Out of context. > > >>> unless you want to claim that Minos is just a few light-hours from > >>> Farpoint, > >> > >>I thought they were at high warp. Minos and Farpoint could easily be > >>neighbouring systems. > > > > All this rides on the flawed premise than Star Trek makes sense. This is the premise we have to try to work with to debate. > >>> and that every use of stock footage places the Enterprise in the exact > >>> same location every time. After all, the same exact stars are in > >>> the same exact place. > >> > >>Wouldn't that be a hoot. Small universe or what? > > > > "Sir, weren't we here just last episode, even though you say we're in a > > totally different system now?" > > "Shut up, Wesley." > > Makes as much sense as any other theory. You have got to be kidding. > > >>> We know that the saucer sep in AoF occurred at impulse, and we know > >>> that the saucer sep in EaF occurred at warp. > >> > >>But the turn didn't. > > > > Yes, it did, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. > > The exact same shot, which is pixel for pixel identical, is not a Warp > Turn. Ergo, this shot is not a warp turn. The separation occurred at warp in EaF, and impulse in AoF. Ergo, EaF showed a warp turn, when AoF did not. > >> > We also know how long it takes a ship to drop out of high warp as of > >> > EaF, and how long it takes a ship without warp propulsion to drop out > >> > of warp, as per "Arena". My points and the canon stand. > >> > >>We also don't know how long it took between camera angles. There was no > >>clock visible on the screen at the time. > > > > And no indication of missing seconds or the passage of unseen time, either. > > Your claim that it takes so several seconds (or was it minutes) to slow > down is all the evidence I need. Very dishonest of you, naturally. Also, we do not know how much time it would take for the saucer to slow down, but we know it must have been more than six seconds. > > > How long did this gap last? Years? Weeks? Days? Hours? May I also > > insert "unseen missing time" into Star Wars? :) > > If it's the only way to make sense of the situation. It is not. We know starships can be shown at warp speed without streaking warp stars. We know starships can turn and pivot at warp. There is no logical reason to insert unseen time, but it is what crybaby warsies need to try to disprove an example. But, hey, that's fine. If you want to insert unseen time in situations, then by the same logic, the Death Star sat in orbit of Alderaan for a full year charging its weapon. Darth Maul took months to get to Tatooine. Amidala and Anakin took weeks to travel less than a parsec to Geonosis. What, you don't like those conclusions? There's no evidence for them? Well, hey, you're the one who grabbed the can of worms and started twisting off the top. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 22:11:51 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3D4DA6B1.5050105@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>Yes they are. They look identical, cause they are identical. It's the >>>>same scene, they just reused the footage. >>> >>>Scene, not shot. >> >>The scene is the same, the shots are the same. > > Out of context. The context can not prove your claim. The very sameness will always be used as evidence against it. That and other certain quotes. >>>>>unless you want to claim that Minos is just a few light-hours from >>>>>Farpoint, >>>> >>>>I thought they were at high warp. Minos and Farpoint could easily be >>>>neighbouring systems. >>> >> >> >>All this rides on the flawed premise than Star Trek makes sense. > > This is the premise we have to try to work with to debate. No it isn't. Like I said, Star Trek has habitable planets mer light seconds away from the star they orbit. We have to accept what we see on screen, not change it till it makes sense. We have to assume there's a logical consistency, but that's another matter. >>>>>We know that the saucer sep in AoF occurred at impulse, and we know >>>>>that the saucer sep in EaF occurred at warp. >>>> >>>>But the turn didn't. >>> >>>Yes, it did, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. >> >>The exact same shot, which is pixel for pixel identical, is not a Warp >>Turn. Ergo, this shot is not a warp turn. > > The separation occurred at warp in EaF, and impulse in AoF. Ergo, EaF > showed a warp turn, when AoF did not. They are identical down to the very last pixel. Either they both happened at warp, or they both didn't. >>>And no indication of missing seconds or the passage of unseen time, >>>either. > >>Your claim that it takes so several seconds (or was it minutes) to slow >>down is all the evidence I need. > > Very dishonest of you, naturally. Also, we do not know how much time it > would take for the saucer to slow down, but we know it must have been more > than six seconds. The time gap would be between the time they left (at high warp) and the time they separated. >>>How long did this gap last? Years? Weeks? Days? Hours? May I also >>>insert "unseen missing time" into Star Wars? :) >> >>If it's the only way to make sense of the situation. > > It is not. We know starships can be shown at warp speed without streaking > warp stars. But the 'warp stars' don't appear and reappear without a change in warp status. > We know starships can turn and pivot at warp. We do? We've seen minor course changes, nothing this extreme. > But, hey, that's fine. If you want to insert unseen time in situations, > then by the same logic, the Death Star sat in orbit of Alderaan for a full > year charging its weapon. We were told how long it took, remember, there was a countdown. > Darth Maul took months to get to Tatooine. Only one day past on Tatooine between the time he left and the time he arrived. > Amidala and Anakin took weeks to travel less than a parsec to Geonosis. Sorry, the scheduling of the execution proves that wrong. > What, you don't like those conclusions? There's no evidence for them? > Well, hey, you're the one who grabbed the can of worms and started twisting > off the top. You might want to come up with better examples before you complain. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 15:58:27 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D4DA6B1.5050105@shaw.ca... > No it isn't. Like I said, Star Trek has habitable planets mer light > seconds away from the star they orbit. We have to accept what we see on > screen, not change it till it makes sense. I like this one! -- "Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science, nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as they are might be amenable to their arguments." Darth Wong http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html > C.S.Strowbridge > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 08:16:31 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3D4E346F.1090301@shaw.ca> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>No it isn't. Like I said, Star Trek has habitable planets mer light >>seconds away from the star they orbit. We have to accept what we see on >>screen, not change it till it makes sense. > > I like this one! Thank you, feel free to quote it. Often. Without regards to the situation. In fact, the next time a cop pulls you over for speeding use it. I guarantee you'll get results. