Except that Star Trek time travel just creates alternate timelines, it doesn't actually change anything per-say.
Furthermore, it's quite a stretch to say that the Enterprise could use whatever device-of-the-week to time travel before the star destroyer blows it to atoms with its orders of magnitude superior weaponry.
Hmmm, Star Trek 'Enterprise' had time travel being very relevant to specific timelines with the 'temporal cold war'. Although I'll grant you the recent events in the movies contradict this somewhat. If they go back unopposed they could simply prevent the Empire happening and defeat not just the Star Destroyer, but the entire Empire. The City on the Edge of Forever also showed events in the past being altered and then changed back.
Last edited by Reflection on Aug 17th, 2013 at 02:26 AM
When I specifically addressed your accusations of my making strawman distortions and pointed out that you shifted your position and conveniently ignored obvious factual errors in your argument, you responded with the classic "vaguely restate my original position and declare victory" tactic.
Which...hey, you're doing again here. Right after I point out that you were a far bigger douche than I was and initiated the hostility, you respond by...restating your contention without any semblance of addressing the point.
Do you really think the "I work in mysterious ways" bluffing tactic hasn't been tried before?
You're just making up a lot of shit and trying to hide it under a lot of words while applying demeaning tactics for deflection purposes. That's silly and not original. eg "Geometric shield" on the surface it looks fancy, by really, you just said "shape" + "shield". Didn't mention anything of power out, so that's a strawman, but I'm sure that was your intention, all part of the deflection tactics.
Now you're just rehashing old Stardestroyer.net and the like talking points and using silly "just too powerful for Star Trek to do anything" rhetoric.
This talk of "frequencies" is not very relevant to the point that the ISD could vaporize the Enterprise with a single medium turbolaser bolt, based not only on the ICS, but on calculations and scalings from acceleration feats seen in the original movies. Nonetheless...
tl;dr version: read a science textbook, shields do not have frequencies, except in Star Trek's odd pseudoscientific world. They are never mentioned in Star Wars.
This actually has nothing to do with my point whatsoever.
The point is that you have absolutely no clue what the word "frequency" actually means. You seem to be under the impression that it's a property all hypothetical energy shields must carry, when in reality, precisely the opposite is true; there's no reason to believe that a shaped, stationary, physical barrier would have an attribute associated with waves, and even if it did, "matching" it would make little to no difference. Star Trek's use of shield frequencies is a brain bug, not a universal constant.
If you wish to prove me wrong, go ahead and find a single example in Star Wars lore where shields are described as having frequencies.
...OK, a quick google search later, I'm wondering if you're on crack.
Do this guy's posts even remotely resemble my writing style?
Even more interestingly, to hint at my age, I would have had to be less than 13 to have registered at his registration date.
Last edited by Master Han on Aug 22nd, 2013 at 09:43 PM
That's not a hint, that's a flat out admission that you're 18. Which is fitting, since he had the mentality of a young teenager, and you have the writing quirks of an older teenager trying to prove/show off how smart he thinks he is. Your thread about PT plot holes is a glaring example of that (why re-list everything Plinkett's reviews raised and simultaneously admit you know about Plinkett's reviews--either you're trying to siphon off vicarious credit to prop up your ego, or you're hoping no one on this forum knew about them before you came along).
Nobody who's confident in themselves or their public image would open a rebuttal by saying "how long they've been debating". You have the attitude of someone who feels he is well suited to inform people, instruct them on things they obviously know nothing about, and is under the impression that he's unique in some intellectual way and most demonstrate it to tEh internet. That's likely the explanation behind your sudden turn to the science field and power-output arguing in that thread^, instead of realizing that poetic license and material one-upmanship was the issue being criticized.
You're a teenager, and a very typical one. That's great kid, don't get cocky.
__________________ I'm not going to lie: I despise children. There, I've said it.
Last edited by Lord Lucien on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 04:44 AM