Are StarTrek ships better?
Rob Dalton
"norman.noon" wrote:
> I have noticed that on StarWars most of the ships
> seem to be alot bigger compared to the ones on
> StarTrek,but yet the ships in StarTrek tend to be alot
> faster and alot more reliable than most of the
> ships on StarWars,is it beacause the Ships on StarTrek
> are better designed and have a better propulsion system?
ST ships aren't more reliable. In every battle episode there are
exploding consoles and dying ensigns, and quite a few episodes are
centered around some outlandish malfunction or other. ST ships aren't
all that much faster either; just look at the Falcon's maneuvering in
the asteroid field in TESB.
--
Rob Dalton | dalto...@nospam.hotmail.com
http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380 | AIM: RobPDalton
Currently located somewhere in the upper stratosphere
norman.noon
norman.noon
Guardian©
alt.startrek.vs.starwars, in order to avoid huge theoretical threads as to
which series has the best ships here in AFS. Thank you very much. :)
--
Michael B. Mayo mayoDOTmikeATmailDOTutexasDOTedu
The Guardian http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~mayo/afs/index.html
Proud Veteran of Invasion AFS (VIAFS)
ICQ# 33430542
Brad Acker
2000 years ago in the Star Trek universe, there was a person named "Jesus"
roaming the earth.
2000 years ago in the Star Wars universe, there as the beginnings of the
Sith.
.----<<<<<<<<REPLY SEPATOR>>>>>>>-------
| Rob Dalton wrote:
| "norman.noon" wrote:
|
| > I have noticed that on StarWars most of the ships
| > seem to be alot bigger compared to the ones on
| > StarTrek,but yet the ships in StarTrek tend to be alot
| > faster and alot more reliable than most of the
| > ships on StarWars,is it beacause the Ships on StarTrek
| > are better designed and have a better propulsion system?
|
| ST ships aren't more reliable. In every battle episode there are
| exploding consoles and dying ensigns, and quite a few episodes are
| centered around some outlandish malfunction or other. ST ships aren't
| all that much faster either; just look at the Falcon's maneuvering in
| the asteroid field in TESB.
--
____ ____ ____ ____ ____
||A |||C |||K |||E |||R || Brad Acker
||__|||__|||__|||__|||__|| br...@inxpress.net
|/__\|/__\|/__\|/__\|/__\| DAG-954
Rob Dalton
Brad Acker wrote:
> Well, think about THIS:
> 2000 years ago in the Star Trek universe, there was a person named "Jesus"
> roaming the earth.
> 2000 years ago in the Star Wars universe, there as the beginnings of the
> Sith.
What's your point?
Rob Dalton
Talon Karrde wrote:
> > > Well, think about THIS:
> > > 2000 years ago in the Star Trek universe, there was a person named
> "Jesus"
> > > roaming the earth.
> > > 2000 years ago in the Star Wars universe, there as the beginnings
> of the
> > > Sith.
> >
> > What's your point?
>
> Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord. *chuckle*
You are quite mental.
Chuck Sonnenburg
> > > Well, think about THIS:
> > > 2000 years ago in the Star Trek universe, there
> was a person named
> "Jesus"
> > > roaming the earth.
> > > 2000 years ago in the Star Wars universe, there as
> the beginnings
> of the
> > > Sith.
> >
> > What's your point?
> Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord. *chuckle*
> AIM: HecklerUK
> --
> www.imperial-centre.freeserve.co.uk
I think the crucifixion would have gone a lot different if
that were so.
Chuck
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Talon Karrde
Bob the wonder Wookie
the galaxy quickly, while it would take a Star Trek ship much longer.
As a ship to ship tactical drive, the warp drive is better, but for
hit and run, nothing beats the hyperdrive.
Another thing, With all the support fighters that Star Wars totes
around, I think Star Trek ships might hold their own for a little
while, but fall to the Star Wars Ships afterwards.
USS Enterprise (you pick which one) VS. Imperial Star Destroyer:
Star Destroyer has shields, preventing the use of transporters.
Enterprise is not a battleship, and does not carry the armament of a
Star Destroyer. However, The shields in Star Trek seem to be better.
Unfortunately, if a Star Destroyer were to target 1 section of shields
with all of it's turbolasers, The Enterprises shields probly would not
withstand such and assault. When added with Tie Fighters, Tie
bombers, and Tie Interceptors, the shields would buckle quickly.
The Enterprise would be able to mildly damage the Star Destroyer and
maybe take out some tie squadrons before being pulverized into
Roddenberry ashes.
Brad Acker
the Star Wars was fighting intergalactic battles with Sith Lords for control
of the galaxy, big difference!
.----<<<<<<<<REPLY SEPATOR>>>>>>>-------
| Rob Dalton wrote:
|
|
|
| Brad Acker wrote:
|
| > Well, think about THIS:
| > 2000 years ago in the Star Trek universe, there was a person named
"Jesus"
| > roaming the earth.
| > 2000 years ago in the Star Wars universe, there as the beginnings of the
| > Sith.
|
| What's your point?
Rob Dalton
Brad Acker wrote:
> 2000 years ago the Star Trek was fighting with spears, and 2000 years ago
> the Star Wars was fighting intergalactic battles with Sith Lords for control
> of the galaxy, big difference!
Oh yeah.
Rob Dalton
Talon Karrde wrote:
> > > > What's your point?
> > >
> > > Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord. *chuckle*
> >
> > You are quite mental.
>
> No I'm not
Yes you are.
>
> Karrde
> *kerplunk..kerplunk..where's my thribble*
Canon proof!!!
Talon Karrde
> >
> > Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord. *chuckle*
>
> You are quite mental.
No I'm not
Karrde
*kerplunk..kerplunk..where's my thribble*
Graeme Dice
<snipped some stuff to make this shorter>
> > >
> > > What's your point?
> > Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord. *chuckle*
> that were so.
That's an interesting mental picture.
Graeme Dice
--
"People must understand that science is inherently neither a
potential for good nor for evil. It is a potential to be
harnessed by man to do his bidding." - Glenn T. Seaborg (1912-1999),
US physicist.
Kerplunk
<norma...@ic24.net> wrote:
> I have noticed that on StarWars most of the ships
> seem to be alot bigger compared to the ones on
> StarTrek,but yet the ships in StarTrek tend to be alot
> faster and alot more reliable than most of the
> ships on StarWars,is it beacause the Ships on StarTrek
> are better designed and have a better propulsion system?
Granted, Star Trek certainly holds the distinction of 'technical
superiority'... in terms of volume of fan literature... I'm sure you can
find ship specifications and bluebrints far more detailed and involved
than what's offered presently by Lucasfilm and company (though that new
Episode I 'cutaways' book and the numerous Official Guides are starting to
give the Roddenberrians a run for their money.)
But since both series make use of wholely pseudo-scientific
faster-than-light propulsion systems only remotely derived from purely
theoretical assumptions (Trek's magical "warpdrive" versus SW's mystical
"hyperspace") arguing which transportation arrangement is 'better' or more
'efficent' is an exercise in utter futility. Bottom line: you may as well
throw in Douglas Adams' "improbability drive" and the Heart of Gold for
comparision too... the technologies they all 'describe' just DO NOT EXIST.
(Now, if we were debating the merits of Bussard ramjets vs. Orion pusher
plates, that would be an altogether different story... :)
-Kerplunk
Bob the wonder Wookie
>
>(Now, if we were debating the merits of Bussard ramjets vs. Orion pusher
>plates, that would be an altogether different story... :)
>
>-Kerplunk
Since they don't exist either, it's all futile, if you want to ruin
the fun of speculation.......... I'll wait for their invention, if
ever.
Yeah, I know they are theoretically possible, but until I see one, I
don't believe it.
ShoelessJoe
Brad Acker wrote:
> 2000 years ago the Star Trek was fighting with spears, and 2000 years ago
> the Star Wars was fighting intergalactic battles with Sith Lords for control
> of the galaxy, big difference!
What's your point? Oh yeah, there is none! The technology had not improved for
at least a hundred years since the present, what makes you think that it's done
so since then. And even then, using the books for material in argument is cheap,
since it's not really canon or official material.
>
>
> .----<<<<<<<<REPLY SEPATOR>>>>>>>-------
> | Rob Dalton wrote:
> |
> |
> |
> | Brad Acker wrote:
> |
> | > Well, think about THIS:
> | > 2000 years ago in the Star Trek universe, there was a person named
> "Jesus"
> | > roaming the earth.