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 14:58:39 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D4DA6B1.5050105@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>Yes they are. They look identical, cause they are identical. It's the > >>>>same scene, they just reused the footage. > >>> > >>>Scene, not shot. > >> > >>The scene is the same, the shots are the same. > > > > Out of context. > > The context can not prove your claim. The very sameness will always be > used as evidence against it. Sameness? Of context? WTF? > >>>>>We know that the saucer sep in AoF occurred at impulse, and we know > >>>>>that the saucer sep in EaF occurred at warp. > >>>> > >>>>But the turn didn't. > >>> > >>>Yes, it did, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. > >> > >>The exact same shot, which is pixel for pixel identical, is not a Warp > >>Turn. Ergo, this shot is not a warp turn. > > > > The separation occurred at warp in EaF, and impulse in AoF. Ergo, EaF > > showed a warp turn, when AoF did not. > > They are identical down to the very last pixel. Either they both > happened at warp, or they both didn't. Faulty reasoning. The one does not affect the other... to say otherwise is to claim the knowledge of backstage reuse of stock footage, which you cannot claim in here. > >>>How long did this gap last? Years? Weeks? Days? Hours? May I also > >>>insert "unseen missing time" into Star Wars? :) > >> > >>If it's the only way to make sense of the situation. > > > > It is not. We know starships can be shown at warp speed without streaking > > warp stars. > > But the 'warp stars' don't appear and reappear without a change in warp > status. Yes, they do. EaF shows warp stars on the viewscreen, then the ship passes by the observation point without warp stars, and then warp stars are on the viewscreen again. > > We know starships can turn and pivot at warp. > > We do? We've seen minor course changes, nothing this extreme. You think this is more extreme than a pivot? > > > But, hey, that's fine. If you want to insert unseen time in situations, > > then by the same logic, the Death Star sat in orbit of Alderaan for a full > > year charging its weapon. > > We were told how long it took, remember, there was a countdown. Wrong planet. "You may fire when ready"... then there was 'obviously' a long break. See how easy it is make up unseen time, like you are trying to do with the saucer sep? :) > > > Darth Maul took months to get to Tatooine. > > Only one day past on Tatooine between the time he left and the time he > arrived. Yes, and a Tatooine day is 'clearly' months long, because "it's the only way to make sense of the situation." >8D > > Amidala and Anakin took weeks to travel less than a parsec to Geonosis. > > Sorry, the scheduling of the execution proves that wrong. What scheduling? There's no reference to when they plan to kill anyone, and it gives time for Yoda to collect the army. Obviously, it is "the only way to make sense of the situation." :) > > What, you don't like those conclusions? There's no evidence for them? > > Well, hey, you're the one who grabbed the can of worms and started twisting > > off the top. > > You might want to come up with better examples before you complain. The ones I used work just fine to show the stupidity and desperation of your 'magic unseen time' argument, and how your use of it shows your bias. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 21:27:14 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3D4EEDC7.50209@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>Out of context. >> >>The context can not prove your claim. The very sameness will always be >>used as evidence against it. > > Sameness? Of context? WTF? No, sameness of the scene. The context can not change that. >>>>>>>We know that the saucer sep in AoF occurred at impulse, and we know >>>>>>>that the saucer sep in EaF occurred at warp. >>>>>> >>>>>>But the turn didn't. >>>>> >>>>>Yes, it did, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. >>>> >>>>The exact same shot, which is pixel for pixel identical, is not a Warp >>>>Turn. Ergo, this shot is not a warp turn. >>> >>>The separation occurred at warp in EaF, and impulse in AoF. Ergo, EaF >>>showed a warp turn, when AoF did not. >> >>They are identical down to the very last pixel. Either they both >>happened at warp, or they both didn't. > > Faulty reasoning. The one does not affect the other... to say otherwise is > to claim the knowledge of backstage reuse of stock footage, which you cannot > claim in here. I don't need that knowledge. They are identical, absolutely identical. >>>>>How long did this gap last? Years? Weeks? Days? Hours? May I >>>>>also insert "unseen missing time" into Star Wars? :) >>>> >>>>If it's the only way to make sense of the situation. >>> >>>It is not. We know starships can be shown at warp speed without >>>streaking warp stars. >> >>But the 'warp stars' don't appear and reappear without a change in warp >>status. > > Yes, they do. EaF shows warp stars on the viewscreen, then the ship passes > by the observation point without warp stars, and then warp stars are on the > viewscreen again. And that's been explained. >>>We know starships can turn and pivot at warp. >> >>We do? We've seen minor course changes, nothing this extreme. > > You think this is more extreme than a pivot? I don't believe you've proven anything of the kind. >>>But, hey, that's fine. If you want to insert unseen time in >>>situations, then by the same logic, the Death Star sat in orbit of Alderaan for a >>>full year charging its weapon. >> >>We were told how long it took, remember, there was a countdown. > > Wrong planet. "You may fire when ready"... then there was 'obviously' a > long break. See how easy it is make up unseen time, like you are trying to > do with the saucer sep? :) Sorry, misread the claim. >>>Darth Maul took months to get to Tatooine. >> >>Only one day past on Tatooine between the time he left and the time he >>arrived. > > Yes, and a Tatooine day is 'clearly' months long, Nope. Official evidence states it 26 hours. Or was that 27. I could look it up, but not right now. >>>Amidala and Anakin took weeks to travel less than a parsec to Geonosis. >> >>Sorry, the scheduling of the execution proves that wrong. > > What scheduling? There's no reference In the novel. Sorry. >>>What, you don't like those conclusions? There's no evidence for them? >>>Well, hey, you're the one who grabbed the can of worms and started >>>twisting off the top. >> >>You might want to come up with better examples before you complain. > > The ones I used work just fine Sorry, they don't. Here's how missing time works. In, "The Naked Now" the Enterprise is threatened by a stellar fragment. We don't know how long it traveled to get to the Enterprise (we're given a time frame, but that's only later in the episode.) When the fragment finally arrives it's moving at only a few hundred metres per second. Now we have a few choices. 