Damien Hailey

May 13, 2002:

You feel it is "ridiculously overinflated" ...

No, I believe the figure is rediculosly overpowered for it's job. LTLs, even on the Assault ship, are secondary weapons. The Empire is still not at Culture level yet.

Also note that The heavier guns on the Assault ship are actually Missile/Torpedo launchers. Apparently the SW universe DID actually use torpedo weapons as their heavy guns, at least for a while. ^_^

I see that you've gone to the Lord Edam school of constantly changing your position and then accusing your opponent of distorting it.

In your first message, you said that the 200 gigaton figure is "ridiculously overinflated", going on to say that you accept it without explaining why. Now, you claim that you just meant to say the ship is "overpowered for its job", which implies that the figures themselves are not overinflated; just indicative of a design which is inappropriate for its task (presumably based on assumptions about its task).

But if that's the case, and you actually had no problem with the 200 gigaton figure, then why did you go on to claim (in the same message) that its shielding couldn't possibly withstand that kind of firepower, limiting it in your mind to the KE of impacting asteroids that we saw onscreen? Obviously, if you think its shielding can't withstand anything more than low megaton energy yields, then you don't think these ships can realistically blast away at each other with 200 gigaton cannons or even 6 megaton light guns.

Here's a hint: if you don't want to look like you're contradicting yourself, try to keep your story straight. Anyone who reads your first message will quite clearly interpret it as an attack upon the ICS figures, and any attempt to revise your position after the fact merely makes you look dishonest.

Ah, so it's a matter of being "decent human beings", eh?

No, it's a matter of only wanting to argure with 6 immature jerks rather than 47. Debates are no fun if everyone's the same.

So everyone at ASVS is "the same", ie- they're all "immature jerks"? On what do you base this broad generalization? On what do you base the smart-ass remark that "You'll forgive me for wanting to hang with at least *some* halfway decent human beings." as an explanation for preferring spacebattles.com over ASVS, despite the heavy pseudoscience being spouted by certain spacebattles.com participants with whom you have obviously been in communication?

I say anything about spacebattles.com (despite the personal history) and I'm a terrible, terrible person, but you say that ASVS is devoid of "halfway decent human beings" and you simultaneously hold your nose in the air and pretend that you're taking the moral high road as opposed to my evil, evil ways? Puh-lease ...

I'd rather deal with Fallacies than Phallacies. [Editor's note: oh, look! He admits that he thinks it's better to lie, cheat, and bend the rules of logic than to be rude! That would ordinarily be a rather damning admission, but he said it in a rhyme, and as Jesse Jackson knows, rhyming arguments are always right] You can argue with someone if they're wrong, but as you know from both ends, it's hard to argue with someone who's being a dick.

Only if he's being dishonest. I can debate with any rude person any day of the week, because quite frankly, I hold the superior position. I don't fear insults (sticks and stones, remember?), and more to the point, I don't use them as an excuse to weasel away from a fair fight, the way the self-styled "Wong haters" on spacebattles.com do. They're afraid of facing me one on one, hence their insistence that I take them on in a venue where they can gang up on me and "win" through sheer volume and exhaustion rather than a legitimate argument.

I warn everyone before E-mailing that if you send a claim which is indicative of laziness, I reserve the right to flame you at will. Don't whine and complain about it now, because I've actually gone easy on you. If you want a more honest approach, I could have pointed out that only a fucking moron could possibly see people converting from watts directly into teratons and need help figuring out what's wrong with that. Only an imbecile could see someone assuming that the damage mechanisms from a purely thermal weapon would be identical to those from a purely physical impact, and fail to see the flaw without help.

I refrained from saying that in my first reply, but I see now that this was a mistake. You are making no effort whatsoever to be honest and forthright, and it is becoming increasingly clear that your entire agenda is to generate justifications for righteous indignation at my boorish and totally unexpected behaviour (gee, I guess you somehow skipped right past all those warnings on my E-mail page).

Not to mention I get a great variety of debates and information from SB. I can say that SB made be a Bolo fan, and has inspired me to try a lot of games, books, and TV series' that I never would have otherwise [Editor's note: notice the absence of “inspired me to learn about science” in that list].