> | > 2000 years ago in the Star Wars universe, there as the beginnings of the
> | > Sith.
> |
> | What's your point?
>
> --
> ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
> ||A |||C |||K |||E |||R || Brad Acker
> ||__|||__|||__|||__|||__|| br...@inxpress.net
> |/__\|/__\|/__\|/__\|/__\| DAG-954
--
~joe
===================================
"Life is pain, Highness...anyone who says differently
is selling something"
===================================
Darth Maul
a being or an object to 0. But it is possible in theory. Albert Einstein
proved that.
Kerplunk heeft geschreven in bericht ...
Strowbridge
>
> Brad Acker wrote:
>
> > 2000 years ago the Star Trek was fighting with spears, and 2000
> > years ago the Star Wars was fighting intergalactic battles with Sith
> > Lords for control of the galaxy, big difference!
>
> since it's not really canon or official material.
You are not allowed to bring that argument up since you refused to
evidence supporting you opinion. In fact, you left when I asked you to
give definitions for 'opinion' and 'evidence.' After you came back I
asked if you wanted to start the debate again and after refreshing your
memory you ignored my posts on the subject.
C.S.Strowbridge
Darth Ewok
shirts to get killed, and the red-shirt at the helm doesn't always die when
they go into battle. OTOH, the Millennium Falcon seems to be almost falling
apart - something that can't quite be said for the Enterprise. Not until
Generations anyway.
--
Darth Ewok, Sith Lord
There is no weakness; there is power.
There is no mercy; there is strength.
There is no compassion; there is ruthlessness.
There is no hope; there is the Dark Side.
Rob Dalton wrote in message <37E547FF...@nospam.erols.com>...
>
>
>"norman.noon" wrote:
>
>> I have noticed that on StarWars most of the ships
>> seem to be alot bigger compared to the ones on
>> StarTrek,but yet the ships in StarTrek tend to be alot
>> faster and alot more reliable than most of the
>> ships on StarWars,is it beacause the Ships on StarTrek
>> are better designed and have a better propulsion system?
>
>ST ships aren't more reliable. In every battle episode there are
>exploding consoles and dying ensigns, and quite a few episodes are
>centered around some outlandish malfunction or other. ST ships aren't
>all that much faster either; just look at the Falcon's maneuvering in
>the asteroid field in TESB.
>
Talon Karrde
> Talon Karrde wrote:
>
> > > > > What's your point?
> > > >
> > > > Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord. *chuckle*
> > >
> >
> > No I'm not
>
No I'm not.
Karrde
*Sigh...panto season approaching*
ShoelessJoe
Strowbridge wrote:
> ShoelessJoe wrote:
> >
> > Brad Acker wrote:
> >
> > > 2000 years ago the Star Trek was fighting with spears, and 2000
> > > years ago the Star Wars was fighting intergalactic battles with Sith
> > > Lords for control of the galaxy, big difference!
> >
> > And even then, using the books for material in argument is cheap,
> > since it's not really canon or official material.
>
> You are not allowed to bring that argument up since you refused to
> evidence supporting you opinion. In fact, you left when I asked you to
> give definitions for 'opinion' and 'evidence.'
Okay, I left because I went to a camp for 8 weeks, not because I wanted to
avoid your argument.
> After you came back I asked if you wanted to start the debate again and
> after refreshing your
> memory you ignored my posts on the subject.
First off, if you still cared after 2 freaken' months, it's about time you
started cutting down on this.
Second, that thread's name and time dissapeared before I even left, when YOU
refused to respond, therefore that matter was dropped because of you, not
me.
And finally, third, you never asked me if I wanted to start the debate
again. You might have tried to insult me, or tried to goad me into doing it,
but otherwise, you made up that little incident.
C.H.Engelbrecht
norman.noon <norma...@ic24.net> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:rLbF3.2755$68.90491@news2-hme0...
> I have noticed that on StarWars most of the ships
> seem to be alot bigger compared to the ones on
> StarTrek,but yet the ships in StarTrek tend to be alot
> faster and alot more reliable than most of the
> ships on StarWars,is it beacause the Ships on StarTrek
> are better designed and have a better propulsion system?
>
>
they way that they have all the sideeffects of our transports of today; They
can break down and need constant maintenance (think of the millinium
falcon). They also attract dirt and damage, and their crew are subjects to
make mistakes.
In Star Trek the vessels tend to be more utopic in the way that they are
always shiny and perfect. (Or though the Enterprise, often used humorously
in the stories, is one of the few that actually crumble all the time (good
ol' Scott!).) Their crews don't make errors, and their warpdrive functions
more smoothly than the hyperdrive of Star Wars vessels.
The main difference between Star Wars and Star Trek is this: Star Trek is
Roddenberry's dream of the 50's that there could be a utopic world, where
everithing is perfect. Star Wars is Lucas' mirror of the 70's of the
civilized Solar 4 (earth), with its sideeffects and all, enlarged to
galactical levels. Star Wars still holds a bit of Utopia (come on, this is
Hollywood!), but in a more moderated form. -chris
Kessler
type I'd probably suspect that the person who started this crossposting was
a troll just trying to start an intergroup flame war. Luckily I'm not the
suspicious type.
However, guys, can you please continue this debate *without* putting
alt.fan.starwars in the header? Thanks, and you don't need to reply. If
anyone here in AFS wants to follow the thread we can go to SWvsST. Cheers,
guys.
--
Vice Admiral Kessler
"Take them alive Commander, I want prisoners!"
ShoelessJoe <shoel...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:37E673FC...@erols.com...
Wes Hutchings
----------
In article
<E4930E8705B0CA3D.39E6EA8B...@lp.airnews.net>,
wonder...@hotmail.com (Bob the wonder Wookie) wrote:
>
>>
>>(Now, if we were debating the merits of Bussard ramjets vs. Orion pusher
>>plates, that would be an altogether different story... :)
>>
>>-Kerplunk
>
>
> Since they don't exist either, it's all futile, if you want to ruin
> the fun of speculation.......... I'll wait for their invention, if
> ever.
>
> Yeah, I know they are theoretically possible, but until I see one, I
> don't believe it.
A new version of the solar sail is being proposed to NASA. It uses a plasma
field to create a sail which is quite a few miles across.
They saty if it were launched within the next 5 years it could beat Voyager
out of the solar system. It tacks at one tenth the speed ofthe solar winds.
wes
Rob Dalton
Talon Karrde wrote:
> > Talon Karrde wrote:
> >
> > > > > > What's your point?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord. *chuckle*
> > > >
> > > > You are quite mental.
> > >
> > > No I'm not
> >
> > Yes you are.
>
> No I'm not.
I will thwack you.
Field Marshal D.J.
>I will thwack you.
You're one randy bird, aren't you ?
Guten Nachmittag,
--The Field Marshal D.J. (Angry 1/2 German)
Randy Taylor
are probably down, etc
Kerplunk wrote:
> In article <rLbF3.2755$68.90491@news2-hme0>, "norman.noon"
> <norma...@ic24.net> wrote:
>
> > I have noticed that on StarWars most of the ships
> > seem to be alot bigger compared to the ones on
> > StarTrek,but yet the ships in StarTrek tend to be alot
> > faster and alot more reliable than most of the
> > ships on StarWars,is it beacause the Ships on StarTrek
> > are better designed and have a better propulsion system?
>
> Granted, Star Trek certainly holds the distinction of 'technical
> superiority'... in terms of volume of fan literature... I'm sure you can
> find ship specifications and bluebrints far more detailed and involved
> than what's offered presently by Lucasfilm and company (though that new
> Episode I 'cutaways' book and the numerous Official Guides are starting to
> give the Roddenberrians a run for their money.)
>
> But since both series make use of wholely pseudo-scientific
> faster-than-light propulsion systems only remotely derived from purely
> theoretical assumptions (Trek's magical "warpdrive" versus SW's mystical
> "hyperspace") arguing which transportation arrangement is 'better' or more
> 'efficent' is an exercise in utter futility. Bottom line: you may as well
> throw in Douglas Adams' "improbability drive" and the Heart of Gold for
> comparision too... the technologies they all 'describe' just DO NOT EXIST.
>
Talon Karrde
> >I will thwack you.
>
>
> You're one randy bird, aren't you ?
Hey Rob he just called you a bird!!!!!