1.) The star was only a few hundred kilometres away, which would make it only a few kilometres across. Which is a little small for a collapsing star. It would have to already collapsed. 2.) The fragment suddenly slowed down when it came close to the E-D. Why? I don't know. Maybe to increase the dramatic tension. You know how stellar fragments can be. 3.) There was a gap in time from when the fragment was first expelled and we were told how long it would take to hit the E-D. It very similar in this situation. We either say two systems are so close that their gravity should be interfering with each other, or there's some missing time, _or_ there's two places in the Star Trek galaxy where the stars look exactly the same. Take your pick, I don't care which you pick. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 12:40:07 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D4EEDC7.50209@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>Out of context. > >> > >>The context can not prove your claim. The very sameness will always be > >>used as evidence against it. > > > > Sameness? Of context? WTF? > > No, sameness of the scene. The context can not change that. The sameness of the scene cannot change the context. Your argument hinges on the use of stock footage. > > >>>>>>>We know that the saucer sep in AoF occurred at impulse, and we know > >>>>>>>that the saucer sep in EaF occurred at warp. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>But the turn didn't. > >>>>> > >>>>>Yes, it did, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. > >>>> > >>>>The exact same shot, which is pixel for pixel identical, is not a Warp > >>>>Turn. Ergo, this shot is not a warp turn. > >>> > >>>The separation occurred at warp in EaF, and impulse in AoF. Ergo, EaF > >>>showed a warp turn, when AoF did not. > >> > >>They are identical down to the very last pixel. Either they both > >>happened at warp, or they both didn't. > > > > Faulty reasoning. The one does not affect the other... to say otherwise is > > to claim the knowledge of backstage reuse of stock footage, which you cannot > > claim in here. > > I don't need that knowledge. They are identical, absolutely identical. > You claim that stock footage alters the context, which requires that every use of stock footage occur in the exact same place in the universe. Is your argument correct? In a certain way of thinking, it could be considered as such... but that way of thinking is stupid for our purposes. > >>>>>How long did this gap last? Years? Weeks? Days? Hours? May I > >>>>>also insert "unseen missing time" into Star Wars? :) > >>>> > >>>>If it's the only way to make sense of the situation. > >>> > >>>It is not. We know starships can be shown at warp speed without > >>>streaking warp stars. > >> > >>But the 'warp stars' don't appear and reappear without a change in warp > >>status. > > > > Yes, they do. EaF shows warp stars on the viewscreen, then the ship passes > > by the observation point without warp stars, and then warp stars are on the > > viewscreen again. > > And that's been explained. No, it has been ignored. No one has bothered to explain the event, except by proclaiming unseen missing time, which is not necessary or prudent. > > >>>We know starships can turn and pivot at warp. > >> > >>We do? We've seen minor course changes, nothing this extreme. > > > > You think this is more extreme than a pivot? > > I don't believe you've proven anything of the kind. How many times must you be smacked around with the warp two pivot in "Elaan of Troyius" before you accept the fact that it occurred? > > >>>But, hey, that's fine. If you want to insert unseen time in > >>>situations, then by the same logic, the Death Star sat in orbit of Alderaan for a > >>>full year charging its weapon. > >> > >>We were told how long it took, remember, there was a countdown. > > > > Wrong planet. "You may fire when ready"... then there was 'obviously' a > > long break. See how easy it is make up unseen time, like you are trying to > > do with the saucer sep? :) > > Sorry, misread the claim. > > >>>Darth Maul took months to get to Tatooine. > >> > >>Only one day past on Tatooine between the time he left and the time he > >>arrived. > > > > Yes, and a Tatooine day is 'clearly' months long, > > Nope. Official evidence states it 26 hours. Or was that 27. I could look > it up, but not right now. 'Clearly' disproven by canon, which 'clearly' requires more time than this, because it is 'clearly' 'the only way to make sense of the situation'. > > >>>Amidala and Anakin took weeks to travel less than a parsec to Geonosis. > >> > >>Sorry, the scheduling of the execution proves that wrong. > > > > What scheduling? There's no reference > > In the novel. Sorry. And that is? > >>>What, you don't like those conclusions? There's no evidence for them? > >>>Well, hey, you're the one who grabbed the can of worms and started > >>>twisting off the top. > >> > >>You might want to come up with better examples before you complain. > > > > The ones I used work just fine > > Sorry, they don't. Yes, they do. As soon as you open up that can of worms for something you don't like, while trying to pass it off under the guise that it is the only way to make sense of something, anyone can do so. It is a bullshit argument, unless there is a damn good reason for it to be there... the fact that no warp stars were seen during the term is not a damn good reason, because we know starships at warp need not have warp stars, we know that the saucer section could not have dropped from warp in less than six seconds, and we know that starships are capable of incredible maneuvers at warp speed. > > Here's how missing time works. In, "The Naked Now" the Enterprise is > threatened by a stellar fragment. We don't know how long it traveled to > get to the Enterprise (we're given a time frame, but that's only later > in the episode.) When the fragment finally arrives it's moving at only a > few hundred metres per