It has also inspired you to adopt a dishonest debating style and to subscribe to the style over substance fallacy, where the manner in which your opponent makes his argument is deemed more important than his factual accuracy or logical consistency. Congrats.

"You" Spacebattles people? Question: Do you think a disclaimer helps when you go back and do the exact opposite anyway?

What disclaimer? You are a spacebattles person, are you not? You've got the whole tribal "ASVS is devoid of decent human beings" mantra down pat, so what basis do you have for denigrating my characterization of you? There are people on that board who are nice enough (I've dealt with some of your mods such as CoolGuy, LordChaos, and Big Steve in the past, and they don't act like you and your little friends), but there's a core group on that board which has made "ad hominem" into an art form, and so far, I don't see any distinction between your tactics and theirs.

And while I'm at it, what right to YOU have to say ANYTHING about Spacebattles, when you never go there? That's it, I'm throwing the gauntlet at your feet.

I have the right because there is a core group of assholes at spacebattles.com who say bad things about me all the time, and who have been doing so since before I was even aware of their existence. I have the right because some of those people felt it was OK to drag my wife into this and desecrate my family photos just for fun. I have the right because the asshole who did it is still there, still cocky, having refused to apologize (and now he claims he never even did it, even though one of the mods testified as to its contents).

As for the "gauntlet", I've challenged the little pocket of idiots hiding out on your "vs" forums before. I crunched their champion, I crunched Lord Edam just for fun, and I'll crunch anyone else they want to throw into the meat grinder.

Here's your challenge.

Get a free E-mail address, and pick a name.

Why? Because I want you to use those to join SpaceBattles as a member for three months. And tell nobody(not even me if you want) that it's you. Participate on any of the boards you like. Spabattles, Vs, Story Debates, Art, or Non-Sci-Fi. You don't have to argue SVS if you don't want to, either. Try spending some time with those of us who on the whole don't give a damn about you or your site.

((Insert self-righteous reason why you won't here))

For someone who doesn't give a damn about me or my site, you seem to be quite interested in attacking my personality. So I'm "self righteous" now, eh? I had no idea that my stated reasons for not participating in bulletin boards or newsgroups any more were considered "self righteous". Since when is it "self righteous" to want to work on one's own website rather than spending time at somebody else's website? Since when is it "self righteous" to want to spend more time with one's family?

[Editor's note: judging by the way he thinks I can casually embark on a months-long enterprise of participating heavily on a bulletin board in addition to everything else I do in my life, it's pretty obvious that he's just an arrogant teenager, who naturally assumes in his egocentrism that everyone in the world has just as much free time as he does. No adult, and certainly no parent of small children would even think of such an idiotic proposal. He must be fairly new to be unfamiliar with the particular history between me and the “we hate StarDestroyer.Net” brigade at spacebattles.com, not to mention my recent public challenges, and from his arguments, it's obvious that the “Wong is afraid to come here” bullshit is still their favourite excuse for carefully avoiding the Imperial Smack-Down™]

BTW, I have an account at spacebattles.com already. I used it when I engaged in that public debate earlier this year. I threw down the gauntlet and crushed your champion, and then I crushed a few of his little friends just for fun. The level of discussion outside your "vs" boards is hopefully better, but it is also of no interest to me; I run a "vs" website, and that is where my interest lies. When I want to do other things, I've got a family and a real life to attend to.

((Insert Anti-Spacebattles mini-rant here))
((Insert Perosnal attacks here))

I don't need to make personal attacks. Your ignorant blustering, sophistry, and unfounded assumptions speak volumes [Editor's note: any personal attacks I make are completely gratuitous, which is why they're fun :)].

And since we're being petty here, one last question:
In your Database section, you pointed out:

Season 2, Ep# 34: "A Matter of Honor"

DATA: Slow to impulse speed. Continue on course.
WESLEY: Aye sir, impulse speed.
...
RIKER: I recommend you do not fire until you are within forty thousand kilometers.
KLAG: Why?
RIKER: It will reduce their response time.

