Anyone not like the books?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
LOL ... ok, it is pretty clear at this point that you're not going to admit you were wrong -- even when it's painfully obvious. Keep in mind just a couple posts above you were mocking me for linking the Thrakhath bug together with Ghorah Khar 2D ("anything you don't like in the game is glitch blah blah blah" ... "mission design is different than file placement blah blah blah") Now, two posts later, you are doing the exact same thing.
What a well thought out argument that completely makes up for the fact that you flew the wrong mission (E rather than D).

That's precisely it. You made a claim, and provided jack and shit respectively to support it. Pointing out Earth and McAuliffe have 300 fighters does not come close to proving there is a fighter force of 100,000, or about 300 per colony. You've got to prove just about every colony has that many or it averages out to that much. In fact you actually provided examples of colonies with only a handful of fighters.

Last, your only real "evidence" is a quote from a frickin' bartender. As if all bartenders everywhere in the galaxy have access to classified Confed casualty information and are incapable of bullshitting. Ridiculous.
Sure, validity of the source is an important consideration in debate - find me a more valid source who claims the bartender is lying. ("He must be lying, because he disagrees with my unsupported claim!" doesn't float under any circumstance.)

As is continuity of data - find me a source that says that the colonies with fighter forces are the exception rather than the rule. ("These colonies have secret, larger forces of fighters because they disagree with my unsupported claim!" is, again, silly.)

No, sadly, their arguments really aren't logical at all. Loaf can't seem to remember what he said a couple of posts back: suggesting I'm unenlightened for not reading a book, then denying saying it, then denying denying it -- suggesting I'm paranoid about being banned and then just now saying that he thought I'd been banned -- and before, my suggesting that going to the losing path after ejecting in Ghorah Khar 2D was glitch was laughable (despite the fact that it made no sense as it was), now he's arguing that the fact that it's fixed in the Kilrathi Saga is a glitch. Frosty keeps knocking down a strawman, and then when I point out that I never made the arguments he's attacking, replies "I never said it was."
All of your 'contradictions' are things that have nothing to do with my argument, though. (And your apparent understanding of them is comical to say the least. I already beat out your inane 'enlightenment' complaint... and I clearly thought you'd been banned since when last I left you you'd decided to go off the deep end and start attacking administrators for the hell of it (ace). The fact that ace is a bigger man than I am, while not surprising, did not cross my mind at the time.)

Loaf also spent a great deal of time arguing that you could prove negatives, which no one else called him on -- Type-into-Google level philosophy knowledge. This suggests both a lack of knowledge of basic rules of logic and debate, and also a willingness to totally make shit up to support one's argument. Which he confirms every time he contradicts himself in sequential posts.
I'm not sure what this is about, but I'm happy to argue that you can prove a negative. As I said about a zillion posts ago, there's a basic logical method to it.

(Not, mind you, that I need to prove a negative in our current argument -- I'm not the one claiming that fighters don't exist.)

Last, the fact that several people disagree with me means nothing. As I pointed out above, the majority of the population can and often wrong about things, so saying that "everybody thinks X, so X is true" is a logical fallacy. And at any rate, that the majority of this site seems to disagree with me means nothing because it would seem (according to some quotes by Frosty) that most of the people with similar views as me were chased off in the past. So the site is naturally going to be composed of people who are like-minded over these issues.
I agree with the former and take offense at the latter. The simple fact that you're still around proves that people with all ranges of stupid opinions are allowed to post here. :)

#2, I already pointed out that the Waterloo CAN carry bombers as evidenced by SO1, and there's really no reason to believe the Gettysburg is somehow special in this regard. Also you are quick to point out that the dialogue suggests that the Waterloo typically only carries Ferrets and Epees ... however the dialogue in WC2 also makes absolutely clear that an Epee is capable of carrying a torpedo. So a Waterloo can definitely carry strike craft, end of story.
There's no reason to think that the Gettysburg is unique in carrying the secret prototype bomber that everyone is surprised that it's carrying? While I agree that the existence of smaller bombers like the Crossbow (roughly 1/4th the mass of a Broadsword) and the Sabre-D (the evil *books* invented a light strike craft?!) may play a role in the future of the Wing Commander universe, they're anything but the norm in 2667.

