---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:38:41 -0400 Subject: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- 1) The classical model (DS inputs 1e38J) is wrong because of the ring effect. 2) Some previously unheard of method never described not even by me is responsible for Alderaan being destroyed and it requires less energy. 1) Show any proof that the rings mean that the DS inputed less than 1e38 J 2) Provide a method, show how it is reasonable, and fis the evidence better than the classical method, then shows that it has less energy consumption neccessary. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:46:21 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agt5j2$oal2l$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > 1) The classical model (DS inputs 1e38J) is wrong because of the ring > effect. > 2) Some previously unheard of method never described not even by me is > responsible for Alderaan being destroyed and it requires less energy. > > > 1) Show any proof that the rings mean that the DS inputed less than 1e38 J > 2) Provide a method, show how it is reasonable, and fis the evidence better > than the classical method, then shows that it has less energy consumption > neccessary. Been there, done that. Why do you insist on making new threads with strawman variations of what I say? And why do you act as if I have not replied? Very dishonest of you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:32:42 -0400 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:xXoY8.145170$Im2.7171905@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:agt5j2$oal2l$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > 1) The classical model (DS inputs 1e38J) is wrong because of the ring > > effect. > > 2) Some previously unheard of method never described not even by me is > > responsible for Alderaan being destroyed and it requires less energy. > > > > > > 1) Show any proof that the rings mean that the DS inputed less than 1e38 J > > 2) Provide a method, show how it is reasonable, and fis the evidence > better > > than the classical method, then shows that it has less energy consumption > > neccessary. > > > Been there, done that. Why do you insist on making new threads with > strawman variations of what I say? And why do you act as if I have not > replied? Very dishonest of you. > Eplain how they are strawmen...you have claimed that something other thatn the DS inputing 1e38J to Alderaan occured. If you accept that the DS1 produced enough energy to acheive that event we have no quarrel. Secondly you have claimed that soem chain-reaction like event occured which reduced the total energy content neccessary. I am challenging you to come up with a mechanistic explanation which you have failed to provide (at least one that isn't fraught with more holes than a forty year old hobo's udnerwear) and I am also challenging you to show how the rings demonstrate that the DS did not ad 1e38J to the planet Alderaan. The later you have failed to do simply stating that it isn't what would happen yet if we follow your canon poliocy then the nature of the SL beam is completely unknown and it could be a natural side effect of its actions. Anyway you have shown no proof to dislodge the classic theory and you have not provided a better alternate explanation. As to why I'm putting it in a new thread...the old one was approaching the pint where I was getting "can't post" errors so I'm starting a new top-level thread with attempts on my part to boil the discussion back down to its basics so as to reaquaint the outsiders who can't follow a 150 post hiccup a review of the situation to date. If you want to claim my statements are strawmen of yours then restate your position and defend much like I have done with my position a dozen times over. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 04:57:25 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agtfpc$nf140$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:xXoY8.145170$Im2.7171905@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:agt5j2$oal2l$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > 1) The classical model (DS inputs 1e38J) is wrong because of the ring > > > effect. > > > 2) Some previously unheard of method never described not even by me is > > > responsible for Alderaan being destroyed and it requires less energy. > > > > > > > > > 1) Show any proof that the rings mean that the DS inputed less than 1e38 > J > > > 2) Provide a method, show how it is reasonable, and fis the evidence > > better > > > than the classical method, then shows that it has less energy > consumption > > > neccessary. > > > > > > Been there, done that. Why do you insist on making new threads with > > strawman variations of what I say? And why do you act as if I have not > > replied? Very dishonest of you. > > > > Eplain how they are strawmen...you have claimed that something other thatn > the DS inputing 1e38J to Alderaan occured. If you accept that the DS1 > produced enough energy to acheive that event we have no quarrel. Secondly > you have claimed that soem chain-reaction like event occured which reduced > the total energy content neccessary. No, moron. I never claimed that the total energy content of the event was reduced. > I am challenging you to come up with a mechanistic explanation which you > have failed to provide (at least one that isn't fraught with more holes than > a forty year old hobo's udnerwear) You stupid little bastard, you've just spent the past several days on the "Federation can't win" thread pretending I have never given you a reply, I have shown you your own lie, and I have pointed you in the direction of the post. Shut up and go away. Sticking your fingers in your ears and mashing your eyes shut doesn't make a powerful argument, contrary to your opinion. I expect a certain level of intelligence out of those I debate. Please try to meet that level. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 01:12:51 -0400 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:VCsY8.201898$vq.10933313@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:agtfpc$nf140$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:xXoY8.145170$Im2.7171905@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:agt5j2$oal2l$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > 1) The classical model (DS inputs 1e38J) is wrong because of the ring > > > > effect. > > > > 2) Some previously unheard of method never described not even by me is > > > > responsible for Alderaan being destroyed and it requires less energy. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Show any proof that the rings mean that the DS inputed less than > 1e38 > > J > > > > 2) Provide a method, show how it is reasonable, and fis the evidence > > > better > > > > than the classical method, then shows that it has less energy > > consumption > > > > neccessary. > > > > > > > > > Been there, done that. Why do you insist on making new threads with > > > strawman variations of what I say? And why do you act as if I have not > > > replied? Very dishonest of you. > > > > > > > Eplain how they are strawmen...you have claimed that something other thatn > > the DS inputing 1e38J to Alderaan occured. If you accept that the DS1 > > produced enough energy to acheive that event we have no quarrel. Secondly > > you have claimed that soem chain-reaction like event occured which reduced > > the total energy content neccessary. > > No, moron. I never claimed that the total energy content of the event was > reduced. You've claimed that the DS did not input 1e38 J, I'm sorry if my wording doesn't fit your exact notion of what the case should be (though since you can't get pronoun-antecedent agreement right perhaps I ned to do things a bit more blutnly in the future). > > I am challenging you to come up with a mechanistic explanation which you > > have failed to provide (at least one that isn't fraught with more holes > than > > a forty year old hobo's udnerwear) > > You stupid little bastard, you've just spent the past several days on the > "Federation can't win" thread pretending I have never given you a reply, I > have shown you your own lie, and I have pointed you in the direction of the > post. Shut up and go away. Sticking your fingers in your ears and > mashing your eyes shut doesn't make a powerful argument, contrary to your > opinion. > You have repeatedly said "its elsewhere in the thred." Never have you provided me with a message ID, a news: link or anything else that would point me towards your suppossed original theory. Contrary to the idea that denizens read everything I have friends and a life so I don't, I read what is wihtin my sub-thread and even then if it branches way far away from my last post I don't have the time or inclination to follow a 30 post diversion from where the debate was when i left it twenty hours before. In other words provide a direct reference or shut up because you have NEVER done that. its a simple fuckin reqest, provide me a link, how hard is that? Can you do that? Provide a simple link? You did it when you tried to show I had "lied" *snort* to you but you couldn't do it in response to my queries? > I expect a certain level of intelligence out of those I debate. Please try > to meet that level. > I've shown all the intelligence I need to over the last two years, either you debate me and do so honestly showing proof of your assertions or go somewhere else. While at times my grammer has been lacking I have provided concrete evidence to support my propositions wheras you continually refused to even provide me a link to one of your posts detailing a theory of yours so that I could double check it. In other words put up or shut up. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 05:43:36 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agtll6$oma91$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > You have repeatedly said "its elsewhere in the thred." Never have you > provided me with a message ID, a news: link or anything else that > would point me towards your suppossed original theory. You responded in the same subthread, dumbass. I already told you that twice. But, I'll be kind to you for a moment longer: http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31971 Yes, I know that's on Spacebattles, but it's the same thing I posted here, with a second post detailing the replies made up to that point. > > > I expect a certain level of intelligence out of those I debate. Please > try > > to meet that level. > > > > I've shown all the intelligence I need to over the last two years, either > you debate me and do so honestly showing proof of your assertions or go > somewhere else. While at times my grammer has been lacking I have provided > concrete evidence to support my propositions wheras you continually refused > to even provide me a link to one of your posts detailing a theory of yours > so that I could double check it. In other words put up or shut up. Well, you only misspelled "whereas" this time, and your grammar was tolerable. You've earned a reprieve. The ideas you type out are still lacking, but no worse than many of your comrades, so good work. It's a start. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:51:09 +1200 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- snip > > Well, you only misspelled "whereas" this time, and your grammar was > tolerable. You've earned a reprieve. The ideas you type out are still > lacking, but no worse than many of your comrades, so good work. It's a > start. "earned a repreive" ? a repreive from what? Contrary to what you might like to think, if you do actually think, you are not in any way smarter than others here, . That you can produce stuff like above tells me that you have been bitten by a troll. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:01:15 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <%sBY8.210234$vq.11245842@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:agu9gs$od0a9$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > snip > > > > Well, you only misspelled "whereas" this time, and your grammar was > > tolerable. You've earned a reprieve. The ideas you type out are still > > lacking, but no worse than many of your comrades, so good work. It's a > > start. > > "earned a repreive" ? a repreive from what? > Contrary to what you might like to think, if you do actually think, you are > not in any way smarter than others here, . That you can produce stuff like > above tells me that you have been bitten by a troll. Cmdrwilkens' bad grammar, spelling, and reasoning were giving me headaches and causing my gray matter to drip out of my ears. The reprieve he earned was that I didn't put him in my killfilter. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:03:31 +1200 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:%sBY8.210234$vq.11245842@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:agu9gs$od0a9$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > snip > > > > > > Well, you only misspelled "whereas" this time, and your grammar was > > > tolerable. You've earned a reprieve. The ideas you type out are > still > > > lacking, but no worse than many of your comrades, so good work. It's a > > > start. > > > > "earned a repreive" ? a repreive from what? > > Contrary to what you might like to think, if you do actually think, you > are > > not in any way smarter than others here, . That you can produce stuff like > > above tells me that you have been bitten by a troll. > > Cmdrwilkens' bad grammar, spelling, and reasoning were giving me headaches > and causing my gray matter to drip out of my ears. That you dont understand is not any indication of fault on his part. The reprieve he earned > was that I didn't put him in my killfilter. Oh, I am sure the thought had him shivering in his boots. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:16:16 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:ah0d1n$ou0vj$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:%sBY8.210234$vq.11245842@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:agu9gs$od0a9$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > snip > > > > > > > > Well, you only misspelled "whereas" this time, and your grammar was > > > > tolerable. You've earned a reprieve. The ideas you type out are > > still > > > > lacking, but no worse than many of your comrades, so good work. It's > a > > > > start. > > > > > > "earned a repreive" ? a repreive from what? > > > Contrary to what you might like to think, if you do actually think, you > > are > > > not in any way smarter than others here, . That you can produce stuff > like > > > above tells me that you have been bitten by a troll. > > > > Cmdrwilkens' bad grammar, spelling, and reasoning were giving me headaches > > and causing my gray matter to drip out of my ears. > > That you dont understand is not any indication of fault on his part. The fact that it required effort was. > The reprieve he earned > > was that I didn't put him in my killfilter. > > Oh, I am sure the thought had him shivering in his boots. Well, it obviously upset him. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "His Divine Shadow" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:54:47 +0300 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:AvRY8.171477$Im2.8389988@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:ah0d1n$ou0vj$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:%sBY8.210234$vq.11245842@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > > news:agu9gs$od0a9$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > snip > > > > > > > > > > Well, you only misspelled "whereas" this time, and your grammar was > > > > > tolerable. You've earned a reprieve. The ideas you type out are > > > still > > > > > lacking, but no worse than many of your comrades, so good work. > It's > > a > > > > > start. > > > > > > > > "earned a repreive" ? a repreive from what? > > > > Contrary to what you might like to think, if you do actually think, > you > > > are > > > > not in any way smarter than others here, . That you can produce stuff > > like > > > > above tells me that you have been bitten by a troll. > > > > > > Cmdrwilkens' bad grammar, spelling, and reasoning were giving me > headaches > > > and causing my gray matter to drip out of my ears. > > > > That you dont understand is not any indication of fault on his part. > > The fact that it required effort was. > > > The reprieve he earned > > > was that I didn't put him in my killfilter. > > > > Oh, I am sure the thought had him shivering in his boots. > > Well, it obviously upset him. Being blamed because you are too stupid to understand things 10 year olds would have no problems with would upset anyone. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:30:30 +1200 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:AvRY8.171477$Im2.8389988@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:ah0d1n$ou0vj$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:%sBY8.210234$vq.11245842@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > > news:agu9gs$od0a9$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > snip > > > > > > > > > > Well, you only misspelled "whereas" this time, and your grammar was > > > > > tolerable. You've earned a reprieve. The ideas you type out are > > > still > > > > > lacking, but no worse than many of your comrades, so good work. > It's > > a > > > > > start. > > > > > > > > "earned a repreive" ? a repreive from what? > > > > Contrary to what you might like to think, if you do actually think, > you > > > are > > > > not in any way smarter than others here, . That you can produce stuff > > like > > > > above tells me that you have been bitten by a troll. > > > > > > Cmdrwilkens' bad grammar, spelling, and reasoning were giving me > headaches > > > and causing my gray matter to drip out of my ears. > > > > That you dont understand is not any indication of fault on his part. > > The fact that it required effort was. Well I always suspected that for you to understand anything beyond your own delusions would require extra special effort, and you have proved me right. > > The reprieve he earned > > > was that I didn't put him in my killfilter. > > > > Oh, I am sure the thought had him shivering in his boots. > > Well, it obviously upset him. Upset him? fuck off, He is USMCR, it will take a bit more than your idiocy to upset him, and on usenet noless ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 20:13:07 -0400 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:AvRY8.171477$Im2.8389988@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:ah0d1n$ou0vj$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:%sBY8.210234$vq.11245842@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > The reprieve he earned > > > was that I didn't put him in my killfilter. > > > > Oh, I am sure the thought had him shivering in his boots. > > Well, it obviously upset him. > Upset me? Sure, it peeved me that you would dare blame your idiocy on me but that'd be about it. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 02:29:22 -0400 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:citY8.202042$vq.10967699@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:agtll6$oma91$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > You have repeatedly said "its elsewhere in the thred." Never have you > > provided me with a message ID, a news: link or anything else that > > would point me towards your suppossed original theory. > > You responded in the same subthread, dumbass. I already told you that > twice. > > But, I'll be kind to you for a moment longer: > http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31971 > > Yes, I know that's on Spacebattles, but it's the same thing I posted here, > with a second post detailing the replies made up to that point. You know when I saw that I thought you were joking. the degree to which you butcher quotes, misrepresent evidence, and attempt to apply mechanisms which have no similairities at all with the event in question made me swear that you might actually be trying to point out a different theory. > > > > > I expect a certain level of intelligence out of those I debate. Please > > try > > > to meet that level. > > > > > > > I've shown all the intelligence I need to over the last two years, either > > you debate me and do so honestly showing proof of your assertions or go > > somewhere else. While at times my grammer has been lacking I have provided > > concrete evidence to support my propositions wheras you continually > refused > > to even provide me a link to one of your posts detailing a theory of yours > > so that I could double check it. In other words put up or shut up. > > Well, you only misspelled "whereas" this time, and your grammar was > tolerable. You've earned a reprieve. The ideas you type out are still > lacking, but no worse than many of your comrades, so good work. It's a > start. Oh yeah a reprieve from the most arrogant "my opinion overrules that of officials at LucasFilm" ass we've seen since Wes "my opinion is canon" Hutchings. For the record 1) Mass-energy conversion implies how much energy the DS itself would need to convert, the impact of a hybrid EM/plasma weapon penetrating and detonating inside a planet has no similairrities with impact formation of the moon, and there is less connection with this deivce and the Genisis Device than there is between muyself and Anna Kournikova. As to your overall theory, you start with a flawed premise, that the rings automatically invalidate the classical argument, and procede to compare the action to those in another universe whose canon has no direct bearing on actions within the SW unvierse. Your entire hypothesis requires us to throw the classical model out the window WITHOUT proof that it is inadequate to explain the facts then makes use of non-canon (and non-scientific data) to try and create its operating mechanism. I'd say bullshit but that'd be too lite of a word. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 00:13:08 -0700 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <_HPY8.36$fE7.8354906@news.inreach.com> -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ah0egk$osblu$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:citY8.202042$vq.10967699@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:agtll6$oma91$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > You have repeatedly said "its elsewhere in the thred." Never have you > > > provided me with a message ID, a news: link or anything else that > > > would point me towards your suppossed original theory. > > > > You responded in the same subthread, dumbass. I already told you that > > twice. > > > > But, I'll be kind to you for a moment longer: > > http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31971 > > > > Yes, I know that's on Spacebattles, but it's the same thing I posted here, > > with a second post detailing the replies made up to that point. > > You know when I saw that I thought you were joking. the degree to which you > butcher quotes, misrepresent evidence, and attempt to apply mechanisms which > have no similairities at all with the event in question made me swear that > you might actually be trying to point out a different theory. > > > > > > > > > I expect a certain level of intelligence out of those I debate. > Please > > > try > > > > to meet that level. > > > > > > > > > > I've shown all the intelligence I need to over the last two years, > either > > > you debate me and do so honestly showing proof of your assertions or go > > > somewhere else. While at times my grammer has been lacking I have > provided > > > concrete evidence to support my propositions wheras you continually > > refused > > > to even provide me a link to one of your posts detailing a theory of > yours > > > so that I could double check it. In other words put up or shut up. > > > > Well, you only misspelled "whereas" this time, and your grammar was > > tolerable. You've earned a reprieve. The ideas you type out are still > > lacking, but no worse than many of your comrades, so good work. It's a > > start. > > > Oh yeah a reprieve from the most arrogant "my opinion overrules that of > officials at LucasFilm" ass we've seen since Wes "my opinion is canon" > Hutchings. For the record 1) Mass-energy conversion implies how much energy > the DS itself would need to convert, the impact of a hybrid EM/plasma weapon > penetrating and detonating inside a planet has no similairrities with impact > formation of the moon, and there is less connection with this deivce and > the Genisis Device than there is between muyself and Anna Kournikova. > > > As to your overall theory, you start with a flawed premise, that the rings > automatically invalidate the classical argument, and procede to compare the > action to those in another universe whose canon has no direct bearing on > actions within the SW unvierse. Your entire hypothesis requires us to throw > the classical model out the window WITHOUT proof that it is inadequate to > explain the facts then makes use of non-canon (and non-scientific data) to > try and create its operating mechanism. I'd say bullshit but that'd be too > lite of a word. > > > LCrpl, the excrement that troll has come up with would make any self respecting Bovine or Swine vomit. Hell I don't know if it qualifies as excrement, more like the decomposing liquid mass of unknown origin from the back of a fridge that hasn't been cleaned in decades, and hasn't had electricity running to it in years, occupying the front porch of the family of the poorest kid in school. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:21:09 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <9ARY8.107906$iB1.6341307@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ah0egk$osblu$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > Well, you only misspelled "whereas" this time, and your grammar was > > tolerable. You've earned a reprieve. The ideas you type out are still > > lacking, but no worse than many of your comrades, so good work. It's a > > start. > > > Oh yeah a reprieve from the most arrogant "my opinion overrules that of > officials at LucasFilm" ass we've seen since Wes "my opinion is canon" > Hutchings. For the record 1) Mass-energy conversion implies how much energy > the DS itself would need to convert Luke was talking about weapons. Why else would he comment on the fact that theoretically, no weapon could harm the dense stone of the temple moments before pointing out the mass-energy tidbit? > and there is less connection with this deivce and > the Genisis Device than there is between muyself and Anna Kournikova. I never claimed a direct connection with Genesis. > As to your overall theory, you start with a flawed premise, that the rings > automatically invalidate the classical argument, No, not automatically, but the idea of direct energy transfer doing everything all by itself is a bogus assumption. > and procede to compare the > action to those in another universe whose canon has no direct bearing on > actions within the SW unvierse. Red herring. >Your entire hypothesis requires us to throw > the classical model out the window WITHOUT proof that it is inadequate to > explain the facts then makes use of non-canon (and non-scientific data) to > try and create its operating mechanism. DET doesn't work. I looked at the canon evidence of Alderaan for something that would, and based my conclusions on what we saw. DET requires that this evidence be ignored, or chalked up to "mystery". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "His Divine Shadow" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:55:43 +0300 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:9ARY8.107906$iB1.6341307@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:ah0egk$osblu$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > Well, you only misspelled "whereas" this time, and your grammar was > > > tolerable. You've earned a reprieve. The ideas you type out are > still > > > lacking, but no worse than many of your comrades, so good work. It's a > > > start. > > > > > > Oh yeah a reprieve from the most arrogant "my opinion overrules that of > > officials at LucasFilm" ass we've seen since Wes "my opinion is canon" > > Hutchings. For the record 1) Mass-energy conversion implies how much > energy > > the DS itself would need to convert > > Luke was talking about weapons. Why else would he comment on the fact that > theoretically, no weapon could harm the dense stone of the temple moments > before pointing out the mass-energy tidbit? > > > and there is less connection with this deivce and > > the Genisis Device than there is between muyself and Anna Kournikova. > > I never claimed a direct connection with Genesis. > > > As to your overall theory, you start with a flawed premise, that the rings > > automatically invalidate the classical argument, > > No, not automatically, but the idea of direct energy transfer doing > everything all by itself is a bogus assumption. > > > and procede to compare the > > action to those in another universe whose canon has no direct bearing on > > actions within the SW unvierse. > > Red herring. > > >Your entire hypothesis requires us to throw > > the classical model out the window WITHOUT proof that it is inadequate to > > explain the facts then makes use of non-canon (and non-scientific data) to > > try and create its operating mechanism. > > DET doesn't work. I looked at the canon evidence of Alderaan for something > that would, and based my conclusions on what we saw. Nope, you just got trashed and kept on repeating that, not our fault your too dumb to see it. > DET requires that this evidence be ignored, or chalked up to "mystery". Nope ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:56:57 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "His Divine Shadow" wrote in message news:d5SY8.103$sn5.4011@read2.inet.fi... > > > DET requires that this evidence be ignored, or chalked up to "mystery". > > Nope Your god Wong sure didn't know what they were. What, are you smarter than him now? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 16 Jul 2002 19:50:24 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <20020716155024.02188.00000721@mb-fs.aol.com> -------- >DET doesn't work. I looked at the canon evidence of Alderaan for something >that would, and based my conclusions on what we saw. > >DET requires that this evidence be ignored, or chalked up to "mystery". > DET requires nothng of the sort if you accept the fact that the death star is a really big gun that fires a 1E22 megaton plasma/energy blast at a planet, the effects you describe are from the planetary sheild, closeup shots of Alderon show the same effect you get from ship shield being shot, its just a larger scale 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: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:19:56 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Setesh" wrote in message news:20020716155024.02188.00000721@mb-fs.aol.com... > >DET doesn't work. I looked at the canon evidence of Alderaan for something > >that would, and based my conclusions on what we saw. > > > >DET requires that this evidence be ignored, or chalked up to "mystery". > > > > DET requires nothng of the sort if you accept the fact that the death star is a > really big gun that fires a 1E22 megaton plasma/energy blast at a planet, the > effects you describe are from the planetary sheild, closeup shots of Alderon > show the same effect you get from ship shield being shot, its just a larger > scale 1. 1e22? Where is that from? 2. Plasma won't help. 3. Blaming it on the shield doesn't help. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 17 Jul 2002 20:47:21 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <20020717164721.10380.00000117@mb-bg.aol.com> -------- >1. 1e22? Where is that from? transfer minimum energy from joules to megatons (1E17megatons) add a little extra for the shields 1E22 megatons, I belive Wong has the calc's on his site but I'm unsure I don't hang out there. >2. Plasma won't help. I'm not saying it would but this is what it's composed of >3. Blaming it on the shield doesn't help. explained but before you cry 'no proof shield was up' why the hell wouldn't it be up, they have to know by now Leia's been caught (like they'd believe the all aboard killed story) the empire will be coming for them (or at least Bail) since they don't have the weapons to fight the empire they would raise the shield and call the rebels for help. If a space station the size of a moon dropped out of hyperspace and its transmitting an imperial IFF, you wouldn't raise the shields? 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: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:55:41 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Setesh" wrote in message news:20020717164721.10380.00000117@mb-bg.aol.com... > >1. 1e22? Where is that from? > > transfer minimum energy from joules to megatons (1E17megatons) add a little > extra for the shields 1E22 megatons, I belive Wong has the calc's on his site > but I'm unsure I don't hang out there. 