Re: Flyer vs Falcon -- Star Trek vs Star Wars

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

Subject: Re: Flyer vs Falcon

Author:
capn hayes

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02:50:34 09/10/02 Tue
Author Host/IP: NoHost/207.14.48.2
In reply to: trekie 's message, "Re: Flyer vs Falcon" on 16:52:04 09/09/02 Mon

>>Now don't you start that bull about Star Wars lasers
>>being L.A.S.A.R.s. Because all the evidence suggests
>>that they aren't.
>>
>>The lasers fire plasma, very powerful plasma. And
>>they CAN penetrate the navigational deflector. So I
>>still believe that the Flyer is toast.
>
>
>evidence????? what eveidence???? that arn't real.
>give me real solid hard eveidence.. nor is it stated
>in any of the movies about anything to do with the
>antiprotons. where as @ least in "The Minds Eye [TNG]"
>they say that phasers are charged with nadions. So as
>far as what is "truth be known" via canon sources they
>are lasers. but if we want to debate this let's go
>back to the other thread. I just stated my opinion
>and you have to live with it. Untell they say in one
>of these movies that the "turbolasers" are charged
>using anitprotons then I will give Wars credit.
>Anywho the Flyer is way more manuverable. And since
>you never saw chewie use any of the weapons on the
>falcon it's difficult to judge how good of a gunner he
>is.
Evidence? You trekies are so obviously pathetic it actually funny. You all bring up the same stupid little trekie points that you think are "canon" and "real life". Guess what "nadions" aren't real except in star trek. At least lasers that star wars lasers are based on real science. And what about transporters, they have bullshit to do with real science and could never happen! But At least I have enough objectivity to over look little things like that. I am above petty details such as how does a blaster work or how does a phaser work. I don't really care cause they aren't REAL! You weak minded trekies need to get a grip! Anyway if you all would pay attention and read what reasnable debaters post you'd realize that star wars "lasers" aren't true lasers because they impart kinetic energy as well as other characteristics that are not asociated with lasers.
Now we can listen to you all whine about lasers in star wars and lasers in star trek or you can imagine that after 25000 years of evolution in weapons and warfare the civilazation in Star Wars would have progressed beyond simple lasers, and at the very least expanded on it.We use the term cannon (a weapon that fires a lead ball a few hundred yards) to describe most large caliber weapons, the term "cannon" has been around for over 500 years,but I know that an M1 Abrams 120mm cannon doesn't fire lead balls! Now I know there is no official "canon" source to tell us this, but use your imagination. Oops I forgot trekies don't seem to have that capacity! That must be why you guys are still stuck on the same tired old arguement about what a laser in star wars is. As far as I am concerned phasers and blasters are the same basic weapon, and if you remove trekno-babble and just watch them being used in movies and tv you'd see on screen they both make a shower of sparks and black burn marks on stuff they hit or sometimes they can blow up cavern walls [Star Trek: Insurection], or big rocks in front of cave entrances [Ewok movie]. Oh and the Delta Flyer has never been shown to be as maneuverable as the Falcon, although its fire power with photonic missiles and modified borg phasers might be equal to the Falcons quad laser cannons and conncussion missiles, unless you don't beleive the Falcon has concussion missiles.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: Flyer vs Falcon	Voice of Reason	03:09:10 09/10/02 Tue
Re: Flyer vs Falcon -- capn hayes, 03:38:56 09/10/02 Tue Re: Flyer vs Falcon -- Voice of Reason, 03:50:43 09/10/02 Tue Re: Flyer vs Falcon -- capn hayes, 03:59:51 09/10/02 Tue Re: Flyer vs Falcon -- Voice of Reason, 04:13:40 09/10/02 Tue Re: Flyer vs Falcon -- capn hayes, 04:51:53 09/10/02 Tue Re: Flyer vs Falcon -- capn hayes, 05:03:27 09/10/02 Tue