And do you *really* believe an Epee is the same thing as a Broadsword? You can strap a 250 pound bomb to a Wildcat - that doesn't make it a Flying Fortress.

Uh, oh. I think I heard a toilet flush.

Maybe somebody lost a debate.
How enlightened.
 

sea_monkey

Spaceman
What a well thought out argument that completely makes up for the fact that you flew the wrong mission (E rather than D).
Except that I didn't, I just got the letters confused. I actually don't think I have ever even flown 2E because it didn't occur to me until I read the game guide here that you were allowed to lose that mission. But the missions would be hard to confuse it would seem as you would fly off the Concordia and not meet up with Bear halfway through in 2E. Regardless, anyone with the Kilrathi Saga can confirm that you just die if you eject after beating 2D.

Sure, validity of the source is an important consideration in debate - find me a more valid source who claims the bartender is lying.
Of course that's impossible because the bartenders in Privateer are generic. That said, I'm perfectly comfortable with pointing out your argument consists of "some bartender said X, which implies A, B, or C. I think it means A and anybody who argues with me is stupid."

As is continuity of data - find me a source that says that the colonies with fighter forces are the exception rather than the rule. ("These colonies have secret, larger forces of fighters because they disagree with my unsupported claim!" is, again, silly.)
You did that for me when you pointed out Kilrah & Tamayo among others only had a handful of fighters.

And do you *really* believe an Epee is the same thing as a Broadsword? You can strap a 250 pound bomb to a Wildcat - that doesn't make it a Flying Fortress.
Doesn't have to be. I never said the Epee was a fantastic bomber. Point being, a cruiser CAN launch small strike missions -- contrary to Frosty's argument -- even if you pretend the only cruiser capable of carrying Crossbows is the Gettysburg.

I'm not sure what this is about, but I'm happy to argue that you can prove a negative. As I said about a zillion posts ago, there's a basic logical method to it.
LOL, oh dear. Actually your example started with a negative ("reindeer can't fly"), which made it possible to say Santa Claus doesn't exist. Problem is you can't prove that there isn't 8 reindeer that are capable of flying.
 

sea_monkey

Spaceman
So throwing out sources that don't coincide with your opinion and only answering those arguments you have 'time' for (ie - you have an answer to) is a basic rule of logical debate?

The whole point of a debate is to change the viewpoint of another or sway that of an audience/jury/moderator into your favor. You have done neither. Plus, if those last two statements is your stance, why are you still here apparently wasting your time picking and chossing your arguments that aren't going to influence anyone. One definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over expecting the same results.
So let me see, if I answer ... I'm wasting my time. If I don't answer ... it's because I don't have an answer. Well that definitely works out convenient for you. :) How about this: I AM wasting my time ... which is why I only answer what I feel like. My purpose here at this point is not to convince anyone here -- really, if you're calling someone viscious names because they have a slightly different view about a video game made over a decade ago, you're hopeless -- but rather the simple enjoyment of exposing the people that have been talking crap to me as the fools they are. I was perfectly content to let this thread die once Frosty and Loaf stopped posting.

You can't replace carriers with cruisers in the WC universe because they have no heavy strike capability (a carriers primary reason for being). Get over it. If cruisers could do the same thing a carrier can, either the Kilrathi or Confed would have stumbled upon that brilliant solution after 35 years of war.
Strawman, because I never said anything even close to "replacing" cruisers with carriers. Christ.

(from HammerHead)

Missile boat was never "an incredibly strategic vessel that was more than a match for cruisers and destroyers". it was always "another ship in the navy". The cruisers is also "another ship in the navy". The navy, like any other military, or non-military, organization, is about the whole picture. The picture of the navy is composed of cruisers, destroyers, missile boats, carriers, submarines - it is all about diversity, none of these parts of the picture can dimish the importance of the other - and this is where I contridict you, my friend.
It seems our differences are more semantic than anything. Your example of the missile boat is pretty much what I would consider a textbook case of a ship becoming less important. Yes, all the ships in the Navy are important, but some more so than others. I never said cruisers could replace carriers or made them unimportant, simply that they reduced their relative strategic importance. To what degree is debatable, but I the fact that it does is really not.

