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.
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.
What a well thought out argument that completely makes up for the fact that you flew the wrong mission (E rather than D).
Sure, validity of the source is an important consideration in debate - find me a more valid source who claims the bartender is lying.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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
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.
but when the Terrans lose the Tiger's Claw it is a catastrophe.
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."
You did that for me when you pointed out Kilrah & Tamayo among others only had a handful of fighters.
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.
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 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.
Mekt-Hakkikt said:Come on, we don't want to get to this level, do we?
Edfilho said:Agreed
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.
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)