Karrde
*Fight... Fight... Fight*
Rob Dalton
Talon Karrde wrote:
He can sit on a sharp stick, for all I care.
--
Dalton | AIM: RobPDalton | http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380
"...there is nothing either good nor bad, but thinking makes it so."
Baron Kenneth von Lowe
<sonnNO...@execpc.com> wrote:
>In article <7s481v$1j3$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Talon
>Karrde" <Darth...@imperial-centre.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > Well, think about THIS:
>> > > 2000 years ago in the Star Trek universe, there
>> was a person named
>> "Jesus"
>> > > roaming the earth.
>> > > 2000 years ago in the Star Wars universe, there as
>> the beginnings
>> of the
>> > > Sith.
>> >
>> > What's your point?
>> Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord. *chuckle*
>> Karrde
>> AIM: HecklerUK
>> --
>> www.imperial-centre.freeserve.co.uk
>I think the crucifixion would have gone a lot different if
>that were so.
>
BOYD WARNING, YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO READ THIS.
Pontius Pilate walked around his desk to face the accused.
'Jesus of Nazareth, I sentence you to die slowly and painfully by
crucifixion!'
Jesus stared deep into his eyes and said, 'Fool, you do not know the
power of the dark side!'
Suddenly Pontius Pilate clutched at his throat. 'AAAAGGHH! You can't
do this to me! I was born in Scotland!' For several moments the guards
watched in horror as Pilate had the life choked out of him and finally
died.
'Anyone else want to make an issue of it?' asked Jesus.
Several guards rushed forwards, swords drawn. With a quick snap-hiss
Jesus had his lighsaber drawn and ready. He leaped 10 feet into the
air, landed behind the guards and sliced them neatly in two.
'Quick! Call the army in!' shouted a frightened onlooker, before being
tossed against a wall by the invisible hand of the force. Within
minutes a legion of soldiers had formed outside, ready to deal with
the threat. Out stepped Jesus, lightsaber drawn and ready. With a
fearless cry, the soldiers raced towards him, crushing several of
their own underfoot. Jesus merely stood there, and at the last minute
flattened them all with the enormous crushing power of the Force. Only
a few stragglers remained, and Jesus quickly dispatched him.
A high priest timidly poked his head around a pillar and said, 'Jesus
of Nazareth, after due deliberation, we have decided not to press
charges against you, you are free to go abou.....' his words were
choked off as Jesus picked him up with the Force and hurled him
headfirst into a wall, shattering his skull. With an evil smile, Jesus
extinguished his lightsaber and walked slowly away, ignoring the
thousands of bodies he left behind.
--
Visit my Domination Web Shite at:
http://members.tripod.com/Baronlowe/dominat.htm
(It's a ST vs SW Fanfic BTW)
And find me on ICQ:
45289197
Bob
article about it on ABC last week. The mathametician the spoke with
indicated that in a few years we may have something like time travel because
of the way these strings work there has to be 10 dimentions to our universe
and some or one of them might give us that faster than light travel we are
looking for.
I think the Star Wars ships are better overall.
--
Visit my Website at:
www.freeyellow.com/members8/korra or
www.hotyellow98.com/bobschuster
Sith Priest defender of the Empire
Wes Hutchings <yrk...@jps.net> wrote in message
news:37e5...@news1.jps.net...
|
|
| ----------
| In article
| <E4930E8705B0CA3D.39E6EA8B...@lp.airnews.net>,
| wonder...@hotmail.com (Bob the wonder Wookie) wrote:
|
|
| >
| >>
| >>(Now, if we were debating the merits of Bussard ramjets vs. Orion pusher
| >>plates, that would be an altogether different story... :)
| >>
| >>-Kerplunk
| >
| >
Rob Dalton
Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
<snip>
Uhm. Darth Christ? I think not.
Bob
side kid.
--
Visit my Website at:
www.freeyellow.com/members8/korra or
www.hotyellow98.com/bobschuster
Sith Priest defender of the Empire
Baron Kenneth von Lowe <baron...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37e794f2...@news.btinternet.com...
Baron Kenneth von Lowe
wrote:
>Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your
>side kid.
>
Pity the Romans didn't have blasters.......they might have survived
then...... :)
Baron Kenneth von Lowe
<dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Uhm. Darth Christ? I think not.
Why not? It makes sense!
PREDATOR
Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> --
>
> Visit my Domination Web Shite at:
>
> http://members.tripod.com/Baronlowe/dominat.htm
>
> (It's a ST vs SW Fanfic BTW)
>
> And find me on ICQ:
>
> 45289197
--
"Very funny Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."
Talon Karrde
> > > >I will thwack you.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're one randy bird, aren't you ?
> >
> > Hey Rob he just called you a bird!!!!!
> >
> > Karrde
> > *Fight... Fight... Fight*
>
> He can sit on a sharp stick, for all I care.
Ouch!!!
Karrde
Rob Dalton
Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:08:23 -0400, Rob Dalton
> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >Uhm. Darth Christ? I think not.
>
> Why not? It makes sense!
>
Shut up, wheenie.
Rob Dalton
Talon Karrde wrote:
Indeed.
Darth Ewok
--
Darth Ewok, Sith Lord
There is no weakness; there is power.
There is no mercy; there is strength.
There is no compassion; there is ruthlessness.
There is no hope; there is the Dark Side.
SpyDA~BLadE wrote in message
<37EADE23...@xtra.co.nz.spammeandillripoutyourspineandflosswithit>...
>But then again ST ships tend to blow out all the control panels when
>something attacks them.
>"Sir if we focus our beams here, here and here we can kill everyone
>on the bridge."
>
>Darth Ewok wrote:
>>
>> In SW, when they land on a planet, they dopn't always take people in red
>> shirts to get killed, and the red-shirt at the helm doesn't always die
when
>> they go into battle. OTOH, the Millennium Falcon seems to be almost
falling
>> apart - something that can't quite be said for the Enterprise. Not until
>> Generations anyway.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Darth Ewok, Sith Lord
>>
>> There is no weakness; there is power.
>> There is no mercy; there is strength.
>> There is no compassion; there is ruthlessness.
>> There is no hope; there is the Dark Side.
>>
>> Rob Dalton wrote in message <37E547FF...@nospam.erols.com>...
>> >
>> >
>> >"norman.noon" wrote:
>> >
>> >> I have noticed that on StarWars most of the ships
>> >> seem to be alot bigger compared to the ones on
>> >> StarTrek,but yet the ships in StarTrek tend to be alot
>> >> faster and alot more reliable than most of the
>> >> ships on StarWars,is it beacause the Ships on StarTrek
>> >> are better designed and have a better propulsion system?
>> >
>> >ST ships aren't more reliable. In every battle episode there are
>> >exploding consoles and dying ensigns, and quite a few episodes are
>> >centered around some outlandish malfunction or other. ST ships aren't
>> >all that much faster either; just look at the Falcon's maneuvering in
>> >the asteroid field in TESB.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Rob Dalton | dalto...@nospam.hotmail.com
>> >http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380 | AIM: RobPDalton
>> >Currently located somewhere in the upper stratosphere
>> >
>> >
>
>--
> _ _ _ _
> \\ \\ // //
> \\ || || //
>_ \\ \\ // //
> |________________________\\ \\_// //_____________________________
> | ____________________ \\/ \// ____________________________/
> | /_\ /_\ /
> |_______________________// | | \\_________________________/
>_| // /| |\ \\
> // //| |\\ \\
> // // \___/ \\ \\
> // \\
Strowbridge
>
> ah your forgetting that all starwars stuff happened a long time ago.
> So it was 2000 years before what they showed in the movie. Which could
> have been anywhere between a 2500 years and 250000 years ago by todays
> standards.
>
> An argument for the starwars side is that they could have a further
> 1000 or so years of advances after what was in the movies by the time
> the federation gets started. Or if they attacked the Milky Way during
> the movie we'd all be killed.
That argument is banned by the FAQ.
C.S.Strowbridge
Rob Dalton
SpyDA~BLadE wrote:
> Rob Dalton wrote:
> >
> > Talon Karrde wrote:
> >
> > > > Talon Karrde wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > What's your point?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord. *chuckle*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are quite mental.
> > > > >
> > > > > No I'm not
> > > >
> > > > Yes you are.
> > >
> > > No I'm not.
> >
> > I will thwack you.
