Anyone not like the books?

Status
Not open for further replies.

HammerHead

Rear Admiral
LeHah said:
...Also: Hitler Hitler Hitler.
...Hey, I'm trying to help here, Ok? :(
Huh, Huh.
Very funny.
I can suggest the "Herstein Law" -
1) if a thread is not appealing to your taste - You do not have to post in it!
(especialy not some one-liners only aimed at killing it).
It is a lot easier.
2) When all parties find a thread not interesting (or when only one party remains interested in the thread) it will die out on it's own.
 

sea_monkey

Spaceman
...? 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 said prove that bartender is lying, which is impossible since the bartenders in Privateer are generic -- they don't have names and all have the same dialog. It's not like another bartender can say "that guy on New Detroit is full of crap." It's also not necessary to prove that he's lying, he might just not have any idea about what he's talking about. That's a good deal more probable than your assertion that 348 fighters are constantly busy doing something and can never be bothered to defend the space station or the Concordia.

The evidence you provided (there are 2 planets with 300+ fighters and a bartender said X) is consistment with many other theories, including my own. So I don't see where you get off arguing that there must be some 100,000 fighter force because of what you presented. There doesn't.

I really don't think an Epee can be used for strike missions - anti-shipping work, at most (transports, corvettes, etc.)
Colonel Devereaux would seem to disagree.

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".
That's cause it wasn't really a debate. I said you can't prove negatives and posted a website showing a request to prove a negative is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Ignorance." Just because Scientist A has never seen a reindeer that can fly doesn't mean there isn't a reindeer with exactly the same characteristics that can produce offspring with other "normal" reindeer, that happens to fly. Just because Scientist A has never seen a unicorn does not prove there are no unicorns.

I'm not arguing of course that flying reindeer or unicorns exist, simply that if one wants to assert they exist, the burden of proof is on them, because you can't prove a negative. Go ahead and do a web search of "prove a negative" and see for yourself what people outside of wcnews.com think of your argument.
 

Viper61

Spaceman
sea_monkey said:
Colonel Devereaux would seem to disagree.
She sent them after a listening post. We've seen a few sources in the complete WCU that seem to indicate listening posts are unmanned, unarmed (or lightly armed) and pretty much big bullseyes. Again, I ask you to equate killing an armed carrier/escort with a listening post and we'll start taking that claim seriously.
sea_monkey said:
That's cause it wasn't really a debate. I said you can't prove negatives and posted a website showing a request to prove a negative is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Ignorance." Just because Scientist A has never seen a reindeer that can fly doesn't mean there isn't a reindeer with exactly the same characteristics that can produce offspring with other "normal" reindeer, that happens to fly. Just because Scientist A has never seen a unicorn does not prove there are no unicorns.

I'm not arguing of course that flying reindeer or unicorns exist, simply that if one wants to assert they exist, the burden of proof is on them, because you can't prove a negative. Go ahead and do a web search of "prove a negative" and see for yourself what people outside of wcnews.com think of your argument.
Wow, you can find something on the internet that agrees with you. I think I can too, following your suggestion. Granted I haven't followed the whole 'negative' argument, but you seem to say above that "you can't prove negatives". Putting in "proving a negative" in Google, all the hits seem to suggest that the statement "you can't prove a negative" is a myth (or at least the most of the hits say its 'difficult', not impossible to prove a negative). I'll throw the most relavent link up (since the author makes a comment about losing an argument :) ) here.
Some weird looking Physics guy with an opinion on negatives
So either way, whoever is on whatever side of this argument, an internet source agrees you can prove a negative. Yay, we can all go home now :rolleyes: .

C-ya
 

Nemesis

Spaceman
As I understand it, a sea monkey, or brine shrimp, is born with only one eye but later grows two more, passes through 15 larval stages to reach adulthood, has eleven pairs of appendages, and breathes through its “feet”.

Based on the foregoing, I’m pretty sure we can prove:

sea_monkey is not a sea monkey!

But I guess he’ll want to dispute this.:)
 

HammerHead

Rear Admiral
LeHah said:
I'd rather deny you the pleasure of my company.
???
I didn't got you there...
My point was that I have some what of a problem with the some what casual use of the words "hitler" and "Natzi" some people make, especialy in places these words do not belong in...

So I'd rather you won't deny me of your company ;)
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
HammerHead said:
My point was that I have some what of a problem with the some what casual use of the words "hitler" and "Natzi" some people make, especialy in places these words do not belong in...
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
You said prove that bartender is lying, which is impossible since the bartenders in Privateer are generic -- they don't have names and all have the same dialog. It's not like another bartender can say "that guy on New Detroit is full of crap." It's also not necessary to prove that he's lying, he might just not have any idea about what he's talking about. That's a good deal more probable than your assertion that 348 fighters are constantly busy doing something and can never be bothered to defend the space station or the Concordia.
I guess I just don't see what you're getting at. If you can point to a character with a more valid take on the matter or an unquestionable primary source like a narrator then you can easily prove that the bartender is lying (... or just wrong). Can you do that?

(A completely unrelated aside, but bartender dialogue is actually base type specific - the bartender at New Detroit will say different things than the agriculture planet bartender, and so forth.)

(Viper responded to your other two points as well as/better than I could... if you want to counter those, I'll be happy to keep going from there.)
 

Spien

Spaceman
In my opinion, the games are the Wing Commander universe. I think it's fine to include the novels into that universe, but when a novel contradicts a game the game should come first. Since Wing Commander is originally games, the games are Wing Commander Cannon, undebatably.
 

Dundradal

Frog Blast the Vent Core!
I agree that the best way to approach the subject is to understand that the games and the novels are from two different POVs and can possibly cover different events. HOTT lacks the whole rescueing sevrin plot, yet the game covers it, doesn't mean it didn't happen, just means that the novel doesn't show it...
 

Grimloc

Rear Admiral
I had this massive multi-page response against sea_monkey's stance that I had written over a week. I was going to post it with external military references (including books from my ROTC days written by retired generals), Wing Commander references, and the like. Every time I opened up that text file I became frustrated with how rediculous all of this is. sea_monkey, this is all pointless. You have been proven wrong so many times. That text file I wrote... all of that work... died with my laptop's hard drive last week...

I won't even bother telling you the gist of my argument, as doing so is counterproductive to what I have to say here. I have a new argument, and it is this: It is pointless to reply against an entire forum that has already disagreed with you in both civil and uncivil posts. Your opinion is on the record, as are our opinions. It is also recorded that our opinions on a whole do not line up with yours at all, but you have insisted on pressing your opinions. I think all that can be said or should be said has been said, and further argument will result in the degradation of this forum.

There you go.
 

Eder

Mr. Standoff
This thread seems to be popular, I guess I should post my reply.

Not me... I do like the books a lot.
 
Well maybe if you think hard enough lol, AS might contradict stuff you had already read in established books, or game material. But no more than the game material and books sometimes contradict anyway.

I guess this whole carrier thing can pretty much be hashed up to two things. Writing a story which we could understand in our limited 21st century understanding of space combat (lol). And the fact that fighters take off from carriers lol. Part of what made WC3 more powerful was the fact that you were on a smaller carrier with less fighters, trying to hold back a much larger force. The only other time you do this in a ship with a limited fighter compliment were special ops or secret ops (from whatever games).

And could you imagine the logistical problems of trying to keep a huge force of smaller fighter carriers in many different systems supplied, you would need to detail massive numbers of support ships to escort these transports.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top