LOL LOL LOLOLOLOLOL!! You say that a lot. Grow up.
sea_monkey said:
I can't even imagine getting that worked up over the internet. Especially about a VIDEO GAME. GRRRR! LOL at you, tough guy.
I think you're confused. This is simply how I handle everyone I disagree with. I'm not worked up, I'm performing my default behavior. Ask anyone who's familiar with me if they actually think I'm "worked up" or just being myself. I'm having fun.
And what's with this LOL shit? I didn't think anyone seriously talked like that anymore. You try to appear intelligent in your posts, but then you throw in the cheesiest, decade-old web acronyms like it's nothing. That's a good way to drive the point home, allright!
Actually it's the other way around. There's no "truth" Frosty, because we happen to be discussing *fiction*, which is by definition, imaginary, or not true. These "events" that we call the Wing Commander Universe only take place in people's imaginations. They are therefore, a subjective experience.
Yeah, okay, you're being a little bitch again. I should have been smart enough to pick out your tactic the first time around, but I see now that all you're doing is engaging me in a semantics debate as a means of actually confronting my argument. To paraphrase: LOL at you, Mr. Evasive.
Well besides the fact that the manuals tell us that a Waterloo can carry 40 fighters, and we see one carrying Crossbow bombers, and about a billion other painfully obvious points that I shouldn't need to bring up an a room of self-professed WC experts, I guess there isn't much evidence.
Dodge and weave, friend, that's all you seem to be good at. Using your example of a Waterloo, we know it can carry 40 fighters, but 40 fighters != 40 bombers. The Crossbows using the Gettysburg for a test bed are certainly the exception, and not the rule. Cruisers carry fighters for their own defense and the defense of the ships they escort. In Wing Commander, you need more than just a parking space to be an effective carrier of strike craft.
I'd laugh if I got banned.
Me too.
And your sole piece of evidence is a quote that indirectly references said fighter force. That's it. Nothing else from the games or books suggests there are hundreds of fighters at every colony. In fact there is a lot to suggest their absence.
But that's not the sole piece of evidence. This whole thread is strewn with evidence. Interesting that you're requesting evidence from the books. I thought you dismissed the books because they don't fit you.
Compile for me, if you will, for this thread is long and inconvenient, your list of evidence which suggests the absence of these fighters.
...so it can be made fun of all at once.
Keep it up, cock-biter.
Yes, that is what you were replying to, saying it was stupid. I said I don't agree, but regardless, what about the scenario where we pit both forces against the same enemy (60 bombers) instead of each other? Your response ... uh dude 3 cruisers would never face 1 carrier.
Are you really that stupid? Seriously, are you? That's not at all what his response meant. The point he was trying to get across is that the carrier's CAP would spot the cruisers long before they got close enough to exchange broadsides with the carrier, and either see to it that the cruisers bit the dust, or the carrier got the fuck out of Dodge.
It would take an unimaginably dire cascade of errors to actually pit a carrier against three enemy cruisers.
It's an excuse to try to make Forstchen's bad writing fit. You have to invent rationalizations for why a contradiction (phase shields/torpedoes were new in WC2, phase shields/torpedoes were new in 2634) is not actually a contradiction.
We have to
invent rationalizations? As opposed to some other magical fairy-land kind that comes into existence without the aid of human thought?
How are our "rationalizations" any less valid than yours? You don't even cite games and novels, you just make up figures in your head, declare them "generous," and call it a day.
So let me guess. When Thrakhath's face comes out all messed up in that scene in SO1, that's NOT a glitch. He's SUPPOSED to look like that.
Don't be a dipshit.
The "argument" would effectively be OVER if the response had been "well I disagree because of X,Y,Z but I can see where you're coming from."
The same could be said in reverse. Here's a clue: We're enjoying ourselves - why would we want to end this?
The thing is some posters on here seem to take deadly offense to the idea that "their" Wing Commander is not the TRUE Wing Commander -- like some kind of a crazy cult.
So
you're the one who sees fit to dismiss novels and
rate canon so as to warp the established back-story to "fit" himself better, but
we're the ones with the problem?
Do you think you're presenting original ideas? Do you think you're saying anything or behaving any differently from
every other newbie who's spouted some bullshit about how he doesn't like [insert Wing Commander product] because [insert perceived conflict] and then insisted on acting incredibly self-righteous about it? Because you're not.
Keep it coming.