>
> No you won't
Mind your own business, buttwipe, or I will thwack you as well!
Talon Karrde
> SpyDA~BLadE wrote:
>
> > Rob Dalton wrote:
> > >
> > > Talon Karrde wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Talon Karrde wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What's your point?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord.
*chuckle*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are quite mental.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No I'm not
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes you are.
> > > >
> > > > No I'm not.
> > >
> > > I will thwack you.
> >
> > No you won't
>
> Mind your own business, buttwipe, or I will thwack you as well!
Can I help?
Karrde
AIM: HecklerUK
www.imperial-centre.freeserve.co.uk
Baron Kenneth von Lowe
<dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:08:23 -0400, Rob Dalton
>> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >Uhm. Darth Christ? I think not.
>>
>> Why not? It makes sense!
>>
>
>Shut up, wheenie.
After you.
Baron Kenneth von Lowe
wrote:
>ROFLMAO
>
It wasn't as funny as Domination......which you will be in......I got
your email, but couldn't reply to it....ho hum.
Baron Kenneth von Lowe
<Arch...@xtra.co.nz.spammeandillripoutyourspineandflosswithit> wrote:
>Very Very Very funny stuff
>
Domination's funnier........
SpyDA~BLadE
PREDATOR wrote:
>
> ROFLMAO
>
> Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:22:56 +1700, Chuck Sonnenburg
> > <sonnNO...@execpc.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <7s481v$1j3$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Talon
> > >Karrde" <Darth...@imperial-centre.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> > > Well, think about THIS:
> > >> > > 2000 years ago in the Star Trek universe, there
> > >> was a person named
> > >> "Jesus"
> > >> > > roaming the earth.
> > >> > > 2000 years ago in the Star Wars universe, there as
> > >> the beginnings
> > >> of the
> > >> > > Sith.
> > >> >
> > >> > What's your point?
> > >> Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord. *chuckle*
> > --
> >
> > Visit my Domination Web Shite at:
> >
> > http://members.tripod.com/Baronlowe/dominat.htm
> >
> > (It's a ST vs SW Fanfic BTW)
> >
> > And find me on ICQ:
> >
> > 45289197
>
> --
> "Very funny Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."
--
SpyDA~BLadE
it was 2000 years before what they showed in the movie. Which could have
been anywhere between a 2500 years and 250000 years ago by todays
standards.
An argument for the starwars side is that they could have a further 1000
or so years of advances after what was in the movies by the time the
federation gets started. Or if they attacked the Milky Way during the
movie we'd all be killed.
Brad Acker wrote:
>
> Well, think about THIS:
> 2000 years ago in the Star Trek universe, there was a person named "Jesus"
> roaming the earth.
> 2000 years ago in the Star Wars universe, there as the beginnings of the
> Sith.
>
> .----<<<<<<<<REPLY SEPATOR>>>>>>>-------
> | Rob Dalton wrote:
> | "norman.noon" wrote:
> |
> | > I have noticed that on StarWars most of the ships
> | > seem to be alot bigger compared to the ones on
> | > StarTrek,but yet the ships in StarTrek tend to be alot
> | > faster and alot more reliable than most of the
> | > ships on StarWars,is it beacause the Ships on StarTrek
> | > are better designed and have a better propulsion system?
> |
> | ST ships aren't more reliable. In every battle episode there are
> | exploding consoles and dying ensigns, and quite a few episodes are
> | centered around some outlandish malfunction or other. ST ships aren't
> | all that much faster either; just look at the Falcon's maneuvering in
> | the asteroid field in TESB.
>
> --
> ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
> ||A |||C |||K |||E |||R || Brad Acker
> ||__|||__|||__|||__|||__|| br...@inxpress.net
> |/__\|/__\|/__\|/__\|/__\| DAG-954
SpyDA~BLadE
Rob Dalton wrote:
>
> Talon Karrde wrote:
>
> > > Talon Karrde wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > What's your point?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord. *chuckle*
> > > > >
> > > > > You are quite mental.
> > > >
> > > > No I'm not
> > >
> > > Yes you are.
> >
> > No I'm not.
>
> I will thwack you.
No you won't
>
> --
> Rob Dalton | dalto...@nospam.hotmail.com
> http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380 | AIM: RobPDalton
> Currently located somewhere in the upper stratosphere
--
SpyDA~BLadE
something attacks them.
"Sir if we focus our beams here, here and here we can kill everyone
on the bridge."
Darth Ewok wrote:
>
> In SW, when they land on a planet, they dopn't always take people in red
> shirts to get killed, and the red-shirt at the helm doesn't always die when
> they go into battle. OTOH, the Millennium Falcon seems to be almost falling
> apart - something that can't quite be said for the Enterprise. Not until
> Generations anyway.
>
> --
>
> Darth Ewok, Sith Lord
>
> There is no weakness; there is power.
> There is no mercy; there is strength.
> There is no compassion; there is ruthlessness.
> There is no hope; there is the Dark Side.
>
> Rob Dalton wrote in message <37E547FF...@nospam.erols.com>...
> >
> >
> >"norman.noon" wrote:
> >
> >> I have noticed that on StarWars most of the ships
> >> seem to be alot bigger compared to the ones on
> >> StarTrek,but yet the ships in StarTrek tend to be alot
> >> faster and alot more reliable than most of the
> >> ships on StarWars,is it beacause the Ships on StarTrek
> >> are better designed and have a better propulsion system?
> >
> >ST ships aren't more reliable. In every battle episode there are
> >exploding consoles and dying ensigns, and quite a few episodes are
> >centered around some outlandish malfunction or other. ST ships aren't
> >all that much faster either; just look at the Falcon's maneuvering in
> >the asteroid field in TESB.
> >
Rob Dalton
Talon Karrde wrote:
> > SpyDA~BLadE wrote:
> >
> > > Rob Dalton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Talon Karrde wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Talon Karrde wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What's your point?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord.
> *chuckle*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You are quite mental.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No I'm not
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes you are.
> > > > >
> > > > > No I'm not.
> > > >
> > > > I will thwack you.
> > >
> > > No you won't
> >
> > Mind your own business, buttwipe, or I will thwack you as well!
>
> Can I help?
Please, do!
Rob Dalton
Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:58:11 -0400, Rob Dalton
> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:08:23 -0400, Rob Dalton
> >> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >Uhm. Darth Christ? I think not.
> >>
> >> Why not? It makes sense!
> >>
> >
> >Shut up, wheenie.
>
> After you.
No.
Talon Karrde
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord.
> > *chuckle*
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You are quite mental.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No I'm not
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes you are.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No I'm not.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will thwack you.
> > > >
> > > > No you won't
> > >
> > > Mind your own business, buttwipe, or I will thwack you as well!
> >
> > Can I help?
>
> Please, do!
I wish I'd never suggested Jesus as a sith lord now.
Karrde
*waiting to thwack someone*
Humble Beginnings
Man, that's been out since at least the mid-80s.
Every atom's particles, neutrons, protons, elctrons, and the
concurrent quarks, leptons, etc. are actually "vibrating strings"
(not literally but vibrations that can be construed or visualized AS
strings)? Is that the theory talked about in the interview? I didn't
know it was still around.
My favorite theory to gain credence in the mid-to-late 80s is chaos
theory. Otherwise known as Murphy's law. It's simply beautiful.
On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:12:06 -0700, "Bob" <robbie...@iag.net>
wrote:
>If you haven't heard there is a theory called the "string" theory. I saw an
>article about it on ABC last week. The mathametician the spoke with
>indicated that in a few years we may have something like time travel because
>of the way these strings work there has to be 10 dimentions to our universe
>and some or one of them might give us that faster than light travel we are
>looking for.
>I think the Star Wars ships are better overall.
>
>--
>Visit my Website at:
>www.freeyellow.com/members8/korra or
>www.hotyellow98.com/bobschuster
>Sith Priest defender of the Empire
>
>
>Wes Hutchings <yrk...@jps.net> wrote in message
>news:37e5...@news1.jps.net...
>|
>|
>| ----------
>| In article
>| <E4930E8705B0CA3D.39E6EA8B...@lp.airnews.net>,
>| wonder...@hotmail.com (Bob the wonder Wookie) wrote:
>|
>|
>| >
>| >>
>| >>(Now, if we were debating the merits of Bussard ramjets vs. Orion pusher
>| >>plates, that would be an altogether different story... :)
>| >>
>| >>-Kerplunk
>| >
>| >
>| > Since they don't exist either, it's all futile, if you want to ruin
>| > the fun of speculation.......... I'll wait for their invention, if
>| > ever.