2.4e22 megatons, actually, assuming 1e38J. > >3. Blaming it on the shield doesn't help. > > explained but before you cry 'no proof shield was up' why the hell wouldn't it > be up, they have to know by now Leia's been caught (like they'd believe the all > aboard killed story) the empire will be coming for them (or at least Bail) > since they don't have the weapons to fight the empire they would raise the > shield and call the rebels for help. If a space station the size of a moon > dropped out of hyperspace and its transmitting an imperial IFF, you wouldn't > raise the shields? Your ideas above are based on several assumptions... it is all detangled by the simple fact that we don't see anything in the canon to confirm it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 18 Jul 2002 06:21:50 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <20020718022150.12948.00000935@mb-me.aol.com> -------- >Setesh" wrote in message >news:20020717164721.10380.00000117@mb-bg.aol.com... >> >1. 1e22? Where is that from? >> >> transfer minimum energy from joules to megatons (1E17megatons) add a >little >> extra for the shields 1E22 megatons, I belive Wong has the calc's on his >site >> but I'm unsure I don't hang out there. > >2.4e22 megatons, actually, assuming 1e38J. > Opps didn't explain it well did I you need a 1E22 megaton blast to cause the planetary explosion >> >3. Blaming it on the shield doesn't help. >> >> explained but before you cry 'no proof shield was up' why the hell >wouldn't it >> be up, they have to know by now Leia's been caught (like they'd believe >the all >> aboard killed story) the empire will be coming for them (or at least Bail) >> since they don't have the weapons to fight the empire they would raise the >> shield and call the rebels for help. If a space station the size of a >moon >> dropped out of hyperspace and its transmitting an imperial IFF, you >wouldn't >> raise the shields? > >Your ideas above are based on several assumptions... it is all detangled by >the simple fact that we don't see anything in the canon to confirm it. > Guess what, so are yours we see canon evidence that shields in atmospheres are visible, they ripple when shot, your 'bands' are a ripple of planetary scale, is this hard to understand, no. Does it explain things, yes. Does it require any 'mystery' effects, no. 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: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 08:10:27 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Setesh" wrote in message news:20020718022150.12948.00000935@mb-me.aol.com... > >Setesh" wrote in message > >news:20020717164721.10380.00000117@mb-bg.aol.com... > >> >1. 1e22? Where is that from? > >> > >> transfer minimum energy from joules to megatons (1E17megatons) add a > >little > >> extra for the shields 1E22 megatons, I belive Wong has the calc's on his > >site > >> but I'm unsure I don't hang out there. > > > >2.4e22 megatons, actually, assuming 1e38J. > > > Opps didn't explain it well did I you need a 1E22 megaton blast to cause the > planetary explosion > > >> >3. Blaming it on the shield doesn't help. > >> > >> explained but before you cry 'no proof shield was up' why the hell > >wouldn't it > >> be up, they have to know by now Leia's been caught (like they'd believe > >the all > >> aboard killed story) the empire will be coming for them (or at least Bail) > >> since they don't have the weapons to fight the empire they would raise the > >> shield and call the rebels for help. If a space station the size of a > >moon > >> dropped out of hyperspace and its transmitting an imperial IFF, you > >wouldn't > >> raise the shields? > > > >Your ideas above are based on several assumptions... it is all detangled by > >the simple fact that we don't see anything in the canon to confirm it. > > > Guess what, so are yours we see canon evidence that shields in atmospheres are > visible, they ripple when shot, your 'bands' are a ripple of planetary scale, > is this hard to understand, no. Does it explain things, yes. Does it require > any 'mystery' effects, no. Your planetary shields from the non-canon are described as above the atmosphere, are they not? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 18 Jul 2002 19:26:10 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <20020718152610.13149.00000316@mb-fq.aol.com> -------- >Your planetary shields from the non-canon are described as above the >atmosphere, are they not? Canon fact: the rebels at hoth brought a shield with them that protected a small sectoin of the planet, it was transportable, If they can transport a shield with them that can protect a section of a planet, they can build several to protect the entire surface of a planet, this requires no other sources than common sense. The official sources are vague some sheilds are in the atmosphere, some are not, it appears to be dependent on the builders. 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: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:20:46 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Setesh" wrote in message news:20020718152610.13149.00000316@mb-fq.aol.com... > >Your planetary shields from the non-canon are described as above the > >atmosphere, are they not? > > Canon fact: the rebels at hoth brought a shield with them that protected a > small sectoin of the planet, it was transportable, > > If they can transport a shield with them that can protect a section of a > planet, they can build several to protect the entire surface of a planet, this > requires no other sources than common sense. > > The official sources are vague some sheilds are in the atmosphere, some are > not, it appears to be dependent on the builders. If they operate similar to Gungan and Naboo shields, they would be visible in atmosphere. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 20 Jul 2002 01:02:01 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <20020719210201.13062.00000641@mb-fq.aol.com> -------- >If they operate similar to Gungan and Naboo shields, they would be visible >in atmosphere. > > > Well duh, I've only said that repeatedly. 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: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:33:50 -0700 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Setesh" wrote in message news:20020717164721.10380.00000117@mb-bg.aol.com... > >1. 1e22? Where is that from? > > transfer minimum energy from joules to megatons (1E17megatons) add a little > extra for the shields 1E22 megatons, I belive Wong has the calc's on his site > but I'm unsure I don't hang out there. > > >2. Plasma won't help. > > I'm not saying it would but this is what it's composed of > > >3. Blaming it on the shield doesn't help. > > explained but before you cry 'no proof shield was up' why the hell wouldn't it > be up, they have to know by now Leia's been caught (like they'd believe the all > aboard killed story) the empire will be coming for them (or at least Bail) > since they don't have the weapons to fight the empire they would raise the > shield and call the rebels for help. If a space station the size of a moon > dropped out of hyperspace and its transmitting an imperial IFF, you wouldn't > raise the shields? > > > 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." No I would transmit the location of the Giant Brothel Planet, and watch Tarkin and Vader go pale as all of the Horny Stormtroopers, and Horny Imperial Navy Personal abandon ship for a little liberty. All those who are not trolls understand this is called being Facetious. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 20:21:48 -0400 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:9ARY8.107906$iB1.6341307@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:ah0egk$osblu$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > Well, you only misspelled "whereas" this time, and your grammar was > > > tolerable. You've earned a reprieve. The ideas you type out are > still > > > lacking, but no worse than many of your comrades, so good work. It's a > > > start. > > > > > > Oh yeah a reprieve from the most arrogant "my opinion overrules that of > > officials at LucasFilm" ass we've seen since Wes "my opinion is canon" > > Hutchings. For the record 1) Mass-energy conversion implies how much > energy > > the DS itself would need to convert > > Luke was talking about weapons. Why else would he comment on the fact that > theoretically, no weapon could harm the dense stone of the temple moments > before pointing out the mass-energy tidbit? You don't think he MIKGHT just have been talkign about how the DS would generate power for its weapon? you've never considered that he might be thinking how the Imperial engineers would be thinking only that they need "x" joules and thus must annihilate "y" Kg of matter in order to eliminate the planet? that'd be a mass-energy conversion equation requisite for blowing up a planet and it fits just as well as your theory. > > and there is less connection with this deivce and > > the Genisis Device than there is between muyself and Anna Kournikova. > > I never claimed a direct connection with Genesis. > > > As to your overall theory, you start with a flawed premise, that the rings > > automatically invalidate the classical argument, > > No, not automatically, but the idea of direct energy transfer doing > everything all by itself is a bogus assumption. > No it isn't, you have YET to show how DET is disproven. Every single one of your attacks consists of claiming the rings make DET implausible. Strangely when we point right back showing that the rings do not invalidate DET you stick your fingers in your ears. > > and procede to compare the > > action to those in another universe whose canon has no direct bearing on > > actions within the SW unvierse. > > Red herring. Accepted on re-read. > >Your entire hypothesis requires us to throw > > the classical model out the window WITHOUT proof that it is inadequate to > > explain the facts then makes use of non-canon (and non-scientific data) to > > try and create its operating mechanism. > > DET doesn't work. I looked at the canon evidence of Alderaan for something > that would, and based my conclusions on what we saw. > > DET requires that this evidence be ignored, or chalked up to "mystery". > Go look at Wong's analogy to the discovery of nuclear fusion and how it relates to energy output of the sun. We have observable effects 1e38J, or thereabouts, were added to the planet Alderaan. We have an input source: the DS superlaser. Thus we KNOW that the 1e38J must come from either the Superlaser or the superlaser AND the planet itself, fine that's something we can all agree upon. We are thus left with two theories: Classical: SL directly inputs about 1e38J to the panet, the rings are a result of the nature of the SL beam and/or planetary-grade shileding which we do not understand. Yours: The SL touches off some highly unlikely chain reaction which will produce these rings...oh wait your theory STILL doesn't generate the rings. In other words your theory STILL does not explain the planar rings in any way shape or form. Your theory STILL requires us to chalk up the rings to some unknown nature of the weapon and thus your chain reaction theory is far more complex and does not fit the facts better than the classical model meaning the classical model is superior under the auspices of Occam's Razor. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:27:49 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ah2dbn$pdpuh$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:9ARY8.107906$iB1.6341307@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:ah0egk$osblu$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > Well, you only misspelled "whereas" this time, and your grammar was > > > > tolerable. You've earned a reprieve. The ideas you type out are > > still > > > > lacking, but no worse than many of your comrades, so good work. It's > a > > > > start. > > > > > > > > > Oh yeah a reprieve from the most arrogant "my opinion overrules that of > > > officials at LucasFilm" ass we've seen since Wes "my opinion is canon" > > > Hutchings. For the record 1) Mass-energy conversion implies how much > > energy > > > the DS itself would need to convert > > > > Luke was talking about weapons. Why else would he comment on the fact > that > > theoretically, no weapon could harm the dense stone of the temple moments > > before pointing out the mass-energy tidbit? > > You don't think he MIKGHT just have been talkign about how the DS would > generate power for its weapon? Illogical > > > and there is less connection with this deivce and > > > the Genisis Device than there is between muyself and Anna Kournikova. > > > > I never claimed a direct connection with Genesis. > > > > > As to your overall theory, you start with a flawed premise, that the > rings > > > automatically invalidate the classical argument, > > > > No, not automatically, but the idea of direct energy transfer doing > > everything all by itself is a bogus assumption. > > > > No it isn't, you have YET to show how DET is disproven. How many different ways are required? >Every single one of > your attacks consists of claiming the rings make DET implausible. I've used each of the following in several combinations: 1. rings 2. band 3. secondary explosion 4. Death Star explosions > Strangely > when we point right back showing that the rings do not invalidate DET you > stick your fingers in your ears. You have to show that the rings do not invalidate DET first. > > > and procede to compare the > > > action to those in another universe whose canon has no direct bearing on > > > actions within the SW unvierse. > > > > Red herring. > > Accepted on re-read. Wow. I'm impressed. (bows graciously) > Thus we KNOW that the 1e38J must come from either the Superlaser or the > superlaser AND the planet itself, fine that's something we can all agree > upon. True. > We are thus left with two theories: > Classical: SL directly inputs about 1e38J to the panet, the rings are a > result of the nature of the SL beam and/or planetary-grade shileding which > we do not understand. Without canon evidence of there being a shield raised at the time, your extra part to the theory is a little hazy. You might also want to be concerned about the fact that Wong and Saxton do not jump to that conclusion. However, I'd mainly be concerned about the fact that no other shield failure event has shown that. > Yours: The SL touches off some highly unlikely chain reaction which will > produce these rings...oh wait your theory STILL doesn't generate the rings. Not highly unlikely. We know of a similar sort of chain reaction that could destroy a planet. But, instead of grasping at straws, I'm simply looking at the canon evidence and seeing what properties the chain reaction must exhibit. > > In other words your theory STILL does not explain the planar rings in any > way shape or form. Your theory STILL requires us to chalk up the rings to > some unknown nature of the weapon and thus your chain reaction theory is far > more complex and does not fit the facts better than the classical model > meaning the classical model is superior under the auspices of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor demands simplicity, but first it demands explanatory power of the phenomenon. The classical theory fails on that count. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:32:31 -0400 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:F9fZ8.188127$Im2.9439322@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:ah2dbn$pdpuh$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:9ARY8.107906$iB1.6341307@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:ah0egk$osblu$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > Well, you only misspelled "whereas" this time, and your grammar was > > > > > tolerable. You've earned a reprieve. The ideas you type out are > > > still > > > > > lacking, but no worse than many of your comrades, so good work. > It's > > a > > > > > start. > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yeah a reprieve from the most arrogant "my opinion overrules that > of > > > > officials at LucasFilm" ass we've seen since Wes "my opinion is canon" > > > > Hutchings. For the record 1) Mass-energy conversion implies how much > > > energy > > > > the DS itself would need to convert > > > > > > Luke was talking about weapons. Why else would he comment on the fact > > that > > > theoretically, no weapon could harm the dense stone of the temple > moments > > > before pointing out the mass-energy tidbit? > > > > You don't think he MIGHT just have been talkign about how the DS would > > generate power for its weapon? > > Illogical > Only in your mind. > > > > and there is less connection with this deivce and > > > > the Genisis Device than there is between muyself and Anna Kournikova. > > > > > > I never claimed a direct connection with Genesis. > > > > > > > As to your overall theory, you start with a flawed premise, that the > > rings > > > > automatically invalidate the classical argument, > > > > > > No, not automatically, but the idea of direct energy transfer doing > > > everything all by itself is a bogus assumption. > > > > > > > No it isn't, you have YET to show how DET is disproven. > > How many different ways are required? You have failed to show that any theory better explains the rings than DET plus "unknown nature of SL beam." > >Every single one of > > your attacks consists of claiming the rings make DET implausible. > > I've used each of the following in several combinations: > > 1. rings > 2. band > 3. secondary explosion > 4. Death Star explosions None of those disprove DET. The rings exlpanation is a failing of ALL theories. The secondary explosions are easily explicable in the light of the number of high energy power sources over all three objects in quesiton. As to the DS explosions how the hell do they disprove DET? > > Strangely > > when we point right back showing that the rings do not invalidate DET you > > stick your fingers in your ears. > > You have to show that the rings do not invalidate DET first. No I merely write it off as unexplained nature of the beam you have to show a theory which is better than that. > > > > and procede to compare the > > > > action to those in another universe whose canon has no direct bearing > on > > > > actions within the SW unvierse. > > > > > > Red herring. > > > > Accepted on re-read. > > Wow. I'm impressed. (bows graciously) > > > Thus we KNOW that the 1e38J must come from either the Superlaser or the > > superlaser AND the planet itself, fine that's something we can all agree > > upon. > > True. Damn if it isn't amazing we can find some common ground. > > We are thus left with two theories: > > Classical: SL directly inputs about 1e38J to the panet, the rings are a > > result of the nature of the SL beam and/or planetary-grade shileding which > > we do not understand. > > Without canon evidence of there being a shield raised at the time, your > extra part to the theory is a little hazy. You might also want to be > concerned about the fact that Wong and Saxton do not jump to that > conclusion. However, I'd mainly be concerned about the fact that no other > shield failure event has shown that. The point remains that we can take DET and say that the rings are the result of some nature of the beam which does not affect DET or that it is in the nature of the high power generators present in all three circumstances. Anyway we generally write the rings off as a mystery and stick to DET which is the simplest explanation which fits all the facts. > > Yours: The SL touches off some highly unlikely chain reaction which will > > produce these rings...oh wait your theory STILL doesn't generate the > rings. > > Not highly unlikely. We know of a similar sort of chain reaction that could > destroy a planet. But, instead of grasping at straws, I'm simply looking > at the canon evidence and seeing what properties the chain reaction must > exhibit. Which STILL doesn't explain the rings. > > > > In other words your theory STILL does not explain the planar rings in any > > way shape or form. Your theory STILL requires us to chalk up the rings to > > some unknown nature of the weapon and thus your chain reaction theory is > far > > more complex and does not fit the facts better than the classical model > > meaning the classical model is superior under the auspices of Occam's > Razor. > > Occam's Razor demands simplicity, but first it demands explanatory power of > the phenomenon. The classical theory fails on that count. > The DET theory explains the siutuation adequatley and equally as well as your theory. Let me stress this agian neither theory can realistically account for the rings which means that we are left with DET plus rings or Chain Reaciton plus rings, in that circumstance DET is the simplest explanation which fits the facts. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:02:06 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ah49ok$puejl$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > How many different ways are required? > > You have failed to show that any theory better explains the rings than DET > plus "unknown nature of SL beam." Yes I have. And really, this is growing quite tiresome, since every time I explain things to you, you just say "Unh-unh!!!". > > >Every single one of > > > your attacks consists of claiming the rings make DET implausible. > > > > I've used each of the following in several combinations: > > > > 1. rings > > 2. band > > 3. secondary explosion > > 4. Death Star explosions > > None of those disprove DET. The rings exlpanation is a failing of ALL > theories. The secondary explosions are easily explicable in the light of the > number of high energy power sources over all three objects in quesiton. As > to the DS explosions how the hell do they disprove DET? Oh, for crying out loud. They all disprove DET. DET would not make rings, bands, or the secondary explosion, and doesn't even try to explain the Death Star rings. > > You have to show that the rings do not invalidate DET first. > > No I merely write it off as unexplained nature of the beam you have to show > a theory which is better than that. Unexplained nature of the beam? What the hell are we disagreeing about, then? > > > Thus we KNOW that the 1e38J must come from either the Superlaser or the > > > superlaser AND the planet itself, fine that's something we can all agree > > > upon. > > > > True. > > > Damn if it isn't amazing we can find some common ground. > > > > We are thus left with two theories: > > > Classical: SL directly inputs about 1e38J to the panet, the rings are a > > > result of the nature of the SL beam