The Battle of Britain

Re:  ""The 1.02 GIgawatt Fallacy"


Wong opens up this page with paranoia, insisting that the entire point of my page is not, in fact, to put the last nail in the coffin of the oft-repeated (by Warsies and Trekkers alike), and oft-rebutted, 1.02 gigawatt phaser array idea that Wong uses on the page.   Instead, he feels that the point is to attack his Star Wars vs Star Trek in Five Minutes page, and to "scream" that he is a "liar".  

I was walking home one night and a guy hammering on a roof called me a paranoid little weirdo. In Morse Code.
 -Emo Phillips.

Now, although I do agree with the assessment that Wong is a seasoned liar, at no point do I suggest that on the page in question.  Further, his delusions of grandeur aside, my page is not based around an attack on his silly page.  If my intent had been to tear down that page, there was plenty more for me to work with than just that.

Ossus and company repeat the same error, operating under the presumption that the whole page is an attack, and one that is "completely unfounded".  In reality, the brief comment I do make is quite well founded.  (Entertainingly, I must now explain why it is well-founded . . . thus basing an entire page on pointing out what's wrong with his, and thereby fueling his paranoia regarding the original two-sentence comment, as if via some offshoot of the "self-fulfilling prophecy".)

After explaining the problems inherent with the 1.02 gigawatt idea, I say "Clearly, something was amiss. And when something is amiss, who else but the opposition stands ready to leap into the fray and demand that the silliest possible solution most harmful to the other side is the correct one. And that's just what some Warsies did."  Does Mike not claim 5.1 MW per emitter, and 200 emitters on the dorsal hull?   Yes, he does.   

"Wong states clearly that he is using the technical manual for that particular point, and that this is considered "The Lazy Man's Method.""

In fact, Wong does not suggest that he's just using it for that point, as if he wouldn't normally (he does use it normally, after all).  Further, despite his titling of it as the lazy man's method, he does choose to suggest that pro-Trek debaters run away from it merely because they don't like it: "Small wonder, then, that despite the simplicity and convenience of the lazy man's method, most Trekkies prefer to avoid it."  He notes also that some people "prefer to pretend the books don't exist on either side."  Is that not an accusation of, shall we say, "preferential honesty" on the part of those who don't just use the books?

"Obviously, Mike does not consider this to be a particularly accurate method of comparing the two universes, but he does use it just to demonstrate a point."

Funny, since that's the only phaser firepower figure he gives on the page, and he notes, after mentioning the stance on the technical manuals held by John Ordover of Pocket Books (which, by the way, is irrelevant to their lack of status),  "most of the figures from the show are reasonably compatible with those from the TM's".  When he does start comparing canon data, he promptly gives his standard claims of low yields in reference to all the weapons fired in "The Die is Cast"[DS9], and makes his standard claims about photon torpedo yield from "The Pegasus"[TNG] (though he does not employ the common kilotons figure).   

This does not indicate disagreement with the 1.02 gigawatt concept.  The only suggestion on the page that he might disagree with it is when he mentions that they might operate via chain-reaction, and that the power figure could thus be deceptively low . . . but that is not a disagreement at all.   In other words, he says that the Enterprise-D's dorsal emitter might only be putting out a beam of 1.02 gigawatts . . . just that it might have more effect on the target.

Anderson explains how terrible Mike Wong's page is, and makes numerous unsubstantiated claims. He explains that:

"as always happens in such circumstances, the Warsie has chosen to ignore certain important facts . . . and even more embarrassingly, he has leapt before he (literally) looked.

First, there's the simple matter of the Paramount policy in regards to what is and is not Star Trek canon fact, established for quite some time. Of course, simple matters of canon policy do not restrain the Warsie, since on that very same page he chooses to ignore other Star Wars non-canon, as well.
"

Anderson clearly did not even both to read Mr. Wong's page, or he would have noticed Wong write: "the visual look of each series is often more consistent than published material (particularly in the case of Star Trek, where the TM contradicts itself repeatedly and has several astonishingly bad science errors. Moreover, the ST books' status has been officially stated as mere "speculation"." 

Note that Ossus has chosen not to mention that this official statement of speculation comes from Ordover . . . who does not figure in to the Paramount policy in regards to what is and is not Star Trek canon fact.   Note further that in spite of Wong reaching the same conclusions as I have regarding its speculative qualities, he still shamelessly sprayed its figures all over this introductory page of his, and commented that the televised episodes show consistency with those figures.

 Incidentally, Mr. Anderson also uses the Technical Manual numerous times on his own web page, noting at the top of each of these pages the use of the manual. In short, Mr. Anderson criticizes Mike Wong for doing the same thing that he repeatedly does himself. 

I find this claim of hypocrisy exceedingly amusing, on several counts.   I have a grand total of five pages (out of over 100 presently in existence) which make use of Technical Manual data. (That count does not include the attributed paraphrase on my Overview page where I mention that when it comes to warp speeds, one's mileage may vary.)  

Of those, three are in a section (created December 3rd, 2002) under the "Tales From the Non-Canon" heading called "Ye Olde Pages".  Given this placement and their format (or lack thereof, actually), it should not have taken a genius to figure out that these were antiquated materials, probably written (as they were) during a time when the Tech Manuals were fair game.  

The fourth and fifth pages on this rather short list are in the section "Incomplete or To Be Updated", and both are specifically marked as "in severe need of updating".   Within one of those (the TESB asteroid page, which is prefaced with comments about the intended re-write) I mention the Manuals only insofar as saying this:  "Even if we grant the erroneous assumption made by some pro-Wars debaters (based on one interpretation of the non-canon TNG Technical Manual) that the dorsal phaser array on the saucer of the Enterprise-D is only capable of directing 1.02 GW against shields . . . ".    

Compare these five ("numerous") pages and the fact that they are all clearly marked as ancient, incomplete, or in need of work to Wong's incessant use of the Technical Manuals throughout even his newest pages.

 What's the difference?

It shouldn't have been so hard for them to figure out.


Back to The Battle of Britain
Back to STvSW