>| >
>| > Yeah, I know they are theoretically possible, but until I see one, I
>| > don't believe it.
>|
>|
>| A new version of the solar sail is being proposed to NASA. It uses a
>plasma
>| field to create a sail which is quite a few miles across.
>| They saty if it were launched within the next 5 years it could beat
>Voyager
>| out of the solar system. It tacks at one tenth the speed ofthe solar
>winds.
>|
>| wes
>
>
--
"Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?
I always ask that of all my prey.
I just like the sound of it."
Humble Beginnings
ICQ: #4042534
PREDATOR
Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 23:49:07 +1200, PREDATOR <san....@extra.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >ROFLMAO
> >
> It wasn't as funny as Domination......which you will be in......I got
> your email, but couldn't reply to it....ho hum.
Hmm... Can I have a good ship?
PREDATOR
Rob Dalton wrote:
> Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:58:11 -0400, Rob Dalton
> > <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:08:23 -0400, Rob Dalton
> > >> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> ><snip>
> > >> >
> > >> >Uhm. Darth Christ? I think not.
> > >>
> > >> Why not? It makes sense!
> > >>
> > >
> > >Shut up, wheenie.
> >
> > After you.
>
> No.
I get more and more amazed at the calibur of arguments in this NG.
>
>
> --
> Dalton | AIM: RobPDalton | http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380
> "...there is nothing either good nor bad, but thinking makes it so."
--
Thomas S. McDonald esquire
mars...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> "Super-string theory"
>
> Man, that's been out since at least the mid-80s.
>
> Every atom's particles, neutrons, protons, elctrons, and the
> concurrent quarks, leptons, etc. are actually "vibrating strings"
> (not literally but vibrations that can be construed or visualized AS
> strings)? Is that the theory talked about in the interview? I didn't
> know it was still around.
Its current incarnation is called m-brane theory IIRC. Basicaly
they're no longer confined to vibrating in a single dimension. And the
required number of dimensions for our universe varies between 10 and 11
usually. Most articles on the fundemental nature of matter, or the
standard model at least touch on it.
> My favorite theory to gain credence in the mid-to-late 80s is chaos
> theory. Otherwise known as Murphy's law. It's simply beautiful.
Some guy has proved the viability of using the principles of chaos
theory to make a chaotic computer, I believe he was indian, but I'm too
lazy to look it up. Chao. Good theories never die, they just mutate
until they're right.
--
Bullying others is the source of joy -- Ancient Chinese Wisdom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Vul'Khan
order to be able to instantly vaporise an asteroid with one shot (as seen in
ESB). Consider that one of these beautiful, hulking, dagger shaped starships
are bristling with *dozens* of such cannons. Consider all the destructive
firepower of all those cannons all at once turned some silly little saucer
shaped flying 'exploration' vessel like the USS Enterprise. Consider the laughs
and smiles on peoples faces as they watch it blow into itty bitty pieces!!!
Over and out
norman.noon
Lord Mark
These asteroids are shieldless objects, that are moving less than the speed of
light.
The technology is different between the two shows, In Starwars they have the
inability to target ships moving the speed of light, little less warp 7.
I would just drain an ounce of anti matter from the warp engines, and transport
it into the reactor core, end of your " beautiful, hulking, dagger shaped
starships"
"norman.noon" wrote:
--
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise
the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness,
enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others
of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.
Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson
Have Gun Will Travel
Wire Pali...@uswest.net
Darth Ewok
shields.
--
Darth Ewok, Sith Lord
There is no weakness; there is power.
There is no mercy; there is strength.
There is no compassion; there is ruthlessness.
There is no hope; there is the Dark Side.
Lord Mark wrote in message <37ECDA2E...@uswest.net>...
Darth Ewok
--
Darth Ewok, Sith Lord
There is no mercy; there is strength.
There is no compassion; there is ruthlessness.
There is no hope; there is the Dark Side.
alex mohalek wrote in message <37EAA061...@prodigy.net>...Which would date the events in SW as happening in about 2000 b.c.- as this artwork from Ancient Egypt, unearthed by Dr. Henry Jones, Jr. in the early part of this century seems to indicate...it's on permanent view at the Cairo Museum.t.t.n.f.
"Erich Von Daniken"
Brad Acker wrote:
2000 years ago the Star Trek was fighting with spears, and 2000 years ago
the Star Wars was fighting intergalactic battles with Sith Lords for control
of the galaxy, big difference!
.----<<<<<<<<REPLY SEPATOR>>>>>>>-------
| Rob Dalton wrote:
|
|
|
| Brad Acker wrote:
|
| > Well, think about THIS:
| > 2000 years ago in the Star Trek universe, there was a person named
"Jesus"
| > roaming the earth.
| > 2000 years ago in the Star Wars universe, there as the beginnings of the
| > Sith.
|
| What's your point?
Baron Kenneth von Lowe
<dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:58:11 -0400, Rob Dalton
>> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:08:23 -0400, Rob Dalton
>> >> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> ><snip>
>> >> >
>> >> >Uhm. Darth Christ? I think not.
>> >>
>> >> Why not? It makes sense!
>> >>
>> >
>> >Shut up, wheenie.
>>
>> After you.
>
>No.
>
Ah go on.........
Baron Kenneth von Lowe
wrote:
>
>
>Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 23:49:07 +1200, PREDATOR <san....@extra.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >ROFLMAO
>> >
>> It wasn't as funny as Domination......which you will be in......I got
>> your email, but couldn't reply to it....ho hum.
>
>Hmm... Can I have a good ship?
>
You can have any ship you want, as long as it's not a super weapon, or
an SSD :)
*Candy-Floss Pubes*
this shit out, on Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:19:59 +0100:
>At the risk of sounding a little sad, how could you transport it? SDs have
>shields.
What is an SD?
---"I'll fucking 'hit you one more time' in a minute!"---
---"Sing it back, bring it back, sing it back, bring it back to me..."---
Rob Dalton
Talon Karrde wrote:
Regretting it now, eh??
> Karrde
> *waiting to thwack someone*
:^)
--
Dalton
AIM: RobPDalton | ICQ: 50342303 | http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380
"...there is nothing either good nor bad, but thinking makes it so."
Fanfic Editor Extraordinaire - I have no fear; I've edited HIT-MAN.
Lord Mark
Darth Ewok wrote:
> At the risk of sounding a little sad, how could you transport it? SDs have
> shields.
>
> --
>
> Darth Ewok, Sith Lord
>
> There is no weakness; there is power.
> There is no mercy; there is strength.
> There is no compassion; there is ruthlessness.
> There is no hope; there is the Dark Side.
>
John Baker
fruit.com wrote:
> Good Lord! "Darth Ewok" <Peter...@tesco.net>, the completely bugger =
> pisshead, strained
> this shit out, on Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:19:59 +0100:
>
> >At the risk of sounding a little sad, how could you transport it? SDs =
> have
> >shields.
>
> What is an SD?
>
> ---"I'll fucking 'hit you one more time' in a minute!"---
> ---"Sing it back, bring it back, sing it back, bring it back to me..."---
Hey
Just out of sheer curiosity, and for the sake of all my friends here on
Usenet, could you STOP POSTING THIS BULLSHIT TO SO MANY DIFFERENT
NEWSGROUPS?
Thank you so much. Hope you have a lovely day.
Rob Dalton
PREDATOR wrote:
> Rob Dalton wrote:
>
> > Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:58:11 -0400, Rob Dalton
> > > <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:08:23 -0400, Rob Dalton
> > > >> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> ><snip>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Uhm. Darth Christ? I think not.
> > > >>
> > > >> Why not? It makes sense!
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Shut up, wheenie.
> > >
> > > After you.
> >
> > No.
>
> I get more and more amazed at the calibur of arguments in this NG.
Don't be a sarcastic jink or I shall be forced to smash your skull into
tiny pieces.
Rob Dalton
PREDATOR wrote:
> Rob Dalton wrote:
>
> > Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:58:11 -0400, Rob Dalton
> > > <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:08:23 -0400, Rob Dalton
> > > >> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> ><snip>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Uhm. Darth Christ? I think not.
> > > >>
> > > >> Why not? It makes sense!
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Shut up, wheenie.
> > >
> > > After you.