and/or planetary-grade shileding > which > > > we do not understand. > > > > Without canon evidence of there being a shield raised at the time, your > > extra part to the theory is a little hazy. You might also want to be > > concerned about the fact that Wong and Saxton do not jump to that > > conclusion. However, I'd mainly be concerned about the fact that no other > > shield failure event has shown that. > > The point remains that we can take DET and say that the rings are the result > of some nature of the beam which does not affect DET or that it is in the > nature of the high power generators present in all three circumstances. > Anyway we generally write the rings off as a mystery and stick to DET which > is the simplest explanation which fits all the facts. If you try to use something wierd to explain the rings and add this to DET, you end up in the same place I am. All that's left is figuring out what part is DET and what part is funky. The canon evidence shows very little DET necessary. > > > Yours: The SL touches off some highly unlikely chain reaction which will > > > produce these rings...oh wait your theory STILL doesn't generate the > > rings. > > > > Not highly unlikely. We know of a similar sort of chain reaction that > could > > destroy a planet. But, instead of grasping at straws, I'm simply looking > > at the canon evidence and seeing what properties the chain reaction must > > exhibit. > > Which STILL doesn't explain the rings. They are given a rational cause. Just because I can't venture a guess as to what the mechanism uses to do the things it does doesn't lessen the validity of the theory. On the other hand, DET cannot possibly explain the rings alone, and _that_ is why DET is unsupportable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:58:16 -0400 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:yPlZ8.152410$iX5.7480517@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:ah49ok$puejl$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > Which STILL doesn't explain the rings. > > They are given a rational cause. Just because I can't venture a guess as > to what the mechanism uses to do the things it does doesn't lessen the > validity of the theory. > > On the other hand, DET cannot possibly explain the rings alone, and _that_ > is why DET is unsupportable. > Lets be very straightforward the simplest explanation is that the SL inputed 1e38J and produced some wacky rings. Your theory requires that the SL inpouted less than the total energy, started some chain reaciton to get to 1e38 J and produced some wacky rings. Do you get it yet your theory requires more terms and does not do a better job of explaining the events in question thus our theory (simpler and fits the facts) is superior. Finally as a last thought unless you wish to declare the original versiosn completely null and void DET has additional support. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 08:13:35 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ah5lf7$q675u$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > Do you get it yet your theory requires more terms and does not do a better > job of explaining the events in question thus our theory (simpler and fits > the facts) is superior. No, dammit. Your theory is not superior, because although your theory is simpler, it fails to explain the facts, which is the first step toward even being considered by Occam's Razor. This is a very simple point, and your ignorance of it is not my concern. > > Finally as a last thought unless you wish to declare the original versiosn > completely null and void DET has additional support. I didn't, Lucas did. But I still think Han shot first. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 07:10:29 -0600 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <3D36BE45.195E643E@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:ah5lf7$q675u$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > Do you get it yet your theory requires more terms and does not do a better > > job of explaining the events in question thus our theory (simpler and fits > > the facts) is superior. > > No, dammit. Your theory is not superior, because although your theory is > simpler, it fails to explain the facts, which is the first step toward even > being considered by Occam's Razor. Your theory is also not superior because it fails to explain the facts. Graeme Dice -- HEALTH WARNING: Care Should Be Taken When Lifting This Product, Since Its Mass, and Thus Its Weight, Is Dependent on Its Velocity Relative to the User. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:30:27 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3D36BE45.195E643E@sk.sympatico.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:ah5lf7$q675u$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > Do you get it yet your theory requires more terms and does not do a better > > > job of explaining the events in question thus our theory (simpler and fits > > > the facts) is superior. > > > > No, dammit. Your theory is not superior, because although your theory is > > simpler, it fails to explain the facts, which is the first step toward even > > being considered by Occam's Razor. > > Your theory is also not superior because it fails to explain the facts. It does explain the facts. Look, you guys are trying to claim that the classical theory is superior because it is simpler. But, it doesn't explain the facts. Occam's in my camp. Of course, most of you then agree that you have to add an extra unknown force to the superlaser-DET in order to explain the rings and other oddities, meaning that you now have two separate mechanisms going at the same time. Does the "modified classical" theory now explain things better than it did before? Yes. But it now requires two mechanisms. My claim is based on an examination of the evidence. I found that an unexplained mechanism was the cause of the majority of the destruction, and that the beam which transmits this mechanism has a certain amount of natural DET, if for no other reason than it is a big f*ckin' beam. This observation of some DET comes from watching the canon. So, the Modified-Classical and my theory both seem to explain things. However, the Modified-Classical has two separate mechanisms, whereas I have but one. Occam's still in my camp. This means, FYI, that in order to keep the DET idea, you're going to have to find something else, because Occam smacks the classical and modified-classical around like two-bit hookers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:29:38 +1200 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- snip > > I expect a certain level of intelligence out of those I debate. Please try > to meet that level. Arrogant aren't you? Keep issuing statements like this and you will quickly be cast as the new TJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Iceberg Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:20:22 -0500 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <5sa8jug64li5o3e1cls3eebps5ui5f3gh4@4ax.com> -------- On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:29:38 +1200, "Stuart Mackey" wrote: >snip >> >> I expect a certain level of intelligence out of those I debate. Please >try >> to meet that level. > >Arrogant aren't you? Keep issuing statements like this and you will quickly >be cast as the new TJ. I've been much happier ever since I dropped DorkStar in my killfile and swore to ignore his posts everywhere else. -- Ice "Sugar, spice and everything nice! Those were the ingredients used by Professor Utonium to create his perfect little girls! But he added a secret ingredient - CHEMICAL X! And so, the POWERPUFF GIRLS were born!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:45:29 -0700 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Iceberg" wrote in message news:5sa8jug64li5o3e1cls3eebps5ui5f3gh4@4ax.com... > On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:29:38 +1200, "Stuart Mackey" > wrote: > > >snip > >> > >> I expect a certain level of intelligence out of those I debate. Please > >try > >> to meet that level. > > > >Arrogant aren't you? Keep issuing statements like this and you will quickly > >be cast as the new TJ. > > I've been much happier ever since I dropped DorkStar in my killfile > and swore to ignore his posts everywhere else. > > -- Ice > "Sugar, spice and everything nice! Those were the > ingredients used by Professor Utonium to create his > perfect little girls! But he added a secret ingredient > - CHEMICAL X! And so, the POWERPUFF GIRLS were born!" Mine too, after I TGODishly killed him, I dropped him in the KF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:41:38 +1200 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Iceberg" wrote in message news:5sa8jug64li5o3e1cls3eebps5ui5f3gh4@4ax.com... > On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:29:38 +1200, "Stuart Mackey" > wrote: > > >snip > >> > >> I expect a certain level of intelligence out of those I debate. Please > >try > >> to meet that level. > > > >Arrogant aren't you? Keep issuing statements like this and you will quickly > >be cast as the new TJ. > > I've been much happier ever since I dropped DorkStar in my killfile > and swore to ignore his posts everywhere else. > Probably a good Idea, I however, cannot help myself. I _must_ insult the troll. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:58:22 +0800 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:xXoY8.145170$Im2.7171905@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > Been there, done that. Why do you insist on making new threads with > strawman variations of what I say? And why do you act as if I have not > replied? Very dishonest of you. If you had replied somewhere in an enormous, 1000 post thread, then you'll have to excuse people for not searching every one of your posts to find an obscure statement. It is like saying that a quote proving you right is "somewhere in this book." People sometimes take that, but if they don't, it is your duty to provide a full solution or concede. In fact, I suggest you just repost whatever you wrote, since a new thread is a good chance to make a fresh start. Change some parts. If you don't want everyone to think you are linking it to Star Trek, trash all the references to the Genesis Device, and change the name of your theory too. You don't convince people that your theory is not based on the Genesis device by calling it "the Anti-Genesis Effect." The last copy of your original theory I could find is on Page 1 of the "I seemed to scare the ASVSers with this..." thread in Wong's board. Considering it is days old and is not very well received, don't you think a new start might make it more convincing? BTW, I know that many people like to claim strawman when one's theory is not summarized in a favorable light, but from my point of view, there is no severe distortion of your basic theory as stated on Page 1 of the thread on Wong's board. You should _also_ realize that what is important is not what you said, but what everyone else heard. Since no one else seems to think this a strawman, I suggest major re-statement of your position if you think we are badly off what you