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:
Voice of Reason

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

Date Posted: 04:13:40 09/10/02 Tue
Author Host/IP: NoHost/65.163.170.168
In reply to: capn hayes 's message, "Re: Flyer vs Falcon" on 03:59:51 09/10/02 Tue

>>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>ok Everyone post a message now in reply to mine in
>>>>response to this:
>>>>
>>>>Everyone take a deep breath and type "Science
>>Fiction"
>>>Hear Hear!!! Treklings are you all listening?
>>
>>
>>You too Wars Fans..
>Wars fans aren't acting like a bunch of retards. We
>know what a laser in star wars is and a phaser in star
>trek and the differences. "nadions" (fake particle),
>"antiproton" (fake particle)! Everyone at the same
>time.... SCIENCE FICTION. Us Star Wars know this.
>Treklings its up to you to catch up to our level.
>We're waiting.

Take a breath WarsGOD! count to ten if you have to.

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

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
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