> >
> > No.
>
> I get more and more amazed at the calibur of arguments in this NG.
>
BTW it's spelled 'caliber'.
Rob Dalton
Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:27:43 -0400, Rob Dalton
> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:58:11 -0400, Rob Dalton
> >> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:08:23 -0400, Rob Dalton
> >> >> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Uhm. Darth Christ? I think not.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why not? It makes sense!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Shut up, wheenie.
> >>
> >> After you.
> >
> >No.
> >
> Ah go on.........
FALSE!!!!!
Rob Dalton
Talon Karrde wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's your point?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord.
> > > > > *chuckle*
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You are quite mental.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No I'm not
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes you are.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No I'm not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I will thwack you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No you won't
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mind your own business, buttwipe, or I will thwack you as
> well!
> > > > >
> > > > > Can I help?
> > > >
> > > > Please, do!
> > >
> > > I wish I'd never suggested Jesus as a sith lord now.
> >
> > Regretting it now, eh??
>
> Well maybe not.
OK..
>
> > > Karrde
> > > *waiting to thwack someone*
> >
> > :^)
>
> Indeed
>
Yeh....
>
> Karrde
Talon Karrde
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Is he suggesting that Jesus was a Sith lord.
> > > > *chuckle*
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You are quite mental.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No I'm not
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes you are.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No I'm not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will thwack you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No you won't
> > > > >
> > > > > Mind your own business, buttwipe, or I will thwack you as
well!
> > > >
> > > > Can I help?
> > >
> > > Please, do!
> >
> > I wish I'd never suggested Jesus as a sith lord now.
>
> Regretting it now, eh??
Well maybe not.
> > Karrde
> > *waiting to thwack someone*
>
> :^)
Indeed
Karrde
Baron Kenneth von Lowe
<dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:27:43 -0400, Rob Dalton
>> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:58:11 -0400, Rob Dalton
>> >> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:08:23 -0400, Rob Dalton
>> >> >> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ><snip>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Uhm. Darth Christ? I think not.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why not? It makes sense!
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Shut up, wheenie.
>> >>
>> >> After you.
>> >
>> >No.
>> >
>> Ah go on.........
>
>FALSE!!!!!
>
OW!
Rob Dalton
Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 1999 21:58:23 -0400, Rob Dalton
> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:27:43 -0400, Rob Dalton
> >> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:58:11 -0400, Rob Dalton
> >> >> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:08:23 -0400, Rob Dalton
> >> >> >> <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Baron Kenneth von Lowe wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Uhm. Darth Christ? I think not.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why not? It makes sense!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Shut up, wheenie.
> >> >>
> >> >> After you.
> >> >
> >> >No.
> >> >
> >> Ah go on.........
> >
> >FALSE!!!!!
> >
> OW!
REPENT!!
Timothy Jones
>
> Yes, it is true that both SW and ST ships have shield generators.
> *However* it is utterly obvious that the ships in Starwars are
> *much* more capable of resisting damage than those in Star Trek. I
> mean, if we say that a photon torpedo (st) is roughly analagous to a
> proton torpedo (sw) then you'll see what I mean.
But there's no reason to say that, and very good reason to say Trek's
are at *least* 32,000 times more powerfull.
> In ROTJ the big capital ships were really dishing out the damage..
> and they kept on working despite the pounding they were recieving.
What I saw in RotJ was their best ship, the SSD Executor, done in by one
A-Wing crashing inot the bridge, after two others had pierced its
shields and destroyed its port generator tower with no more than 16
shots, which were either cuncussion missiles {weaker than X-Wing proton
torpedoes rated at "just under one kiloton"}, or just ordinary blaster
bolts. Meanwhile, a single Trek photon torpedo at maximum yield creates
an energy release of about 64 Megatons, which is worth 64,000 kiloton
warheads from SW. Cutting that in half to account for its presumed
global nature leaves 32,000 X-Wing torpedoe's worth of damage from each
Trek max yield torpedo. That means, given the RotJ precident, that one
such Trek torpedo will clearly destroy any ship of the imperial navy.
> Contrast that with the Enterprise, why it only needs to take a tiny
> bit on enemy fire before the crew is running around madly say things
> like "shields at 50% and failing sir".
From *Trek* level weapons. Your point? {and BTW, they usually take a lot
more than "a tiny" number of hits from similarly-powered government's
ships, as many eps demonstrate, such as the TOS ep where Spock's parents
appear for the first time on board. {You tell me how long they withstood
the combined fire from all those Romulan warbirds before kirk got to the
bridge and got his ship out of there...and their shields *still* hadn't
failed yet.}
> A Stardestroyer or big Calamari can easily absord a torpedo and
> retain and least 99% of its shield capacity.
Apparantly not, since just 16 of them (if they were even warheads and
not ordinary blaster bolts) can get through the shields of even an SSD
like the, Executor and still have enough potential left to destroy a
large part of its bridge superstructure, namely one tower and some
adjacent area.
> Oh, and btw, it maybe true that it couldn't target an enemy ship
> moving at faster than lightspeed, but then, neither could the
> Enterprise because when Star Wars ships go to lightspeed thay
> actually travel through hyperspace, rendering them non-targetable.
First, ships in warp can still use weapons ans sensors. Ships in
hyperspace cannot. Therfore, *only* warp drive has any tactical value
outside of retreat. Second, there is no good reason to presume Trek
level sensors (which we already know are more sophisticated and advanced
than those in SW...to say nothing of more versatile) would not
immediately spot a SW ship approaching or leaving inside hyperspace. In
all likelihood, hyperspace would trnaslate inTrek as simply the first,
most proximal (to N-Space) layer of subspace. As subspatial events and
phenomena, especially from the proximal layer which warp drive
permeates, are routinely detected all the time in Trek, so too then
would any SW ship. And since Trek torpedoes have always worked fine at
warp (and now, as of DS9, so too do the new ACB-jacketed phasers), they
would have no trouble having full effect on a SW ship in media res of a
jump. Hell, even "hyperspatial shadows" are invariably disasterous to SW
ships. I shudder to think what *real* mass would do to them when
encountered during a jump. It seems to me than that a screening
network of graviton field generators would prevent SW ships from jumping
into Federation space, just as SW interdictors do. {And we know this
measure wouldn't hinder warp drive, since gravity wells from even stars
at close range do not keep a Trek ship from going to warp.}
AJ
be confined to within their own environments. There is technology in ST that SW
does not have and therefore cannot protect against and vice versa.
Darth Ewok wrote:
> What? That has shields as well!
>
> --
>
> Darth Ewok, Sith Lord
>
> There is no weakness; there is power.
> There is no mercy; there is strength.
> There is no compassion; there is ruthlessness.
> There is no hope; there is the Dark Side.
>
> Lord Mark wrote in message <37ED6D90...@uswest.net>...
> >Why threw the thermal exhaust port.
> >
> >Darth Ewok wrote:
> >
> >> At the risk of sounding a little sad, how could you transport it? SDs
Vul'Khan
is utterly obvious that the ships in Starwars are *much* more capable of
resisting damage than those in Star Trek. I mean, if we say that a photon
torpedo (st) is roughly analagous to a proton torpedo (sw) then you'll see what
they kept on working despite the pounding they were recieving. Contrast that
with the Enterprise, why it only needs to take a tiny bit on enemy fire before
the crew is running around madly say things like "shields at 50% and failing
least 99% of its shield capacity. Oh, and btw, it maybe true that it couldn't
rmlet...@home.com
Timothy Jones wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Vul'Khan wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it is true that both SW and ST ships have shield generators.
> > *However* it is utterly obvious that the ships in Starwars are
> > *much* more capable of resisting damage than those in Star Trek. I
> > mean, if we say that a photon torpedo (st) is roughly analagous to a
> > proton torpedo (sw) then you'll see what I mean.
>
> But there's no reason to say that, and very good reason to say Trek's
> are at *least* 32,000 times more powerfull.
>
> > In ROTJ the big capital ships were really dishing out the damage..
> > and they kept on working despite the pounding they were recieving.