second. Worf reports 14 minutes to impact. > > Now we have a few choices. > > 1.) The star was only a few hundred kilometres away, which would make it > only a few kilometres across. Which is a little small for a collapsing > star. It would have to already collapsed. > > 2.) The fragment suddenly slowed down when it came close to the E-D. > Why? I don't know. Maybe to increase the dramatic tension. You know how > stellar fragments can be. > > 3.) There was a gap in time from when the fragment was first expelled > and we were told how long it would take to hit the E-D. > > It very similar in this situation. No, it isn't. You are comparing a situation with a non-propulsive object to a situation with a starship. We know what starships can do, we know how the warp effects are shown, and this very episode shows us yet another scene of the Enterprise flying by at warp speeds without warp stars. Your choice in reference to the separation is either to accept the fact that it occurred at warp, or clutch at straws and hope for magic from unseen missing time and arguments about stock footage. Your position is terribly sad. > We either say two systems are so close that their gravity should be > interfering with each other, or there's some missing time, _or_ there's > two places in the Star Trek galaxy where the stars look exactly the > same. Two? Hardly. Every single use of stock footage must be adopted by your argument as occurring in the same place... do you have any idea how often stock footage was used? Oh, just every episode or so. > Take your pick, I don't care which you pick. The separation and turn occurred at warp. The stock footage argument and unseen missing time arguments are stupid. Deal with it, or shut the fuck up. I don't care which. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 21:19:23 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3D503D0F.10804@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>>Out of context. >>>> >>>>The context can not prove your claim. The very sameness will always be >>>>used as evidence against it. >>> >>>Sameness? Of context? WTF? >> >>No, sameness of the scene. The context can not change that. > > The sameness of the scene cannot change the context. It doesn't have to. If there were mere similarities you might have an argument. However, the scenes are pixel for pixel identical. Something you can't argue against. > Your argument hinges on the use of stock footage. It is stock footage, that's why it's exactly the same. If it wasn't stock footage, it (probably) wouldn't be exactly the same. You are saying (in effect), 'The only reason they are the same is cause it's stock footage. The two scenes actually represent two different things.' >>>>>>>>>We know that the saucer sep in AoF occurred at impulse, and we know >>>>>>>>>that the saucer sep in EaF occurred at warp. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>But the turn didn't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes, it did, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. >>>>>> >>>>>>The exact same shot, which is pixel for pixel identical, is not a Warp >>>>>>Turn. Ergo, this shot is not a warp turn. >>>>> >>>>>The separation occurred at warp in EaF, and impulse in AoF. Ergo, EaF >>>>>showed a warp turn, when AoF did not. >>>> >>>>They are identical down to the very last pixel. Either they both >>>>happened at warp, or they both didn't. >>> >>>Faulty reasoning. The one does not affect the other... to say >> > otherwise is > >>>to claim the knowledge of backstage reuse of stock footage, which you >> > cannot > >>>claim in here. >> >>I don't need that knowledge. They are identical, absolutely identical. > > You claim that stock footage alters the context, which requires that every > use of stock footage occur in the exact same place in the universe. > > Is your argument correct? In a certain way of thinking, it could be > considered as such... but that way of thinking is stupid for our purposes. Actually, not every part of space is visible in the scene, the ship block parts. So they could take place in two different parts of the galaxy. >>>Yes, they do. EaF shows warp stars on the viewscreen, then the ship >>>passes by the observation point without warp stars, and then warp >>>stars are on the viewscreen again. >> >>And that's been explained. > > No, it has been ignored. I'm talking about the 'warp stars' moron. Try to keep up with the argument. >>>>>We know starships can turn and pivot at warp. >>>> >>>>We do? We've seen minor course changes, nothing this extreme. >>> >>>You think this is more extreme than a pivot? >> >>I don't believe you've proven anything of the kind. > > How many times must you be smacked around with the warp two pivot in "Elaan > of Troyius" before you accept the fact that it occurred? Is that evidence as compelling as the evidence for Warp Strafing? >>>>>Darth Maul took months to get to Tatooine. >>>> >>>>Only one day past on Tatooine between the time he left and the time he >>>>arrived. >>> >>>Yes, and a Tatooine day is 'clearly' months long, >> >>Nope. Official evidence states it 26 hours. Or was that 27. I could look >>it up, but not right now. > > 'Clearly' disproven by canon, which 'clearly' requires more time than this, > because it is 'clearly' 'the only way to make sense of the situation'. Your interpretation of canon is not canon. Official overrides your interpretation. >>>>>Amidala and Anakin took weeks to travel less than a parsec to Geonosis. >>>> >>>>Sorry, the scheduling of the execution proves that wrong. >>> >>>What scheduling? There's no reference >> >>In the novel. Sorry. > > And that is? I don't remember the exact timeframe given, I don't own the novel. >>>>>What, you don't like those conclusions? There's no evidence for them? >>>>>Well, hey, you're the one who grabbed the can of worms and started >>>>>twisting off the top. >>>> >>>>You might want to come up with better examples before you complain. >>> >>>The ones I used work just fine >> >>Sorry, they don't. > > Yes, they do. As soon as you open up that can of worms for something you > don't like, while trying to pass it off under the guise that it is the only > way to make sense of something, anyone can do so. Only if it's the only way to do it. Something you seem to ignore, repeatedly. You can't just stick in missing time for the sake of missing time. > It is a bullshit argument, unless there is a damn good reason for it > to be there... the fact that no warp stars were seen during the term > is not a damn good reason, No, but the Warp Stars - No Warp Stars - Warp Stars is a good reason. > we know that the saucer section could not have dropped from warp in > less than six seconds, We do? > and we know that starships are capable of incredible