That was what I said - the guy who programed th AI subroutines wrote the gunnery ones in a crapy way. So, give some one proffetional to design them, just remmember that we, none proffetional little people, need to fly aginst these things.
Ok, but then I don't really see your original point. You were responding to my remark that AI fighters get chewed up by Fralthi II gunners in WC3.
 
Wow I disapeared for a bit and I though that this thread would have died by now lol....I have never seen so many long posts over the same subject..over..and over...and over...and over again.

Actually I think it is a good post..with new idea (if wrong or right) being tossed around with the heavy weights of the WC universe.
 

sea_monkey

Spaceman
All of your 'contradictions' are things that have nothing to do with my argument, though. (And your apparent understanding of them is comical to say the least. I already beat out your inane 'enlightenment' complaint
It's comical alright. Here's your "beating out" my "complaint":

SEA: I never read Action Stations but from what I hear I'd probably like that book the least.

LOAF: That's certainly an enlightened attitude. (Seriously, though, I can't really imagine forming my opinion of something based only on how another Wing Commander fan describes it...)

SEA: Actually all I said was that I suspect I'd like the book the least, based on what I'd heard. Which you called unenlightened, while admitting you do the same thing.

LOAF: Don't mince words, if I had called it anything I'd have called it stupid. (You didn't say anything about a review - your specific issue was, quote, "I read that Forstchen decided that they had phase shields back in 2634").

SEA: LOL. It's one thing that you can't even read correctly what I write, but now you can't even remember what you said? Here's the exchange exactly, quote:

LOAF: I note you stopped actually quoting when you realized how the exchange actually went.

SEA: Note that I stopped exactly after I had made my point: I said I didn't like what I heard about Action Stations and you called me unenlightened -- which you then denied, and I proved you wrong again.

LOAF: I'm pretty sure I didn't deny calling you unenlighted (though I do doubt that I used the word 'unenlightened'). That's certainly how I feel.
This exchange is pretty much representative of the entire thread as it shows the people arguing with me not bothering to make sure their arguments are consistent in sequential posts ... but then why would they as it's not like their friends are going to call them on it.
 

Spien

Spaceman
but when the Terrans lose the Tiger's Claw it is a catastrophe.
I haven't read through the whole thread so if someone attacked this one all ready you can slap me.

The Kilrathi always had numbers and the Terrans always had technology and that seems to be how the war has always been balanced. The Kilrathi have the ships they can afford to lose, the Terrans don't. The Tiger's Claw had also probably gotten rather famous with all of its success. Losing the Tiger's Claw would kind of be like losing a symbol of victory for the Confederation. That's how I see it at least.

The Confederation was probably losing carriers all the time, the only reason a big deal is made of the Tiger's Claw is because of characters having such a strong association with it and because as I said it was so successful.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Of course that's impossible because the bartenders in Privateer are generic. That said, I'm perfectly comfortable with pointing out your argument consists of "some bartender said X, which implies A, B, or C. I think it means A and anybody who argues with me is stupid."
...? Being 'generic' means that something can't be invalidated? Find me a fighter pilor or an admiral or a narrator who talks about a smaller fighter force - any of those things would be a more valid source than a bartender (however blessed with 'generalism' they may be).

You did that for me when you pointed out Kilrah & Tamayo among others only had a handful of fighters.
I don't think I pointed out either of those things, though. Kilrah had multiple waves of 25-50 fighters each in End Run (which I'm reletively sure I quoted earlier in this debate)... plus a limitless supply of Ekapshi in Wing Commander III.

All we know about Tamayo is that a Thunderbolt squadron was there. There's no 'only' inherent in that fact.