>
> What I saw in RotJ was their best ship, the SSD Executor, done in by one
> A-Wing crashing inot the bridge, after two others had pierced its
> shields and destroyed its port generator tower with no more than 16
> shots, which were either cuncussion missiles {weaker than X-Wing proton
> torpedoes rated at "just under one kiloton"}, or just ordinary blaster
> bolts. Meanwhile, a single Trek photon torpedo at maximum yield creates
> an energy release of about 64 Megatons, which is worth 64,000 kiloton
> warheads from SW. Cutting that in half to account for its presumed
> global nature leaves 32,000 X-Wing torpedoe's worth of damage from each
> Trek max yield torpedo. That means, given the RotJ precident, that one
> such Trek torpedo will clearly destroy any ship of the imperial navy.
>
> > Contrast that with the Enterprise, why it only needs to take a tiny
> > bit on enemy fire before the crew is running around madly say things
> > like "shields at 50% and failing sir".
>
> From *Trek* level weapons. Your point? {and BTW, they usually take a lot
> more than "a tiny" number of hits from similarly-powered government's
> ships, as many eps demonstrate, such as the TOS ep where Spock's parents
> appear for the first time on board. {You tell me how long they withstood
> the combined fire from all those Romulan warbirds before kirk got to the
> bridge and got his ship out of there...and their shields *still* hadn't
> failed yet.}
>
> > A Stardestroyer or big Calamari can easily absord a torpedo and
> > retain and least 99% of its shield capacity.
>
> Apparantly not, since just 16 of them (if they were even warheads and
> not ordinary blaster bolts) can get through the shields of even an SSD
> like the, Executor and still have enough potential left to destroy a
> large part of its bridge superstructure, namely one tower and some
> adjacent area.
>
> > Oh, and btw, it maybe true that it couldn't target an enemy ship
> > moving at faster than lightspeed, but then, neither could the
> > Enterprise because when Star Wars ships go to lightspeed thay
> > actually travel through hyperspace, rendering them non-targetable.
>
C.H.Engelbrecht
> > and they kept on working despite the pounding they were recieving.
>
> What I saw in RotJ was their best ship, the SSD Executor, done in by one
> A-Wing crashing inot the bridge, after two others had pierced its
> shields and destroyed its port generator tower with no more than 16
> shots, which were either cuncussion missiles {weaker than X-Wing proton
> torpedoes rated at "just under one kiloton"}, or just ordinary blaster
> bolts. Meanwhile, a single Trek photon torpedo at maximum yield creates
> an energy release of about 64 Megatons, which is worth 64,000 kiloton
> warheads from SW. Cutting that in half to account for its presumed
> global nature leaves 32,000 X-Wing torpedoe's worth of damage from each
> Trek max yield torpedo. That means, given the RotJ precident, that one
> such Trek torpedo will clearly destroy any ship of the imperial navy.
>
debate corners on the thesis, that those high levels of explosion energy
(64MT) presented in the ST warfare are far beyond realism. I simply find
that ST, a series of the dreaming 50's, to be nonrealistic. Whereas SW,
introduced in the 70's with its period of absolute integrity, has a warfare
more credible than that of ST.
My conclusion to this hole matter is: Star Trek vessels are far better than
Star Wars vessels, but at the cost of credibility; ST ships are just too
pissed perfect and SW ships can be imagined to be true. -chris
(P.S. But I still love Star Trek)
Dion Turner
C.H.Engelbrecht wrote:
Agreed...careful, there isn't many of us =)
Dion.
--
Dilbert : Don't you ever get tired of seeing people get hurt?
Dogbert : That's crazy talk.
Timothy Jones
>
> True, I suppose, however the comparison between ST ships and SW
> ships needs to be confined to within their own environments. There
> is technology in ST that SW does not have and therefore cannot
> protect against and vice versa.
This seems reasonable on the surface, but would preclude either side
coming up with anything the other side would ever accept. I think the
best approach is to presume a "world-neutral" environment, wherein the
laws of physics as *we* know them operate normally, excepting *only* for
situations when they are circumvented by canon technology from either
storyworld. In those situations, the technology of each "side" functions
as it is stated to function explicitly by canon source materials and/or
direct on-screen evidence in the form of visuals which are preferably
backed up by spoken character dialogue. Nothing should be presumed that
is not established in this fashion when it would create an
inter-storyworld conflict.
For example, if we were comparing hyperspatial technologies from two
different storyworlds that make different assumptions about hyperspace
or the physical laws of hyperspace, we would *never* say they must both
conform to the statements of either "side," thus overriding the
canonistic precidents of the "loosing" side. We would simply have to
swallow the contradiction, saying that those ships from world "A"
function hyperspatially just as that storyworld's canon establishments
say they do, and those from storyworld "B" operate according to *that*
storyworld's hyperspatial assumptions. So, if in world "A" the speed of
light still is as fast as everything can go, only light travels 5 times
faster in world "A" hyperspace, while in world "B" light travles
sloweer in hyperspace thereby making hyperspace a worse choice for
interstellar travel (as one physics professor told me is presumed in
one sci-fi-novel heonce read) then world "A" ships can travel at speeds
up to 5 C, and world "B" ships cannot travel FTL either in hyperspace or
normal space. We might not like this, and we might say it's being
inconsistent. But who are we to decide arbitrarially which storyworld's
assumptions override those of others? The only things we get to apply
"across the board" are those real world laws of physics which are not
being circumvented by the assumptions or fictional technologies of any
of the involved debate storyworlds. Within *that* framework, we must
apply them strictly. *That* is what is meant by "world-neutral."
Regards,
Timothy Jones
"Seek first to understand,
and then to be understood."
Timothy Jones
Timothy Jones
>
> > C.H.Engelbrecht wrote:
> >
> > > > In ROTJ the big capital ships were really dishing out the damage..
> > > > and they kept on working despite the pounding they were recieving.
> > >
> > > What I saw in RotJ was their best ship, the SSD Executor, done in by one
> > > shields and destroyed its port generator tower with no more than 16
> > > shots, which were either cuncussion missiles {weaker than X-Wing proton
> > > torpedoes rated at "just under one kiloton"}, or just ordinary blaster
> > > bolts. Meanwhile, a single Trek photon torpedo at maximum yield creates
> > > an energy release of about 64 Megatons, which is worth 64,000 kiloton
> > > warheads from SW. Cutting that in half to account for its presumed
> > > global nature leaves 32,000 X-Wing torpedoe's worth of damage from each
> > > Trek max yield torpedo. That means, given the RotJ precident, that one
> > > such Trek torpedo will clearly destroy any ship of the imperial navy.
> >
> > I'm impressed with your maths presented here, however I find that this
> > debate corners on the thesis, that those high levels of explosion energy
> > (64MT) presented in the ST warfare are far beyond realism.
Not when you consider what a photon torpedoe's warhead is composed of.
> > I simply find that ST, a series of the dreaming 50's, to be
> > nonrealistic.
Given that two of its fictional technologies have begun to become
realities (see "The Viewers Guide To Voyager, p. 104" for details re
matter-to-waveform conversion of amoeba seeming to portent
"transporters" in the future, and technology being researched to deliver
medicine without breaking the skin, protenting "hyposprays"), I would
have to disagree until someone starts to make some real breakthroughs
with SW tech, say with hyperdrives or lightsabers...
However, this is an entirely different discussion, for another day and
context. I could accept your claim hook-line-and-sinker, and *still*
hold the position that Trek's fictional technology, particularly in this
case weapons, is/are far more powerfull than those of SW.
Regards,
Timelord
Bob
based on a far less destructive mechanism. The one big weapon (the
superlaser) would take out any ST vessel though much like the Genesis bomb.
It's problem is the scale and cost of construction is prohibitive of making
more than one at a time as shown in the movies. If you are going to compare
military capabilities add in B5. SW compares more to the Babylon technology.
--
Visit my Website at:
www.freeyellow.com/members8/korra or
www.hotyellow98.com/bobschuster
Sith Priest defender of the Empire
Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.10.990929...@dante05.u.washington.edu...
Rob Dalton
Bob wrote:
> You must remember SW does not have antimatter and thus it's weapons are
> based on a far less destructive mechanism.
Proof?
> The one big weapon (the superlaser) would take out any ST vessel though much
> like the Genesis bomb.
> It's problem is the scale and cost of construction is prohibitive of making
> more than one at a time as shown in the movies. If you are going to compare
> military capabilities add in B5. SW compares more to the Babylon technology.
They should have an alt.starwars.vs.babylon5
--
Dalton
AIM: RobPDalton | ICQ: 50342303 | http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380
Mine Eyes have seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord...
ubiqt...@my-deja.com
no they use a far more powerful such of fuel 'HYPERMATTER'
>and thus it's weapons are
> based on a far less destructive mechanism. The one big weapon (the
> superlaser) would take out any ST vessel though much like the Genesis bomb.