maneuvers at warp > speed. We do? >>Here's how missing time works. In, "The Naked Now" the Enterprise is >>threatened by a stellar fragment. We don't know how long it traveled to >>get to the Enterprise (we're given a time frame, but that's only later >>in the episode.) When the fragment finally arrives it's moving at only a >>few hundred metres per second. > > Worf reports 14 minutes to impact. Later in the episode. Not as soon as the stellar fragment is ejected. I said that. >>Now we have a few choices. >> >>1.) The star was only a few hundred kilometres away, which would make it >>only a few kilometres across. Which is a little small for a collapsing >>star. It would have to already collapsed. >> >>2.) The fragment suddenly slowed down when it came close to the E-D. >>Why? I don't know. Maybe to increase the dramatic tension. You know how >>stellar fragments can be. >> >>3.) There was a gap in time from when the fragment was first expelled >>and we were told how long it would take to hit the E-D. >> >>It very similar in this situation. > > No, it isn't. You are comparing a situation with a non-propulsive object to > a situation with a starship. Red Herrings. > Your choice in reference to the separation is either to accept the fact that > it occurred at warp, or clutch at straws and hope for magic from unseen > missing time and arguments about stock footage. Or accept the saucer section can slow down in 6 seconds. Or they were slowing down before, during and after the separation. >>We either say two systems are so close that their gravity should be >>interfering with each other, or there's some missing time, _or_ there's >>two places in the Star Trek galaxy where the stars look exactly the >>same. > > Two? Hardly. Every single use of stock footage must be adopted by your > argument as occurring in the same place. Unless the evidence is incomplete enough to not be able to judge. >>Take your pick, I don't care which you pick. > > The separation and turn occurred at warp. The stock footage argument and > unseen missing time arguments are stupid. The 'stock footage argument' is fact. The 'missing time' argument may be a necessary evil. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 16:21:22 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <6Uw49.156423$cm.5730004@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D503D0F.10804@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>>Out of context. > >>>> > >>>>The context can not prove your claim. The very sameness will always be > >>>>used as evidence against it. > >>> > >>>Sameness? Of context? WTF? > >> > >>No, sameness of the scene. The context can not change that. > > > > The sameness of the scene cannot change the context. > > It doesn't have to. If there were mere similarities you might have an > argument. However, the scenes are pixel for pixel identical. Something > you can't argue against. Oh yes I can. I refuse to accept the ridiculous argument that stock footage reuse implies that the ship is always in the same place. It is absolutely useless in this debate, as stupid as the argument that obvious FX errors (like TIEs appearing to fly through the Falcon, or motion control errors that look like huge jumps) dictate true capability. > > > Your argument hinges on the use of stock footage. > > It is stock footage, that's why it's exactly the same. If it wasn't > stock footage, it (probably) wouldn't be exactly the same. > > You are saying (in effect), 'The only reason they are the same is cause > it's stock footage. The two scenes actually represent two different > things.' Yep. > >> > >>I don't need that knowledge. They are identical, absolutely identical. > > > > You claim that stock footage alters the context, which requires that every > > use of stock footage occur in the exact same place in the universe. > > > > Is your argument correct? In a certain way of thinking, it could be > > considered as such... but that way of thinking is stupid for our purposes. > > Actually, not every part of space is visible in the scene, the ship > block parts. So they could take place in two different parts of the galaxy. The exact same stars in the exact same position in the exact same area of the visible sky would refute that. Sorry, you cannot escape from the stupidity of your position that way. > >>>Yes, they do. EaF shows warp stars on the viewscreen, then the ship > >>>passes by the observation point without warp stars, and then warp > >>>stars are on the viewscreen again. > >> > >>And that's been explained. > > > > No, it has been ignored. > > > > I'm talking about the 'warp stars' moron. Try to keep up with the argument. I'm keeping up just fine, even when you run around presenting idiotic ideas. > >>>>>We know starships can turn and pivot at warp. > >>>> > >>>>We do? We've seen minor course changes, nothing this extreme. > >>> > >>>You think this is more extreme than a pivot? > >> > >>I don't believe you've proven anything of the kind. > > > > How many times must you be smacked around with the warp two pivot in "Elaan > > of Troyius" before you accept the fact that it occurred? > > Is that evidence as compelling as the evidence for Warp Strafing? Yes, if not moreso. > >>>>>Darth Maul took months to get to Tatooine. > >>>> > >>>>Only one day past on Tatooine between the time he left and the time he > >>>>arrived. > >>> > >>>Yes, and a Tatooine day is 'clearly' months long, > >> > >>Nope. Official evidence states it 26 hours. Or was that 27. I could look > >>it up, but not right now. > > > > 'Clearly' disproven by canon, which 'clearly' requires more time than this, > > because it is 'clearly' 'the only way to make sense of the situation'. > > Your interpretation of canon is not canon. Official overrides your > interpretation. Then it 'clearly' took more than one day. This is your stupid 'magic unseen time', don't bitch when you don't think it makes sense. > > >>>>>Amidala and Anakin took weeks to travel less than a parsec to Geonosis. > >>>> > >>>>Sorry, the scheduling of the execution proves that wrong. > >>> > >>>What scheduling? There's no reference > >> > >>In the novel. Sorry. > > > > And that is? > > I don't remember the exact timeframe given, I don't own the novel. > > >>>>>What, you don't like those conclusions? There's no evidence for them? > >>>>>Well, hey, you're the one who grabbed the can of worms and started > >>>>>twisting off the top. > >>>> > >>>>You might want to come up with better examples before you complain. > >>> > >>>The ones I used work just fine > >> > >>Sorry, they don't. > > > > Yes, they do. As soon as you open up that can of worms for something you > > don't like, while trying to pass it off under the guise that it is the only > > way to make sense of something, anyone can do