Naval Weapons: Riker's dialogue appears to establish a weapon range of many tens of thousands of kilometres, although later events conflict with this figure.

Ted Collins notes the possibility that the units of "kilometres" have become the equivalent of modern "metres" in the 24th century, since onscreen combat tends to occur at ranges of 40 km or less, rather than thousands of kilometres. Moreover, while transporters can be used at ranges of thousands of kilometres when transporting to and from a planet, we saw in "Coming of Age" that transport range is much shorter for ship to ship transport (indeed, they could not transport to a shuttle which was between them and the planet, even though they could easily transport to the planet!). Starships close to just a few kilometres before initiating transport to other ships, which would be fully consistent with the units of kilometres and metres being altered in the future. It sounds goofy, but then again, the English language is a very pliable thing. After all, four centuries ago, the word "nerves" meant sinews and muscles (hence the holdover phrase "straining every nerve". Who's to say what might change in the next four centuries?

Yet you later go on to say:

Season 3, Ep# 52: "Who Watches the Watchers"

PICARD VO: Captain's log, Stardate 43125.2. We are en route to Mintaka Three, where a three-man Federation anthropological field team has been studying the inhabitants. Our mission is to resupply the outpost and repair their malfunctioning reactor.
...
GEORDI: We've finished replicating the parts they need. What I don't understand is why a three-man station needs a reactor that can produce four-point-two gigawatts.
RIKER: That's enough to power a small phaser bank, a subspace relay station, or...
GEORDI: A hologram generator. Right -- a "duck blind."
PICARD: The anthropologists are studying an extended family of Mintakans at close range... from a camouflaged observation post.

Naval Weapons: according to Riker, a small phaser bank can run off a 4.2 GW reactor. Of course, I'm sure some of the Trekkies will assume that a "large" phaser bank would be millions or billions of times more powerful than a "small" phaser bank, in order to preserve their carefully exaggerated phaser firepower figures.

Season 3, Ep# 63: "Yesterday's Enterprise"

WESLEY: One ship has broken off and is heading toward the Enterprise-C.
PICARD: Mister Crusher. Belay previous course change... keep us within two hundred kilometers of the Enterprise-C.
WES: Aye, sir. Coming to two-one-seven mark one-one-five... increasing to two-thirds impulse.

Naval Weapons: the ships exchange fire at ranges of less than 10 km, yet Picard gives an order to stay within 200 km of the Enterprise-C. This seems bizarre in light of the fact that they're already within 5 km, and it's enough to make one wonder if they've "recalibrated" the metre the same way they "recalibrated" the warp factor between TOS and TNG.

Season 5, Ep# 114: "Conundrum"

PICARD: What are the defensive capabilities of the Central Command?
DATA: Armaments consist of four laser cannons and thirty-nine cobalt fusion warheads with magnetic propulsion. Defensive shield output is only ... 4.3 kilojoules.
RIKER: One photon torpedo ought to do it.
TROI: Data... how many people are on that station?
DATA: Fifteen thousand, three hundred eleven.

Naval Weapons: Riker expects a photon torpedo to overwhelm the 4.3 kJ capacity of the station's shields. Note that 4.3 kJ is roughly the same amount of energy that you will use in order to walk up two or three flights of stairs.

Simply put, the point is this: Why do you take the later statements as being directly analogous to their present levels, when you earlier showed that that is more than likely not the case?

Because the quoted speculation about changing units was just that: speculation. It is hardly a conclusive theory, and if I were to run around reducing all figures by orders of magnitude on that speculative basis (ie- using it as an excuse for over-broad generalizations), I would be just as bad as the rabid fans on spacebattles.com's "vs" forums. Don't project other peoples' dishonest tactics onto me.

[Editor's note: notice how he protests that he has no particular issue with me, and that he came innocently asking questions of someone he viewed as an expert, yet he has obviously spent time digging through my site looking for minutae to nitpick, and false dilemmas to create. For someone who is careful to avoid declaring membership in the aggressive “we hate StarDestroyer.Net” brigade, he certainly seems to be fond of their methods (particularly the false dilemma, which is their favourite fallacy)]

On a related, and less vemonous note: Your remarks about the Enterprise. Being the "flagship" of Starfleet when it isn't by the normal definition of the word today could also mean another shift in a word's meaning. From the looks of it, "Flagship" may have also taken on a Symbolic meaning, in regard to the achievements of the ships past and present that carried the name Enterprise.

