3.000.000 Clones and SW2

[Mikey]

I never understood why it was wrong to be number two. I like B5 but I know they couldn't withstand Trek. Why does it even matter?

Far as fantasies are concerned my world Elenir could be ground to dust against say World of Warcraft and their magic everywhere and armies of demons. But I'd like to think my story is still a good one.

Agreed. I don't need to believe that the Federation could "beat" anyone else in order to still like 'Trek.

[Sionnach Glic]

Guys, this is veering dangerously close to a Vs discussion. There's a reason I didn't flat out say who I thought would win.

[Mikey]

Yep. I'm willing to leave it at "I don't much care."

[Enkidu]

If I ever find my life is empty enough where I start joining in the passionate debates about which fictional sci fi universe, each with it's own rules of physics, would win in a fight I would head to the bridge with my rock.....

[Sionnach Glic]

What's so bad about debating which universe could kick each other's ass? Is it really any different than discussing whether the Borg could take over the Dominion?

[Enkidu]

Does a turbo laser have more firepower than a phaser? Can a Jedi's mind tricks work on a Vulcan? If I put wheels on my Grandmother, does she become a wagon?
I have seen internet arguements which go on for heated page after heated page, where trekkies maintain that because in TNG lasers can't penetrate the E-D's shields, they are invulnerable to Star Destroyers, like it is a irrefutable law of physics.

Now there many who could make very good arguements that in depth discussions about elements of ST are a waste of time. I won't dispute that, 'cause in the great scheme of things they are; I would just counter by saying most hobbies are just a waste of time, but if you enjoy them.....
But in the unwinable arguements about different universes with different rules it just seems so pointless - like playing someone at chess when they are using draught pieces and rules.

[Nutso]

Did the movie "Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning" settle any debate about a Star Trek vs Babylon 5 conflict?

[Sionnach Glic]

Well, in most debates it's always assumed that any mystic energy field or laws of physics violating equipment will work in both universes.
For example, in Trek Vs Wars it's always assumed that hyperspace exists in the Trek universe, and subspace exists in the Wars universe. If you were to try to argue otherwise, then the debate becomes pointless. Star Destroyers would become useless hunks of metal, since there's no hypermatter to power them in Trek, while Trek ships would all explode because there's no anti-matter containment stuff.
After that it just becomes a matter of finding ways to compare the two universes. Is hyperdrive faster than warp drive? That's not too hard to figure out, just judge how far they travel in how much time. Is a turbolaser more powerful than a phaser? Judge their performance against things we can calculate (firing at asteroids, orbital bombardment, etc).

As long as you and your opponent agree on what constitues canon for both universes, there's really no difficulty in figuring all this stuff out. Really, as long as both parties aproach the subject with an open mind and, most importantly, the ability to accept they may be wrong, discussions on the subject can be just as calm, rational and polite as any other debate subject. It's when someone starts being dishonest because he wants his favourite universe to win no matter what that it becomes a pointless flame war.

As for Star Wreck, no. That was merely a parody film. I don't think it was made to settle the debate in any way.

[Enkidu]

I've never seen a rational debate on inter-universal disputes, only the flame wars. Mind you, most of these I've seen on IMdb, a useful tool for finding out where you've seen that familar face in the afternoon film before, but also home to many of the internet's vast legion of nutters.
As I don't care about crossovers, I've never bothered to look any further.

[Sionnach Glic]

Well, if your only experience of Vs debates was on a site full of morons then you can see the problem yourself. Personaly I've seen plenty of civil debates.

[Graham Kennedy]

The versus debate is useless on a couple of levels. From my experience most involved are so entrenched that no argument will sway them. Indeed it's not an argument to many; it's a battle, in which their goal is simply to win by whatever means necessary. Anything it takes to stop the other side posting is on the table, right up to real live intimidation tactics and death threats.

Beyond that, a real debate is simply impossible because it's utterly dependent on what you take to be "evidence". Whatever is on the screen can be and is freely rationalised and interpreted to mean whatever those involved want it to mean. You can come up with totally different answers simply depending on what spin you want to put on them. And most involved seem oblivious of this simple fact.

Now if debating such things simply gives a person pleasure, then by all means, have at it. It did me once, a long time back. But from what I've seen, few people involved treat it that way, and damn little good comes of it. Hence the reason why it's verboten on this forum.

[Sionnach Glic]

Hence my comment of "as long as both sides are willing to admit they may be wrong".

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

I cared... well, no. I don't think I ever cared. It's trite. It's played out and cliched.

[Monroe]

I do like to see stories with cross overs.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

I do like to see stories with cross overs.

So do I. I love writing them. It's just, the old formula of 'shoot em up' is so overplayed, it's ridiculous!