The Battle of Britain

Re:  Conclusion   


Well, let's see . . . out of 22 page attacks, 21 were total bullshit.  The one that wasn't total bullshit (but which contained a lot anyway) was based on a decent argument which, entertainingly, didn't affect the original page conclusions in the slightest.  And so we come to the conclusion, where Ossus finally does the reader the service of grouping all his lies, obfuscations, and unsupported claims all in one place, so that, in retrospect, one can even more easily identify them.

Mr. Anderson's reports on his web page are primarily designed around a core group of errors that he makes repeatedly:

1. By far Anderson's most annoying method of debating is claiming that he only uses canon, but then not using examples from Star Wars canon when they make Star Wars seem powerful.

Or, to translate into reality, "he covers pretty much everything on his growing site, and so we all tried to throw in things he mentioned only in passing, create stupid arguments to overinflate them, and cried foul."

 Look at the way he examines the FTL drives in Star Wars. He missed the only canonical reference we have to a distance, and the implied speed of that journey.

What, Amidala's ship taking hours to go less than a parsec?  Aw, man, I am such a bastard.

Look at how he ignores the STL speed of the transport ship in AotC.

Translating into reality, "look at how he ignored the FTL speed of the STL speed."   Remember, Ossus claimed several multiples of lightspeed for the Slower-Than-Lightspeed velocity.

Look at how he claims that Star Wars ships do not have the ability to target different parts of another starship

So it's dishonest to point out that precision attacks in Star Wars require maneuverable snubfighters getting in close and trying to knock out big obvious surface targets?  Do they even watch Star Wars?

, or how he claims that the Imperial Navy only has two capital ship classes.

Only two have been observed.  There's the Executor and the Imperator.  We know of a modification of the latter to act as a communication ship, but unless one wishes to get all tangled with the "Enterprise Class" vs. "Constitution Class refit" in relation to Star Wars, too, then there's no sense in claiming it as a different class when it hasn't been identified as such.

With regards to the FTL speed, he then had the gall to announce that there was "nothing in canon to support [figures shown in the EU],"

 . . . which might've had something to do with the fact that there isn't anything in support of such figures.

Ossus then, in an effort to attack me, also seeks to excuse his own ignorance of the Trek canon:

There are simply five books, five movies, and five radio dramatizations and scripts. Compared with Star Trek, that is a miniscule amount of information to understand.

 . . .the funny part is that they don't even pay attention to their own canon, which is why people like me who actually, oh, say, watch the ****ing movies (or as Ossus puts it, "digs through Star Wars films") are so successful.

the only conclusion possible is that Mr. Anderson's disregard for certain parts of Star Wars canon are not accidents, but are in fact parts of a careful plan to purposely show low technology levels in Star Wars.

G2k (aka The Great Satan™) and ST-v-SW.Net . . . spearheads of the Evil Trekkie Conspiracy©.

It's really funny if you think about it . . . they claim I'm an idiot, then claim I'm engaging in a "careful plan".   What next, Rom leading the Pakleds as the next generation of Obsidian Order spies?

2. Anderson ignores common sense when assessing different universes. For example, he concludes that unless starfighters have a reasonable chance of damaging shielded capital ships, there is no reason to have them at all. 

And, as demonstrated, there isn't.

He then uses this "fact" of his to discredit the ICS, which he could simply ignore under his "canon only" rule, anyway.

Hey, it never hurts to put another nail in the coffin, especially given the Rabid Warsie resistance to the LucasFilm canon policy.

3. When in doubt, Anderson contradicts himself by ignoring conclusions he draws in other sections of his page. 

Of course, the fact that Ossus never demonstrates this doesn't even phase him, or stop him from saying it.

4. Anderson frequently proclaims, "victory" for Star Trek by using strawman fallacies and ignoring his opponents.

I presume this claim comes from Ossus's belief that I didn't bother quoting his stupid argument regarding the "Rise" asteroid calcs, and instead used a shorter paraphrase of his main point.  Aww, poor baby.

5. Anderson uses numerous tautologies while attacking his rarely named detractors. 

This is funny in two ways.   First, a tautology is basically a redundant statement.  If the sentence "Rabid Warsies ignore Trek canon" were an example, it would be a tautology because ignoring Trek canon is part of the definition of "Rabid Warsie".   

As for not naming my detractors, I see that as a courtesy.  But, then, if the other most flagrant idiots want their names posted along with the likes of Wong, Poe, and Ossus, I'll be happy to oblige.  

6. One of Anderson's most powerful techniques is his use of the double standard. 

Another claim Ossus never bothered to demonstrate.  

7. Anderson is adept at marginalizing critics without openly insulting them.

Like I said, it's a courtesy.  Besides, how would it benefit my "Rise" page (for example) to point out that the moron who made the "brittle" argument is Ossus?  The identity of the moron in question is irrelevant . . . only the facts are relevant.

Note the way that he carefully crafts his page on "Warp Core Power Generation" so that it appears as if he is correct in his continuation of Data's sentence.

This is the most amazing complaint he has fielded.   "Note how he argues as if he's right."   What, am I supposed to craft the page to make myself look wrong?!?  

Astonishing.  Of course, such is the way of Ossus . . . once, on SD.Net's BBS, he acted shocked and amazed that I'd had the gall to respond to him and tear apart his stupid arguments, instead of tucking tail and running from the thread simply because he'd posted in it.  One thing is certain . . . Ossus never ceases to amaze me.

8. Anderson is also prone to ignoring alternative ways of examining evidence in favor of his own. 

Here, Ossus is actually correct.  I do not accept fanboy wanking in lieu of evidence and logic.  So sue me.

9. Anderson also has a habit of examining the same thing in both universes in completely different ways. 

Such as?  Again, Ossus provides no proof, but simply spouts some BS and hopes it will be bought hook, line, and sinker.  

Meanwhile, I've shown numerous instances of Ossus engaging in double-standards, being ignorant of the canon, making false accusations, just-plain-lying, and generally being an idiot.   And, if anyone doesn't think I've shown enough examples, just go watch him at SD.Net . . . he'll make more.

[Editor's note: in summation of all the above points, RSA is one of the few debaters who does not even make a real pretense of honesty. 

One of the worst scoundrels of the Vs. debate scene, who is legendary for his falsehoods, BS, and even threats against the opposition, and who 'very publicly' lies in debates, accuses me of not being honest, despite not being able to produce a single example of dishonesty (naturally).  Boo-hoo.   

To paraphrase The Doctor from "Scorpion"[VOY]:  "The Debate, The Site Attack . . . I'm two for two!"

In the end, the best disproof of a typical RSA argument is to go look at whatever he's talking about for yourself, because it's invariably almost guaranteed that he's misrepresenting it in some fashion]

 . . . which, of course, is why I post the pictures for everyone to see . . . because I'm misrepresenting it and wouldn't want anyone to actually see it.  

It's funny, really . . . the Rabid Warsies at ASVS would cry ignorance of the Trek canon and, when I explained it to them in exquisite detail (which happened to shred their arguments), they'd claim I hadn't proved it or was misrepresenting it because I'd shown no pictures.   Now, I show the pictures and they still claim the same thing.  Sounds like a mental escape clause to me.  "But, but, he's misrepresenting something, I'm sure of it!"

One is forced to wonder just how much wanking is required for these bozos to spout their crap . . . I would really think their hands and genitalia would burst into flames, leaving them typing one-handed in an entirely new way than their usual method.  But, hey, I'm unfamiliar with such levels of wanking, so perhaps they've discovered some secret to it.  As far as I'm concerned, they can keep it to themselves. 


Back to The Battle of Britain
Back to STvSW