Of course, since that is the civilian use of the word, ie- the "flagship product" of a manufacturer, this ties into my longstanding contention that Starfleet is not a military organization. Did I not make that clear in the database?

But I'm digressing. Back to the meat of this mess...

You think my response is rude? Too bad. I think you and your friends have been rude to someone I hold in high regard. And as I said, I'm not out to win any Miss Congeniality contests, so I see no reason to humour ignorance.

Then I suggest you so something a little more effective than bitching about it to me.

I am. I wanted to use this exchange to determine what the spacebattlers were saying about Curtis' book, so that I'd know what arguments to address on my website. Now that I have communicated with you at some length, the pathetic nature of those arguments is quite clear, and I have enough ammunition to destroy them on my site. My mission is accomplished.

I'm not sure what you were hoping to accomplish (and don't give me that "innocently asking questions" bullshit), but I surmise that you just wanted to reinforce the standing ad hominem attack that people should avoid my site because I attack without provocation.

You think the figures are "ridiculously overinflated". I think that constitutes a problem.

See above. I don't feel that constitues a problem, as I am fully capable of living with it.

And precisely what does "living with it" mean? Please clarify your position, since it seems to be all over the map.

Research is not simply asking an expert what he thinks. It's finding out some of the underlying facts and principles for yourself.

And what is one of the best ways of doing that, when one is uncertain of where to look?

Books. You should try them sometime.

[Editor's note: do you remember the old line about how “if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime?” This guy just wants one damned fish, and he calls it “research”. Normally the word “airhead” is applied to silicone-enhanced blonde girls, but there are times when you must seriously consider applying it to guys as well]

You're evading the point, which is that you made a claim about asteroid impacts disproving the ICS figures, but you made no attempt whatsoever to produce any numbers to support that claim. And what's this nonsensical assumption that I "have them on file anyway"? Are you saying that you've sent me numbers in the past? I certainly don't recall receiving any. You were responding to my public query as to why no one had come to me with these objections, remember? What makes you think I've already got them in my inbox?

Because you apparently "painstakingly" make these calcs yourself, and unless Lucas is paying you on the sly, for little to no profit.

And now you commit the ever-popular "burden of proof" fallacy, in which you try to transfer your burden of proof to your opponent. I'm obligated to produce the calcs to support or disprove your claim for you? Don't be ridiculous. You claimed that given the ICS figures, "I don't see how that asteroid field could've posed any danger to a Star Destroyer even if it powered through it at maximum combat speed, ignoring everything but Planet Killer-sized rocks." When you make a claim, you're supposed to back it up with something, rather than expecting others to do the work for you. If you can't do that, you have no business making the claim in the first place (and once again, it was a claim; if it was a question, you should have phrased it that way).

And the reason I didn't give any proof was because I DIDN'T HAVE ANY, dumbass! I'm not here to argue a point, I'm here to ask a question!

Something seemed wrong, but I wasn't sure if I was looking at it right, so I thought I'd ask you to get a straight answer. I already know that most of the people on SB don't do their stuff right, but I know they do it better than me. So I thought I'd ask a person who has the calcs there(see the Turbolaser commentaries section of your sight), and already knows.

Don't lie to me, you dishonest little dipshit. Your message was not phrased as a series of questions, and you know it. It was phrased as a series of claims, such as your claim that the ICS firepower figures were "ridiculously overinflated" or that the shield strength numbers were "past overinflated", with an implicit challenge for me to disprove those claims. Its ending line: "have you any better answers?" is phrased as a challenge, not as a genuine question.

Maybe if you lightened up, and dug your head out of your own ass, you'd understand that. Not everyone who comes from Spacebattles is trying to pick a fight! But if you want one, I'll be glad to oblige. [Editor's note: ooooh, I'm scared] Now look, you've got me flaming mindlessly.