so. > > Only if it's the only way to do it. Something you seem to ignore, > repeatedly. You can't just stick in missing time for the sake of missing > time. That is what you are doing! I'm just following your precedent. > > It is a bullshit argument, unless there is a damn good reason for it > > to be there... the fact that no warp stars were seen during the term > > is not a damn good reason, > > No, but the Warp Stars - No Warp Stars - Warp Stars is a good reason. No, it isn't. Warp stars = warp therefore no warp stars = no warp is fallacious. > > we know that the saucer section could not have dropped from warp in > > less than six seconds, > > We do? Yes. > > and we know that starships are capable of incredible maneuvers at warp > > speed. > > We do? Yes. > >>Here's how missing time works. In, "The Naked Now" the Enterprise is > >>threatened by a stellar fragment. We don't know how long it traveled to > >>get to the Enterprise (we're given a time frame, but that's only later > >>in the episode.) When the fragment finally arrives it's moving at only a > >>few hundred metres per second. > > > > Worf reports 14 minutes to impact. > > Later in the episode. Not as soon as the stellar fragment is ejected. I > said that. It's a couple of minutes of screen time later... but, forgive me, that automatically means it was months later, in your world. > >>It very similar in this situation. > > > > No, it isn't. You are comparing a situation with a non-propulsive object to > > a situation with a starship. > > > > Red Herrings. No, facts. I know how much you like to ignore them. > > Your choice in reference to the separation is either to accept the fact that > > it occurred at warp, or clutch at straws and hope for magic from unseen > > missing time and arguments about stock footage. > > Or accept the saucer section can slow down in 6 seconds. Or they were > slowing down before, during and after the separation. Doesn't follow from the episode. Your reinterpretation of canon is not canon. > >>We either say two systems are so close that their gravity should be > >>interfering with each other, or there's some missing time, _or_ there's > >>two places in the Star Trek galaxy where the stars look exactly the > >>same. > > > > Two? Hardly. Every single use of stock footage must be adopted by your > > argument as occurring in the same place. > > Unless the evidence is incomplete enough to not be able to judge. Every single use of stock footage is complete enough, since we can see the stars. Your stupid argument requires that we accept this. Don't bitch about it because you don't like your own stupid idea. > >>Take your pick, I don't care which you pick. > > > > The separation and turn occurred at warp. The stock footage argument and > > unseen missing time arguments are stupid. > > The 'stock footage argument' is fact. The 'missing time' argument may be > a necessary evil. The 'stock footage argument' is useless and wrong in this debate, and if you cannot see why, you are beyond my help. The 'missing time' argument is unnecessary, whether you want to accept your stupid stock footage argument or not. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 20:21:28 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3D52D292.2080101@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>No, sameness of the scene. The context can not change that. >>> >>>The sameness of the scene cannot change the context. >> >>It doesn't have to. If there were mere similarities you might have an >>argument. However, the scenes are pixel for pixel identical. Something >>you can't argue against. > > Oh yes I can. Not if you want to remain within the debating rules of this NG. Something you obviously don't want to do. And that makes debating you a waste of time. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 05:47:18 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D52D292.2080101@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>No, sameness of the scene. The context can not change that. > >>> > >>>The sameness of the scene cannot change the context. > >> > >>It doesn't have to. If there were mere similarities you might have an > >>argument. However, the scenes are pixel for pixel identical. Something > >>you can't argue against. > > > > Oh yes I can. > > > > Not if you want to remain within the debating rules of this NG. > Something you obviously don't want to do. If the debating rules of this NG supported your stupid idea, you're right. The problem you are facing is that your stupid idea violates the spirit of the rules, if not an actual rule itself. > > And that makes debating you a waste of time. Sorry, you'd already won that award with your stupid "stock footage is canon proof they're always in the same place" argument. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:45:48 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3D57E62B.60105@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>>>No, sameness of the scene. The context can not change that. >>>>> >>>>>The sameness of the scene cannot change the context. >>>> >>>>It doesn't have to. If there were mere similarities you might have an >>>>argument. However, the scenes are pixel for pixel identical. Something >>>>you can't argue against. >>> >>>Oh yes I can. >> >> >> >>Not if you want to remain within the debating rules of this NG. >>Something you obviously don't want to do. > > If the debating rules of this NG supported your stupid idea, you're right. > The problem you are facing is that your stupid idea violates the spirit of > the rules, if not an actual rule itself. The rules state you can't ignore evidence if you don't like the consequences. Something you are unwilling to accept. >>And that makes debating you a waste of time. > > Sorry, you'd already won that award with your stupid "stock footage is canon > proof they're always in the same place" argument. I never said that. I gave alternative interpretations. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:21:08 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <88S59.153136$yc3.6590659@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D57E62B.60105@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>>>No, sameness of the scene. The context can not change that. > >>>>> > >>>>>The sameness of the scene cannot change the context. > >>>> > >>>>It doesn't have to. If there were mere similarities you might have an > >>>>argument. However, the scenes are pixel for pixel identical. Something > >>>>you can't argue against. > >>> > >>>Oh yes I can. > >> > >> > >> > >>Not if you want to remain within the debating rules of this NG. > >>Something you obviously don't want to do. > > > > If the debating rules of this NG supported your stupid idea, you're right. > > The problem you are facing is that your stupid idea violates the spirit of > > the rules, if not an actual rule itself. > > The rules state you can't ignore evidence if you don't like the > consequences. Something you are unwilling to accept. And yet, at the same time, you break this for FX gaffes. Inconsistency is the sign of your weak position. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:18:55 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3D581820.4040500@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>The problem you are facing is that your stupid idea violates the spirit >>>of the rules, if not an actual rule itself. >> >>The rules state you can't ignore evidence if you don't like the >>consequences. Something you are unwilling to accept. > > And yet, at the same time, you break this for FX gaffes. Inconsistency is > the sign of your weak position. There is no FX, therefore there can be no FX Gaffes. This is explained in the R&R. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:38:05 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D581820.4040500@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>The problem you are facing is that your stupid idea violates the spirit > >>>of the rules, if not an actual rule itself. > >> > >>The rules state you can't ignore evidence if you don't like the > >>consequences. Something you are unwilling to accept. > > > > And yet, at the same time, you break this for FX gaffes. Inconsistency is > > the sign of your weak position. > > There is no FX, therefore there can be no FX Gaffes. This is explained > in the R&R. > > C.S.Strowbridge > P.S. due to his web page folks have uncovered that Duck Stork is none other then Guardian 2000. That is all. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:32:16 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3D584573.6020902@shaw.ca> -------- Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>And yet, at the same time, you break this for FX gaffes. Inconsistency is >>>the sign of your weak position. >> >>There is no FX, therefore there can be no FX Gaffes. This is explained >>in the R&R. > > P.S. due to his web page folks have uncovered that Duck Stork is none other then > Guardian 2000. That is all. Yeah, I heard. I wonder how long it will take before his imaginary assassin finds him this time. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:27:25 -0400 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <3D58607D.613D5309@daltonator.net> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>And yet, at the same time, you break this for FX gaffes. Inconsistency is > >>>the sign of your weak position. > >> > >>There is no FX, therefore there can be no FX Gaffes. This is explained > >>in the R&R. > > > > P.S. due to his web page folks have uncovered that Duck Stork is none other then > > Guardian 2000. That is all. > > Yeah, I heard. I wonder how long it will take before his imaginary > assassin finds him this time. > Or some sweet young thing catches his eye. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "...we never burned and tortured and ripped one another apart and called it morality." --Guards! Guards!, Terry Pratchett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 16:17:16 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote > > http://gallery.passion4art.com/members/spankythedolphin/baldyani.gif > Didn't someone already prove that that same shot was used for a non-warp > turn later in the series. Yup. > If they look identical there's no reason to not believe they are identical. No, that would require DarkStar to admit he's wrong. -- "Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science, nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as they are might be amenable to their arguments." Darth Wong http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:07:15 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ukjgf06q98tmf8@corp.supernews.com... > > > If they look identical there's no reason to not believe they are > identical. > > No, that would require DarkStar to admit he's wrong. > No, it would require me to ignore canon fact, but you've got the market cornered on that one ... so I'll just have to keep accepting canon fact. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 23:12:14 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > > No, that would require DarkStar to admit he's wrong. > No, it would require me to ignore canon fact, Which you are, since the stardrive section was NOT AT WARP when it made the turn. -- "Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science, nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as they are might be amenable to their arguments." Darth Wong http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 06:26:31 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ukesl2olprrbde@corp.supernews.com... > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote > > > The simple fact is that your argument is contrary to canon in numerous > ways. > > The simple fact is, you ignore clear canon visual evidence which shows that > the stardrive is NOT AT WARP when it made its turn. Concession Accepted. Your claim rests on the following argument: 1. On Star Trek: The Next Generation, starships and objects are capable of travelling faster than light. 2. We are able to see starships travelling faster at light (despite the inherent physics problems this presents) ... this is represented by the ship travelling through a field of moving "stars" which show an interesing prismatic effect. 3. If there are no "warp stars", there is no warp speed. 4. In the scene after the starship separation, there are no "warp stars". Therefore, there is no warp speed in that scene. The argument sounds okay if you don't think about it too hard, or don't actually examine whether or not the premises are true. When you do, you realize that the argument is nothing more than a pleasing sophistry that Poe is trying to slip past you. As I have demonstrated, the middle premises of the argument are faulty... we see warp speed without warp stars in certain situations (i.e. a stationary observation point). "Well," warsies say, "that just means that the ship was not at warp at the time you claim it was." Wrong. The ship was engaging in what Picard referred to as "maximum acceleration". She turned from the Q barrier, went to warp, and evidence of warp speeds was shown on the bridge viewscreen. We then cut to a scene of the Enterprise-D passing (as seen from a stationary observation point), with the Q fireball passing a moment later. There are no warp stars. Next, we see the viewscreen again... the ship is shown at warp with warp stars, and Worf reads off the speed. Moments later, Picard orders "Continue accelerating". At no point did the ship stop accelerating at warp speeds during the time period the warsies claim. Next, I have shown that the stardrive section required six seconds to drop out of warp by reversing engines. The saucer, without warp engines to reverse, would require at least this amount of time. Canon examples of warp-driven ships which have lost warp propulsion while in warp flight would confirm this, and this is more than applicable to a saucer which has lost its warp drive section. However, according to the warsie argument, it only took 1/15 of a second for both sections to drop out of warp simultaneously. Further, the warsie argument requires that the scene which demonstrates warp speed without warp stars be reinterpreted as a quick drop from and equally quick return to maximum warp speed. Showing warp speed without streaking warp stars is a convention in Trek, from TOS to TNG. Ignoring this and other related canon facts leads to arguments as futile and foolish as Wayne's ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 16:34:38 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:rw429.41644$cm.1494701@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > Your claim rests on the following argument: [Snip post padding bullshit; getting to the point] > 2. We are able to see starships travelling faster at light Wrong. We are able to see starships traveling FASTER than light. And "traveling" has only one "l" [Snip post padding bullshit; getting to the point] > 3. If there are no "warp stars", there is no warp speed. > 4. In the scene after the starship separation, there are no "warp stars". > Therefore, there is no warp speed in that scene. > The argument sounds okay if you don't think about it too hard, This argument is perfectly supported by canon. Concession Accepted. > or don't actually examine whether or not the premises are true. That should be "whether or not the premise is true" > When you do, you > realize that the argument is nothing more than a pleasing sophistry that Poe > is trying to slip past you. No, its actual canon evidence you are unwilling to accept, and want to again, take us into your own deluded world and its rules. Sorry, won't happen. > As I have demonstrated, the middle premises of the argument are faulty... That should be "the middle premise of the argument is faulty... " And all you've demonstrated is the inability to accept the canon; that the the stardrive section was NOT AT WARP when it made its turn. Concession Accepted. -- "Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science, nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as they are might be amenable to their arguments." Darth Wong http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:13:47 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: <%cy29.32285$P8.956327@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ukjhcfmb4kvp80@corp.supernews.com... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:rw429.41644$cm.1494701@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > Your claim rests on the following argument: > > [Snip post padding bullshit; getting to the point] > > > 2. We are able to see starships travelling faster at light > > Wrong. We are able to see starships traveling FASTER than light. And > "traveling" has only one "l" Oh, a typo! The shame! All my arguments are now _thoroughly disproven_ because I have made a typo!! Dammit! But, I suppose we are even, given that you assert one of two possible spellings for travelling as the only one: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=travelling > > [Snip post padding bullshit; getting to the point] > > > 3. If there are no "warp stars", there is no warp speed. > > 4. In the scene after the starship separation, there are no "warp stars". > > Therefore, there is no warp speed in that scene. > > > The argument sounds okay if you don't think about it too hard, > > This argument is perfectly supported by canon. Concession Accepted. So, let me get this straight: Warp stars = warp speed No warp stars = no warp speed This is your argument? (Even though we see no warp stars = warp speed, on specific repeated occasions?) > > > or don't actually examine whether or not the premises are true. > > That should be "whether or not the premise is true" No, it was 'premises', since #2 was incomplete and #3 is wrong. > > > When you do, you > > realize that the argument is nothing more than a pleasing sophistry that > Poe > > is trying to slip past you. > > No, its actual canon evidence you are unwilling to accept, and want to > again, take us into your own deluded world and its rules. Sorry, won't > happen. You accuse me of your error ... you refuse to accept the canon evidence of warp speed without warp stars, the time required to drop out of warp with reverse engines, and so on. > > > As I have demonstrated, the middle premises of the argument are faulty... > > That should be "the middle premise of the argument is faulty... " No, because #2 and #3 are faulty. There is no middle premise out of four premises. > And all you've demonstrated is the inability to accept the canon; that the > the stardrive section was NOT AT WARP when it made its turn. Concession > Accepted. Keep telling yourself that lie, Poe ... you might even believe it one day. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 23:14:45 -0700 Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > > > 2. We are able to see starships travelling faster at light > > > > Wrong. We are able to see starships traveling FASTER than light. And > > "traveling" has only one "l" > Oh, a typo! The shame! All my arguments are now _thoroughly disproven_ > because I have made a typo!! Dammit! Pot........are you black? And all you've demonstrated is the inability to accept the canon; that the the stardrive section was NOT AT WARP when it made its turn. Concession Accepted. -- "Morons like Darkstar make up imaginary observations, mutilate science, nitpick unrelentingly, commit all manner of ad hominem fallacies, etc. They are only "successful" to the extent that people who are just as stupid as they are might be amenable to their arguments." Darth Wong http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 06:47:15 GMT Subject: Re: Proving BaldStar Wrong -ATTN: BOYD Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:ukmt6nsf3qj0b3@corp.supernews.com... > "DarkStar" wrote > And all you've demonstrated is the inability to accept the canon; that the > the stardrive section was NOT AT WARP when it made its turn. Concession > Accepted. So, let me get this straight: Warp stars = warp speed No warp stars = no warp speed This is your argument? (Even though we see no warp stars = warp speed, on specific repeated occasions?)