> It's problem is the scale and cost of construction is prohibitive of making
> more than one at a time as shown in the movies. If you are going to compare
> military capabilities add in B5. SW compares more to the Babylon technology.
>
How does it compare to B5? most of the ships dont have full
shields or artifical Gravity. Anyway B5 would win against
ST and SW would win against B5
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Timothy Jones
>
> | Timelord wrote:
> |
> | > I simply find that ST, a series of the dreaming 50's, to be
> | > nonrealistic.
> |
> | Given that two of its fictional technologies have begun to become
> | realities (see "The Viewers Guide To Voyager, p. 104" for details re
> | matter-to-waveform conversion of amoeba seeming to portent
> | "transporters" in the future, and technology being researched to deliver
> | medicine without breaking the skin, protenting "hyposprays"), I would
> | have to disagree until someone starts to make some real breakthroughs
> | with SW tech, say with hyperdrives or lightsabers...
> |
> | However, this is an entirely different discussion, for another day and
> | context. I could accept your claim hook-line-and-sinker, and *still*
> | hold the position that Trek's fictional technology, particularly in this
> | case weapons, is/are far more powerfull than those of SW.
>
> are based on a far less destructive mechanism. The one big weapon
> (the superlaser) would take out any ST vessel though much like the
> Genesis bomb.
It *might*, but it's not obvious that it would.
> Its problem is the scale and cost of construction is prohibitive of
> making more than one at a time as shown in the movies. If you are
> going to compare military capabilities add in B5. SW compares more
> to the Babylon technology.
I don't agree. Though Trek is far superior to both, I end up on SW's
side when we compare it to B5. The latter's ships have no shields, their
hyperspace travel is slower and even riskier (if you can imagine), and
it's weapons seem less powerfull, with the exception of those of the
first ones.
Smash
ST sucks big time.
ST comes up with an away-mission, of 5 man equipped with hand-fasers.
The Empire can deploy massive armies of stormtroopers supported by AT-AT's
en stuff. ST eat that !!!
Smash
Smash
My name is Legion
that deeply into star trek vs. star wars, you would have to
incorporate the influence of the 'force' as in the Emporor and
C'Boath's control of fleet combat strategies in full scale warfare....
realizing, of course, that this is all purely fiction, it would seem
that a fully coordinated attack by a single minded force would have a
distinct advantage, eh?
LT.HIT-MAN
Agreed
LT.HIT-MAN
Timothy Jones
>
> you're obsessing, man.... snap out of it..... if ypu want to delve
> that deeply into star trek vs. star wars, you would have to
> incorporate the influence of the 'force' as in the Emporor and
> C'Boath's control of fleet combat strategies in full scale
> warfare....
First, the force is irrelevant to the context of a *technological*
comparasin. And second, as TOS's "Plato's Children" established, the
Feds can duplicate "force"-like powers with a simple injection. {I
guess, thanks to TPM, we know even know what Bones was giving them!}
Besides, the force doesn't seem to be very usefull on certain species,
or those with strong will power. It is hardly a panecea against superior
Trek technology.
> realizing, of course, that this is all purely fiction, it would seem
> that a fully coordinated attack by a single minded force would have
> a distinct advantage, eh?
The Borg think that way. It is not always true. And single-minded or
not, Trek ships would still havefar more powerfull weapons, shields,
hulls, sensors, and propulsion systems. Even a clumsy ate-eater will
devower even an organized bunch of ants.
Timothy Jones
>
> ok. mayby ST is slightly better in space than SW, but on the planet
> surface, ST sucks big time. ST comes up with an away-mission, of 5
> man equipped with hand-fasers.
Which TOS's "The Omega Glory" established can devastate an army, as did
TOS's "Bread And Circuses." [Source is character dialogue.] This is
upheld by TNG E-D discussion of hand unit upper setting dischage
effects.
> The Empire can deploy massive armies of stormtroopers supported by
> AT-AT's en stuff. ST eat that !!!
Since Trek weapons have proven thousands of times (at bare minimum) more
powerfull, no SW ground force would survive contact with its Trek
counterparts.
Regards,
Timelord
"They can fire until their energy banks run dry,
they'll never harm the Enterprize."
-- Picard, ST: TNG "The Outrageous Okona"
Ian Jackson
what i've seen on starwars.
My name is Legion <evi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HmL0Nx4NR3afgl...@4ax.com...
> you're obsessing, man.... snap out of it..... if ypu want to delve
> that deeply into star trek vs. star wars, you would have to
> incorporate the influence of the 'force' as in the Emporor and
> C'Boath's control of fleet combat strategies in full scale warfare....
>
> that a fully coordinated attack by a single minded force would have a
> distinct advantage, eh?
>
>
SpyDA~BLadE
Timothy Jones wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Smash wrote:
> >
> > ok. mayby ST is slightly better in space than SW, but on the planet
> > surface, ST sucks big time. ST comes up with an away-mission, of 5
> > man equipped with hand-fasers.
>
> Which TOS's "The Omega Glory" established can devastate an army, as did
> TOS's "Bread And Circuses." [Source is character dialogue.] This is
> upheld by TNG E-D discussion of hand unit upper setting dischage
> effects.
>
> > The Empire can deploy massive armies of stormtroopers supported by
> > AT-AT's en stuff. ST eat that !!!
>
> Since Trek weapons have proven thousands of times (at bare minimum) more
> powerfull, no SW ground force would survive contact with its Trek
> counterparts.
>
> Regards,
> Timelord
Nothing has been proven, it was pure circumstance that allowed them to
win
in the episodes you mentioned. Trek gound forces could be wiped out by
a legion of stormtroopers or one sith lord, take your pick.
--
_ _ _ _
\\ \\ // //
\\ || || //
_ \\ \\ // //
|________________________\\ \\_// //_____________________________
| ____________________ \\/ \// ____________________________/
| /_\ /_\ /
|_______________________// | | \\_________________________/
_| // /| |\ \\
// //| |\\ \\
// // \___/ \\ \\
// \\
Timothy Jones
>
> > Timelord wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Smash wrote:
> > >
> > > ok. mayby ST is slightly better in space than SW, but on the planet
> > > surface, ST sucks big time. ST comes up with an away-mission, of 5
> > > man equipped with hand-fasers.
> >
> > Which TOS's "The Omega Glory" established can devastate an army, as did
> > TOS's "Bread And Circuses." [Source is character dialogue.] This is
> > upheld by TNG E-D discussion of hand unit upper setting dischage
> > effects.
> >
> > > The Empire can deploy massive armies of stormtroopers supported by
> > > AT-AT's en stuff. ST eat that !!!
> >
> > Since Trek weapons have proven thousands of times (at bare minimum) more
> > powerfull, no SW ground force would survive contact with its Trek
> > counterparts.
>
> to win in the episodes you mentioned.
Incorrect. And I am not thinking simply of those TOS eps when I say Trek
weapons' power advantage has been proven. It is an issue also of SW
visuals, and canon printed source data for both storyworlds, as well as
*other* Trek visuals from all the series and films, including *other*
TOS episodes I didn't mention before.
> Trek gound forces could be wiped out by a legion of stormtroopers or
> one sith lord, take your pick.
The former would be overpowered by a security team with Type II phasers
on high wide beam setting. The latter would be out-"forced" by a simple
"Plato's Children" [TOS] injection from Scotty, "At twice [his] power"
[Kirk], and out fought by any Klingon warrier, or esp by Data.
Paul Cassidy
SpyDA~BLadE <"archmage"@xtra.co.nz (I hate like spam. I will not reply to
spam. Even if you think I will I still won't so bite me!)> wrote in message
news:7t6sag$8o7kh$1...@titan.xtra.co.nz...
>
>
> Timothy Jones wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Smash wrote:
> > >
> > > ok. mayby ST is slightly better in space than SW, but on the planet
> > > surface, ST sucks big time. ST comes up with an away-mission, of 5
> > > man equipped with hand-fasers.
> >
It doesn't prove anything in regards to the Federation, but we know that the
Cardassians do deploy "mechanised infantry". Therefore we know that they do
have some kind of fighting vehicles. Since they have them, it would seem odd
if the Federation doesn't have them too. Of course, we have no idea how good
they are etc.