You probably think you're pretty clever, playing games to pretend that by attacking your lazy-ass claims as per the warning on my E-mail link, I attacked you without provocation. Now you can hold your nose in the air about your moral superiority (it's OK to flame back because "he started it!"), and as anyone familiar with the spacebattles.com "vs" forums knows, that's the basis of the standing argument against my website. Gee, nobody will ever see through your oh-so-original tactic! If you lack intelligence or honesty, I suppose contrived righteous indignation is the next best thing, eh?

If you want to do research, go read some fucking books. Books on real science, which is where you obviously need the most work. Asking an expert is not research; it is what journalists do, when they're in search of a quick sound bite and they don't honestly want to learn squat.

So? Vader told them to go in, even though they didn't want to. He ordered a holo-conference, even though they undoubtedly would have preferred to be commanding their ships. He was not thinking of their safety. But would the commanders of those ships have been wise to refuse Darth Vader's instructions? Not unless you figure they were itching for a death by suffocation.

Let's see... Death by Suffocation, or Death by Asteroids.

For someone who's just innocently "asking questions", you sure seem quite argumentative, don't you? Oops ... did I just expose your dishonesty again? Silly me.

Here's a hint: One won't take your crew with you, and you actually have a slim chance of talking your way out of it.

The ship suffered some damage to its bridge tower, but most of its crew undoubtedly survived. Moreover, this damage was by no means guaranteed. If the gunners had destroyed that asteroid, it wouldn't have happened, so don't act as if it was certain death to go in there. As for "talking your way out of it", only an idiot would expect to talk his way out of disobeying a direct order from Darth Vader.

And BTW, you are ignoring the fact that the entire incident may have simply been due to the fact that they can't holo-transmit with shields up.

And if Vader isn't thinking of the safety of the people under him, than THEY have to. Hence the lines below, which involve the ISD taking care of itself.

The ship was taking care of itself, ie- attempting to destroy all incoming impactors. The fact that they missed one is unfortunate, but military duty is not exactly risk-free. I hate to break the news to you, but not every order in a military organization is made with your safety as the first consideration. Larger objectives often trump individual safety, and when the crew of a ship decides to ignore an order from a superior officer, that's called "insubordination".

And BTW, you are ignoring the fact that the entire incident may have simply been due to the fact that they can't holo-transmit with shields up.

Most machines require downtime for maintenance, remember? Those shields were designed for battles which normally don't last for days without a break, and it's generally not easy to repair major systems while under fire. Do you think real-life techs can perform field repairs on an F-16 while it's in flight?

No. But then, I'm asking about an ISD, not a TIE fighter. There is that whole thing about greater scale and room to work on. You know that, right? [Editor's note: he's a pretty cocky little brat, isn't he?]

Of course, but unlike you, I also know that even in a huge nuclear reactor, many forms of maintenance require shutdown. A retubing operation, for example, is a huge enterprise that costs millions and takes a reactor completely out of service for weeks or months. That's a lesson drawn from real life; a place where you apparently haven't spent much time, given your belief that soldiers can decide to disregard the chain of command if they're afraid of getting hurt.

And BTW, you are ignoring the fact that the entire incident may have simply been due to the fact that they can't holo-transmit with shields up.

And the machines already had downtime. The Ion cannon had seen to that. That is, of course, assuming it had been hit by the IC in the first place.

Battle damage is hardly what I would call maintenance downtime. In the heat of battle, they would try to keep it up and running constantly, even if it's only partial. Real maintenance, however, would require real downtime. Haven't you ever worked on any kind of real-life heavy industrial machinery? You seem to have that wonderful combination of ignorance and arrogance which characterizes so many of your little friends.

And BTW, you are ignoring the fact that the entire incident may have simply been due to the fact that they can't holo-transmit with shields up.

Then *don't* disobey Vader, and cover your own ass *yourself.* What is so hard about that for you to understand? If every ship is supposed to be in there, fine. But if my ship can't handle being in the vanguard, I'm going to make sure that one that *can* is in front of mine.