are trying to communicate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:05:31 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <%wBY8.98491$iB1.5552357@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agtrvb$ohqfn$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:xXoY8.145170$Im2.7171905@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > Been there, done that. Why do you insist on making new threads with > > strawman variations of what I say? And why do you act as if I have > not > > replied? Very dishonest of you. > > If you had replied somewhere in an enormous, 1000 post thread, then > you'll have to excuse people for not searching every one of your posts > to find an obscure statement. It is like saying that a quote proving you > right is "somewhere in this book." He saw it. I referenced it. He forgot it. I pointed him to it. End of story. > too. You don't convince people that your theory is not based on the > Genesis device by calling it "the Anti-Genesis Effect." The last copy of I explained that the name is based solely on the entertaining juxtaposition of a device of creation and a weapon of destruction. But, then, you're the one who took four or five separate messages about that and ignored them, continuing to spout off your "it's all based on Star Trek II!" nonsense. > your original theory I could find is on Page 1 of the "I seemed to scare > the ASVSers with this..." thread in Wong's board. Considering it is days > old and is not very well received, don't you think a new start might > make it more convincing? It is sufficiently convincing as it is. Besides, knowing you and Wong and other such individuals, any rewrite would be perceived and attacked as weakness. That is why I simply maintain addendums. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:24:10 +1200 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agt5j2$oal2l$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > 1) The classical model (DS inputs 1e38J) is wrong because of the ring > effect. > 2) Some previously unheard of method never described not even by me is > responsible for Alderaan being destroyed and it requires less energy. > > > 1) Show any proof that the rings mean that the DS inputed less than 1e38 J > 2) Provide a method, show how it is reasonable, and fis the evidence better > than the classical method, then shows that it has less energy consumption > necessary. Ya know, my gut feeling was that he was wrong, and for the reasons you and others suggest. My difficulty is that I have no knowledge of maths or physics, so I cannot adequately argue it . But what really makes me snigger is when Wong issued his Imperial Smackdown on Darkstars idea, and find that the engineer supports the classical theory that we do over here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:06:22 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:agu7u9$ojjre$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:agt5j2$oal2l$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > 1) The classical model (DS inputs 1e38J) is wrong because of the ring > > effect. > > 2) Some previously unheard of method never described not even by me is > > responsible for Alderaan being destroyed and it requires less energy. > > > > > > 1) Show any proof that the rings mean that the DS inputed less than 1e38 J > > 2) Provide a method, show how it is reasonable, and fis the evidence > better > > than the classical method, then shows that it has less energy consumption > > necessary. > > Ya know, my gut feeling was that he was wrong, and for the reasons you and > others suggest. My difficulty is that I have no knowledge of maths or > physics, so I cannot adequately argue it . But what really makes me snigger > is when Wong issued his Imperial Smackdown on Darkstars idea, and find that > the engineer supports the classical theory that we do over here. He supports it because he cannot afford not to. You'll note that he failed to reply to the post wherein I demonstrate why an engineer shouldn't support DET. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:07:35 -0600 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <3D3347A7.2E327D8D@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:agu7u9$ojjre$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > Ya know, my gut feeling was that he was wrong, and for the reasons you and > > others suggest. My difficulty is that I have no knowledge of maths or > > physics, so I cannot adequately argue it . But what really makes me > snigger > > is when Wong issued his Imperial Smackdown on Darkstars idea, and find > that > > the engineer supports the classical theory that we do over here. > > He supports it because he cannot afford not to. You'll note that he failed > to reply to the post wherein I demonstrate why an engineer shouldn't support > DET. So what is your level of education that you know so much about this topic that you can decide what engineers and engineering students should support? Graeme Dice -- Things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler --Albert Einstein ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:22:11 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <7BRY8.107917$iB1.6341473@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3D3347A7.2E327D8D@sk.sympatico.ca... > > So what is your level of education that you know so much about this > topic that you can decide what engineers and engineering students should > support? Classic Wongian red herring. Why don't you argue points instead of personality? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 07:48:11 -0600 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <3D34241B.9623BBC0@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > news:3D3347A7.2E327D8D@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > > So what is your level of education that you know so much about this > > topic that you can decide what engineers and engineering students should > > support? > > Classic Wongian red herring. Why don't you argue points instead of > personality? So what is your level of education that you know so much about this topic that you can decide what engineers and engineering students should support? It must be pretty high if you can dictate those kind of things. Graeme Dice -- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with something bigger and heavier. -- Anonymous ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:00:15 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <3yWY8.113806$iB1.6494740@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3D34241B.9623BBC0@sk.sympatico.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > news:3D3347A7.2E327D8D@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > > > > So what is your level of education that you know so much about this > > > topic that you can decide what engineers and engineering students should > > > support? > > > > Classic Wongian red herring. Why don't you argue points instead of > > personality? > > So what is your level of education that you know so much about this > topic that you can decide what engineers and engineering students should > support? It must be pretty high if you can dictate those kind of > things. It's called logic, Graeme. It's a universal concept, though hydrogen and stupidity are more widespread. "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo Galilei ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 16:35:10 -0600 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <3D349F9E.C97AEA93@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > news:3D34241B.9623BBC0@sk.sympatico.ca... > > DarkStar wrote: > > So what is your level of education that you know so much about this > > topic that you can decide what engineers and engineering students should > > support? It must be pretty high if you can dictate those kind of > > things. > > It's called logic, Graeme. It's a universal concept, though hydrogen and > stupidity are more widespread. So where do you point out why engineers should not support DET? Graeme Dice -- "Engineers think that equations approximate the real world. Scientists think that the real world approximates equations. Mathematicians are unable to make the connection." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 15 Jul 2002 22:12:42 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <20020715181242.02201.00000062@mb-mc.aol.com> -------- >He supports it because he cannot afford not to. You'll note that he failed >to reply to the post wherein I demonstrate why an engineer shouldn't support >DET. Wong doesn't post to the newsgroup often if ever, his reasons are givin on the site. If you send it to him by E-mail he 'may' respond when he A) has time and B)your argument hasn't been made before read his 'most common trekkie arguments' first " Azrael arose saying, 'and lo, I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:23:01 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Setesh" wrote in message news:20020715181242.02201.00000062@mb-mc.aol.com... > >He supports it because he cannot afford not to. You'll note that he failed > >to reply to the post wherein I demonstrate why an engineer shouldn't support > >DET. > > Wong doesn't post to the newsgroup often if ever, his reasons are givin on the > site. Which explains why he has made around 10 posts on his discussion forum. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 16 Jul 2002 19:36:13 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <20020716153613.02188.00000719@mb-fs.aol.com> -------- >Which explains why he has made around 10 posts on his discussion forum. considering when he first put it up the preamble said he was never going to post at all 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: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:07:24 +1200 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:OxBY8.210289$vq.11252006@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:agu7u9$ojjre$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:agt5j2$oal2l$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > 1) The classical model (DS inputs 1e38J) is wrong because of the ring > > > effect. > > > 2) Some previously unheard of method never described not even by me is > > > responsible for Alderaan being destroyed and it requires less energy. > > > > > > > > > 1) Show any proof that the rings mean that the DS inputed less than 1e38 > J > > > 2) Provide a method, show how it is reasonable, and fis the evidence > > better > > > than the classical method, then shows that it has less energy > consumption > > > necessary. > > > > Ya know, my gut feeling was that he was wrong, and for the reasons you and > > others suggest. My difficulty is that I have no knowledge of maths or > > physics, so I cannot adequately argue it . But what really makes me > snigger > > is when Wong issued his Imperial Smackdown on Darkstars idea, and find > that > > the engineer supports the classical theory that we do over here. > > He supports it because he cannot afford not to. Bullshit. He supports it because it is the right one to support. If you want to suggest that he is in someway being intellectually dishonest, say it to his face. You'll note that he failed > to reply to the post wherein I demonstrate why an engineer shouldn't support > DET. Got a link? But I seem to remember he said he was only going to reply once to you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:27:31 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <7GRY8.130622$Bt1.6812577@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:ah0d8t$omvse$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:OxBY8.210289$vq.11252006@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:agu7u9$ojjre$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:agt5j2$oal2l$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > 1) The classical model (DS inputs 1e38J) is wrong because of the ring > > > > effect. > > > > 2) Some previously unheard of method never described not even by me is > > > > responsible for Alderaan being destroyed and it requires less energy. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Show any proof that the rings mean that the DS inputed less than > 1e38 > > J > > > > 2) Provide a method, show how it is reasonable, and fis the evidence > > > better > > > > than the classical method, then shows that it has less energy > > consumption > > > > necessary. > > > > > > Ya know, my gut feeling was that he was wrong, and for the reasons you > and > > > others suggest. My difficulty is that I have no knowledge of maths or > > > physics, so I cannot adequately argue it . But what really makes me > > snigger > > > is when Wong issued his Imperial Smackdown on Darkstars idea, and find > > that > > > the engineer supports the classical theory that we do over here. > > > > He supports it because he cannot afford not to. > > Bullshit. He supports it because it is the right one to support. Right. So, naturally, every position he supports must be right, especially if it fails to explain the evidence? That makes sense. > If you want > to suggest that he is in someway being intellectually dishonest, say it to > his face. I did. > > You'll note that he failed > > to reply to the post wherein I demonstrate why an engineer shouldn't > support > > DET. > > Got a link? But I seem to remember he said he was only going to reply once > to you. http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=190&postdays=0&postorder =asc&start=165 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:41:13 +1200 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:7GRY8.130622$Bt1.6812577@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:ah0d8t$omvse$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:OxBY8.210289$vq.11252006@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > > news:agu7u9$ojjre$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > news:agt5j2$oal2l$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > 1) The classical model (DS inputs 1e38J) is wrong because of the > ring > > > > > effect. > > > > > 2) Some previously unheard of method never described not even by me > is > > > > > responsible for Alderaan being destroyed and it requires less > energy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Show any proof that the rings mean that the DS inputed less than > > 1e38 > > > J > > > > > 2) Provide a method, show how it is reasonable, and fis the evidence > > > > better > > > > > than the classical method, then shows that it has less energy > > > consumption > > > > > necessary. > > > > > > > > Ya know, my gut feeling was that he was wrong, and for the reasons you > > and > > > > others suggest. My difficulty is that I have no knowledge of maths or > > > > physics, so I cannot adequately argue it . But what really makes me > > > snigger > > > > is when Wong issued his Imperial Smackdown on Darkstars idea, and find > > > that > > > > the engineer supports the classical theory that we do over here. > > > > > > He supports it because he cannot afford not to. > > > > Bullshit. He supports it because it is the right one to support. > Right. So, naturally, every position he supports must be right, especially > if it fails to explain the evidence? That makes sense. No, Don't be stupid. His is the right one because he has worked out how it is done. He is the guy with he engineering degree, so you will excuse me if I take his word over yours. > > If you want > > to suggest that he is in someway being intellectually dishonest, say it to > > his face. > > I did. Ahh, so you did. > > You'll note that he failed > > > to reply to the post wherein I demonstrate why an engineer shouldn't > > support > > > DET. > > > > Got a link? But I seem to remember he said he was only going to reply once > > to you. > > http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=190&postdays=0&postorder > =asc&start=165 Thank you, I eagerly await his reply ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:12:48 +0800 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:ah14bb$p65l5$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > Thank you, I eagerly await his reply Actually, Wong closed the thread in disgust, though he did seem to intend to make DarkStar a monument in his Hate Mail page, so we will probably see it once and for all once he finishes the thread. I wonder whether DarkStar would be grouped in the Debate part or will he just be another trolling moron in the top section. Or maybe he'll be listed under "Cowards." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:17:05 +0800 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:ah168q$pg0sl$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:ah14bb$p65l5$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > Thank you, I eagerly await his reply > > Actually, Wong closed the thread in disgust, though he did seem to > intend to make DarkStar a monument in his Hate Mail page, so we will > probably see it once and for all once he finishes the thread. I wonder > whether DarkStar would be grouped in the Debate part or will he just be > another trolling moron in the top section. Or maybe he'll be listed > under "Cowards." Oh, sorry, I meant his house renovations. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 01:22:22 +1200 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:ah168q$pg0sl$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:ah14bb$p65l5$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > Thank you, I eagerly await his reply > > Actually, Wong closed the thread in disgust, though he did seem to > intend to make DarkStar a monument in his Hate Mail page, so we will > probably see it once and for all once he finishes the thread. I wonder > whether DarkStar would be grouped in the Debate part or will he just be > another trolling moron in the top section. Or maybe he'll be listed > under "Cowards." I haven't kept up with his web board due to work commitments. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:02:24 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: <4AWY8.133064$iX5.6429155@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:ah14bb$p65l5$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > Thank you, I eagerly await his reply Don't hold your breath. He asked for the thread to be closed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:42:51 +1200 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:4AWY8.133064$iX5.6429155@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:ah14bb$p65l5$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > Thank you, I eagerly await his reply > > Don't hold your breath. He asked for the thread to be closed. > Well I went trhough it all, and your closeminded arrogance seems to be the reason for its closure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:28:55 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:ah33ne$pf70h$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:4AWY8.133064$iX5.6429155@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:ah14bb$p65l5$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > Thank you, I eagerly await his reply > > > > Don't hold your breath. He asked for the thread to be closed. > > > > Well I went trhough it all, and your closeminded arrogance seems to be the > reason for its closure. My mind is wide open to worthwhile reasoning. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 23:00:45 +1200 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:HafZ8.148996$iX5.7221088@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:ah33ne$pf70h$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:4AWY8.133064$iX5.6429155@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > > news:ah14bb$p65l5$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > Thank you, I eagerly await his reply > > > > > > Don't hold your breath. He asked for the thread to be closed. > > > > > > > Well I went trhough it all, and your closeminded arrogance seems to be the > > reason for its closure. > > My mind is wide open to worthwhile reasoning. In short, only such things that agree with what you have already made up your mind on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:41:06 GMT Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:ah8rj3$qtuir$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:HafZ8.148996$iX5.7221088@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:ah33ne$pf70h$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:4AWY8.133064$iX5.6429155@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > > > news:ah14bb$p65l5$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > Thank you, I eagerly await his reply > > > > > > > > Don't hold your breath. He asked for the thread to be closed. > > > > > > > > > > Well I went trhough it all, and your closeminded arrogance seems to be > the > > > reason for its closure. > > > > My mind is wide open to worthwhile reasoning. > > In short, only such things that agree with what you have already made up > your mind on. True. For example, I have made up my mind that arguments I accept must be based on the evidence and valid reasoning. If that makes me a closed-minded asshole, that's not my problem. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 05:19:30 -0700 Subject: Re: The Basis of "Dark Star's" [DS isn't that powerful] Argument Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:ah8rj3$qtuir$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:HafZ8.148996$iX5.7221088@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:ah33ne$pf70h$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:4AWY8.133064$iX5.6429155@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > > > news:ah14bb$p65l5$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > Thank you, I eagerly await his reply > > > > > > > > Don't hold your breath. He asked for the thread to be closed. > > > > > > > > > > Well I went trhough it all, and your closeminded arrogance seems to be > the > > > reason for its closure. > > > > My mind is wide open to worthwhile reasoning. > > In short, only such things that agree with what you have already made up > your mind on. > > > I'm like the raving fan of the Forgotten Races (Gorn, Tholian, Orion) and yet this idiot pissed me off to the point of Kill Filtering him. And I have a policy of only getting rid of Spammer's and the really annoying.