My understanding of the situation is thus: there is an entire culture of people who argue 'Star Trek vs. Star Wars', which probably dates back to 1977. As with any popular geek passtime they have had their own newsgroup for years (whose name I do not know). The idea being that you use evidence from each series' canon to prove that its weapons are more powerful, its ships are faster, its robots are more robotic and so forth.
Once you wade through the crap, newsgroups are generally incredibly intelligent. There are people there who are smarted than those who post to bulletin boards by simple virtue of the fact that they've been online longer and are smart enough to use a more difficult medium. They're good at arguing, and they won't let you get away with any crap.
The StarDestroyer.net guy is someone who's full of crap. He uses pretty words to disguise completely illogical supports for his series. As such, he was apparently ridiculed at the Star Trek vs. Star Wars newsgroup. Unable to argue with them, he set up a web site that rants on his topic without any debate.
Enter the inter-web, full of
very stupid easily influenced people. They will tell you that the StarDestroyer.net guy is *BRILLIANT* because his words are so very pretty and wonderful that they completely disguise the fact that his arguments MAKE NO SENSE. When any of the
very stupid people try to argue with him, he very easily turns the debate into a question of character rather than facts, or forces it to hinge on some meaningless single point. These are wonderful debating skills, *if you don't have facts*. Still, he's confused a lot of
people like Bob that he's utterly brilliant.
)