News flash: the asteroid which hit this ship came from the side, not the front. A ship in front would not block it. And in fact, we can see quite clearly that it's holding position close to the Executor rather than moving out like the others. That's about the safest position it could take without fleeing the field and disobeying orders.

And BTW, you are ignoring the fact that the entire incident may have simply been due to the fact that they can't holo-transmit with shields up.

And that still doesn't account for Vader's foolishness in sending incapbable ships into the field.

Vader decided that the capture of his son was more important than the loss of a Star Destroyer. That is not "foolishness"; that is simply his particular set of priorities.

And BTW, you are ignoring the fact that the entire incident may have simply been due to the fact that they can't holo-transmit with shields up.

Question: since a large asteroid moving at high speed will pulverize or perhaps even vapourize itself upon impact with a solid barrier due to internal stresses and work heating, what does it tell us about this particular asteroid that it bounced instead? Be concise in your answer.

Considering that they were moving as similar speeds, and that the ship was smaller(and apparently weaker) than the ISD, I'd say:

#1: The asteroids were smaller

Exactly. Smaller, slower, lighter, or a combination of all three.

#2: The B5 ship has a greater relative impact resistance. Especially considering that it was crippled at the time. :D

You should have stopped while you were ahead. This second explanation of yours is too funny for words (don't tell me; you got it from the self-professed science experts over at spacebattles.com's "vs" forums, right?)

Tell me, when a massive asteroid hits the Earth and vapourizes itself on impact (with a huge crater) rather than bouncing off harmlessly, does this mean that the Earth must have poor impact resistance? Think about it. What kind of asteroid would bounce?

If an asteroid hits a soft target, it will plunge right through. This did not happen in either case, so we can rule that out. But if an asteroid hits a hard target, it will either pulverize of its own momentum (which means that the internal stresses in the asteroid from the sudden deceleration were sufficient to destroy it) or it will bounce off intact (which means that it did not have enough mass or velocity to pulverize itself on impact).

The asteroid's pulverization is due to its own characteristics, not those of the barrier. Given a barrier which is strong enough to stop the asteroid's forward movement (true in both cases), a bounce means a small, light, slow-moving asteroid while an explosive pulverization means that the asteroid obviously had more than enough KE to pulverize itself. Get it now?

I didn't make the assumption. I wasn't sure either way, hence my coming here.

For someone who's not sure and who came here to innocently ask questions, you seem to be rather vigorously arguing the point.

The only assumptions I made reguarding the entire scene are thus:

#1: I assumed a higher(or should I say present) level of tactical intelligence on the parts of Vader and the Fleet commanders.

#2: Thus, I assumed that combat-capable ships would be the only ones sent into the fields.

#3: And if not, I assumed that they would've tried to fix any damaged ones in the meantime.

Let's look at these claims in order (oh wait, I forgot ... not claims, just innocent questions, on which you have no pre-existing position whatsoever and you just wanted to seek my valued opinion).

1a) You feel that Vader's priorities somehow represent low "tactical intelligence". This presumes that he did not realize he was putting the ships at undue risk, when in the context of the film, it's rather obvious that he did realize (someone even told him), but he simply didn't care. You confuse apathy with stupidity.

1b) You also feel that the officers' failure to disregard orders from a direct superior represents low "tactical intelligence". Again, you are leaping to the most negative possible interpretation and ignoring obvious and far more sensible alternatives. They are military officers, which means that (surprise!) they must follow orders. Vader felt that the capture of the fleeing ship was more important than their safety, so the ships went into the field despite the risk. The ship in question stayed close to the Executor, but that was the limit of its flexibility. I reiterate that despite your amazingly naive beliefs about the nature of a military organization, that would not have been the first time in history that a mission objective was deemed more important than the safety of individual soldiers.

2) You assumed that the ship was not "combat capable" simply because it was not in optimal condition. This is an example of the "black and white" fallacy, ie- 0 or 1. A ship in a weakened state might still have partial shields, functioning engines, or functioning guns, therefore it would still be combat-capable.

3) You assume that no damage control efforts were ongoing, which you take as proof of stupidity. What makes you think there were no damage control efforts? Again, you seem to be engaging in "black and white" fallacies.