Doesn't have to be. I never said the Epee was a fantastic bomber. Point being, a cruiser CAN launch small strike missions -- contrary to Frosty's argument -- even if you pretend the only cruiser capable of carrying Crossbows is the Gettysburg.
I really don't think an Epee can be used for strike missions - anti-shipping work, at most (transports, corvettes, etc.)

I'd imagine that, should the Crossbow prove succesful, that cruisers will be able to carry them in the future - but that doesn't affect the vast majority of Wing Commander's timeline.

LOL, oh dear. Actually your example started with a negative ("reindeer can't fly"), which made it possible to say Santa Claus doesn't exist. Problem is you can't prove that there isn't 8 reindeer that are capable of flying.
I don't really remember that debate, but it's fairly easy to prove that reindeer can't fly... all you need to do is cite some sort of expert about their characteristics. "Scientist A says that a reindeer is defined as X".
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
sea_monkey said:
Actually your example started with a negative ("reindeer can't fly"), which made it possible to say Santa Claus doesn't exist. Problem is you can't prove that there isn't 8 reindeer that are capable of flying.
I have to agree with sea_monkey.

Also: Hitler Hitler Hitler.
 

HammerHead

Rear Admiral
sea_monkey said:
It seems our differences are more semantic than anything. Your example of the missile boat is pretty much what I would consider a textbook case of a ship becoming less important. Yes, all the ships in the Navy are important, but some more so than others. I never said cruisers could replace carriers or made them unimportant, simply that they reduced their relative strategic importance. To what degree is debatable, but I the fact that it does is really not.
You are pratically forcing me to give a short history brief - so I'll make super brief.

up until the 17th century navies basically (and I'm talking very basically) had 2 kind of ships - big Man-O-War ships for major battles and smaller Frigates for pattrols and "freelancing" (and punitive actions - i.e. Dekatir's operation against lybian pirates).
Around 1850 Ironclads began to show up, with the Monitor-Miramak battle (was it the miramak? not sure of the confederacy ship name) of the American Civil war bringing them to the "Headlines".
From there up to the end of the of the 19th century it was about size - who had the bigger ship with the harder armor and the bigger guns. In these times the battleship and the cruiser where born.
during that time the torpedo was invented, but it's potential was only realized at the end of the 19th Century, when a few inventors of diffrent countries suggested arming a small, high manuverable, fast ship with the torpedo - hence the "Torpedo Boat" - suddenly a small and fast and cheap weapon could threaten the mighty cruisers - the threat was considered high enough for british admiralty to developed a specialized anti-torpedo-boat weapons - the torpedo-boat-destroyer - or "Destroyer" for short.
The same thing happened with the missile boat - a small and fast and cheap weapon could threaten the mighty cruisers - and in responce cruisers are armed with long range sea-sea missiles of their own, in addition to a battary of anti-missile missiles. It's all about the weapons race.
In any case, any of the events mentioned, and not mention, have never reduce the impotance of any ship ! - they made the naval theater more "interesting"

Sure, some ships get obsolete and are removed from service (you don't see any torpedo boats serving modern navies - but that's because missile boats replaced them), but those remain in service have their "job".

P.S. - I've made it super brief, droping some important events such as development of the submarine, which in turn led to the development of the submarine hunter - another sibling of the torpedo boat...and a few more ;)
 

SabreAce

Rear Admiral
HammerHead said:
Around 1850 Ironclads began to show up, with the Monitor-Miramak battle (was it the miramak? not sure of the confederacy ship name)
The USS Merrimack was a scuttled Union frigate, made of wood, and was the original wooden vessel that was used as a base for conversion into the ironclad, which was renamed C.S.S. (Confederate Steam Ship) Virginia.

Random little fact (just to throw this thread even more offtopic): The ship's original name of Merrimack has often been spelled Merrimac, which was actually a completely different ship that sank in 1865. A Navy report with the incorrect spelling gave birth to the idea that the Confederate's ship really was named Merrimac originally.
 

Ghost

Emperor
Well, i´m bored and depressed, this is a sad, sad day.

BTW Hadrian is alive ( i thought he died) he posted a few days ago in the IFH forum with the name of Hadrion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top