Let me see if I can follow your "logic"; the ship's shields were down at that precise moment, therefore you assume that they were down the entire time even though they might have only been lowered for the brief holo-transmission. You use this deliberate choice in order to conclude that they are stupid. Moreover, you assume that no one was working on these non-functional shields, because they're still down (this presumes that any kind of repair activity should instantly bring the system back up to full operational status, hence your belief that "shields still down" means "nobody's even trying to bring them back up"). Naturally, you take this as further proof of stupidity. You assume that all asteroids were coming from one direction, hence your belief that the ship would have been safe if somebody else was in front of them (and your consequent assumption that the ship in question bulled into the field in front of everybody else despite this "fact" and their observed position near the Executor, hence you conclude once more that they are stupid). And finally, you assume that both Vader and the officers were too stupid to recognize the risk, when in reality, it was quite obvious that he recognized the risk but did not care, and they are soldiers who have no choice but to follow orders.

At some point, it would have been nice if you tried to think logically instead of constructing that long string of bizarre assumptions, but as you admitted, you have learned much from the most rabid elements of spacebattles.com.

That left a seeming gaping hole in the two, So I decided to ask you about it. You actually managed to fit an answer somewhere in your tirade, and I was able to get a copy of the ICS to confirm that there was, in fact, a flaw that was built into the core information on one side.

Far more than a "flaw"; its entire conceptual basis was rotten to the core, based on a dizzying combination of contemptible scientific ignorance and sophistry. You make it seem as if it's basically sound logic with a minor error, when in reality, it is impossible to locate a shred of logic anywhere in its vicinity.

A limit of an unshielded ship? Sure. But a "weak spot?" Weak relative to what? What kind of unshielded structure would survive an impact of that magnitude without damage? I remind you that it was violent enough to explosively pulverize a million-ton nickel-iron asteroid.

And if they missed a rock that big, that's a weakness or a limit.

Ah, so anything but perfection is considered a "weakness"? When bombarded with, say, a thousand asteroids, 100% kills and/or blocks is acceptable, but 1 miss, ie- from 100% down to 99.9% is "a weakness or a limit"? For someone who's just innocently asking questions with no preconceptions, you certainly work hard to push the conclusions in one direction, don't you?

You are not consulting me; you have already made up your mind that the ICS figures are "ridiculously overinflated", and you are fastidiously pretending to be polite even though your only response to my point about ISD strength in relation to other sci-fi series was an evasive appeal to ridicule (Encyclopedia Wongica, eh?)

Believe it or not, that was meant to be a compliment. Again, lighten up, kid.

I seriously doubt that you're old enough to refer to me as a kid, particularly given your debating style and general ignorance of not just science, but also other mundane real-life concepts such as machine maintenance and the basic nature of military organizations, all of which strongly suggests a serious "life experience" deficit that would be consistent with someone who's not even out of high school.

And if your little evasion was meant to be a compliment (particularly in the context of a generally argumentative, challenging tone despite your claim that it's merely an innocent question), then you really need to work on your delivery.

... completely false idea that you can directly equate physical impact KE to energy weapon yield.

I never repeated it again after the first time. What are you talking about.

Aww, how cute. You're still trying to revise your own arguments after the fact!

I quote, in your response to my question about what you you used as a basis of comparison for ISD impact "weaknesses": "How about relative to their own ray shields?" Sorry, but despite your denials, you did repeat your assertion that asteroid impact energies and ray shield energies are directly comparable, since you repeatedly tried to evaluate one relative to the other.

So far, you have not proven any better at answering. See my responses above. They still handled that situation worse than they could've.

Nonsense; I dealt with your points, and they invariably betrayed laughably irrational assumptions. For your sake, I hope that these aren't your own, and that they are just common arguments floating around spacebattles.com. If so, you would be either or a moron or a victim of the "big lie" syndrome, whereby logical barriers to acceptance are lowered in the face of popularity (ie- if everybody seems to agree that something makes sense, you tend not to subject it to serious scrutiny). And since you identify with them, you feel the need to defend them against what you see as an attack from an outsider (oh, but I forgot; you're just innocent asking questions, and you have no real position).

Then it was the officers duty to work it out, if Vader was unwilling to. As reliving Vader of command was impossible, he had to find a way to either work around it, or make his orders work anyway. Dead men make lousy search parties.

Since the vast majority of the men in that fleet survived the operation, this "point" is meaningless. We're talking about a sweep through an incredibly hazardous region in which only one ship out of the entire flotilla took damage, and highly localized damage at that! I remind you that we don't even know for sure that the captain was killed; all we know is that he recoiled from some bright flashes inside the ship well after the actual impact (ie- secondary explosions), and then the holo-transmission was cut off. You make it seem as if the whole operation was a failure and the fleet sustained enormous casualties; did you even watch the film?

Are you still convinced that the figures from ICS are "ridiculously overinflated?"

No, I still think the guns are a bit too powerful for their duties, but Like I said, I have to problem with that.

How do you know what their duties are? Without knowing the design criteria, how can you conclude that the ship is unsuited for them? Your little friends howl in outrage whenever I blast someone for making a stupid argument, but I make no secret of the fact that I have no patience for stupidity, and I explicitly warn people to do their homework before bothering me. In other words, I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter.

Have you ever heard of the Tarawa-class cruiser? Look it up: LHA-1 Tarawa-class US Navy vessel. It is designed for maximum flexibility, able to serve as an independent one-ship amphibious assault force or to operate as part of a larger battle group. It carries some 2000 Marines, in addition to significant air support (35 aircraft, along with all of their attendant weaponry and ordnance), full medical facilities, and a half-dozen different amphibious landing craft, along with numerous defensive armaments.

You seem to be assuming that the Acclamator's combat role is to serve as a lightly armed troop transport, but in reality, it is obviously intended to serve a role similar to that envisioned for the American Tarawa-class amphibious assault vessels. Besides, have you ever asked what it means to be overarmed for a combat role? In order to be over-armed, the obvious implication is that its armament detracts from its primary purpose.

Since its primary purpose is obviously different than what you seem to assume, this is a non-issue. But even if it was designed to serve in the role you imagine, it would only be over-armed if its armament somehow reduced its cargo capacity (which it does not; the guns do not take up significant space) or strained its support systems (which it does not, since its reactor produces far more power than the guns require, and the guns would not be firing in hyperspace where the reactor's full power is most needed). In other words, why would they choose not to put on so much armament?

The real problem was with the shields, which, as you pointed out, I was looking at the wrong way. I don;t have a problem with that anymore either.

Good. Our only remaining point of contention (assuming you give up the ghost on your fallback position that the Acclamator is unsuited to its role) is your assertion that there is some kind of systemic Imperial stupidity evident in the way they followed Vader's orders in the TESB asteroid field. It's actually quite clever the way you pretended to be asking questions rather than making claims; this way, you get to make concessions without admitting that you're making concessions.

Wrong. If I was talking about that, an asteroid would do only superficial surface damage before hitting an impenetrable particle shield just under the surface. Try again, and put on your thinking cap this time. Go ahead and ask if any of your spacebattles.com friends have any ideas; there's no reason to limit yourself. Maybe one of them will surprise me and figure it out. Then again, maybe not.

Of course, accoding to them, it was only superfical damage...
I'll have to give this one a bit more thought...

I'm serious about you asking your little friends to help. You'll need it, since I need to clear this entry off my plate before AOTC hits the theatres and I switch gears, so this whole exchange is going on my Hate Mail page before then. It would be good if you could answer my little riddle before then (and no, it's not a trick question; there is a way you could beat the crap out of a ship with a big rock even if its particle shields are strong enough to stop it).


May 15, 2002

Click here to return to the main Hate Mail page.



Valid HTML 4.01!Valid CSS!This website is owned and maintained by Michael Wong
This site is not affiliated with Lucasfilm or Paramount
All associated materials are used under "Fair Use" provisions of copyright law.
All original content by Michael Wong is copyrighted © 1998,2004.
Click here to go to the main page