Feedback Responses

In September '02, I made the Feedback page available for use.   In amongst the feedback entries received thus far (most of which often revolve around specific pages) there have been a few general site comments. A couple of those have been somewhat negative (e.g. "i hate you. die."), but most have been positive. Here's a smattering of the good and the bad.   See also the feedback, linked at the bottom of this page.

Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2002

Comment: I have to say that I have enjoyed reading your information. I have been arguing for several weeks against the Empirephiles at and it is good to see that there are some reasonable people out there.

(Note from G2k: This was my first piece of feedback. Needless to say, I found the new feedback system most satisfactory.)

Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2002

Comment: Doing well but could you do a News/Updates section so I can see when an update has been made (I know you have tags by the link but the updated tags tend to linger) thanks.

(I finally got around to that in late November . . . better late than never, I guess.)

Date: Thursday, September 12, 2002

Comment: Very well!!!!!
Surprisingly I made some of your conclusions as well. Without even seeing your page!!
I mean Wongs site is joke; for instance (thats my favourite)
This insists that the cloaking device if the Empire must work in another way, we also have that in the ST Universe, for instance the Kazon, who use a different kind of cloaking device, wich was easily detected by the Voyager (VOY: State of Flux)
So why to hell does he think they can detect that?
Wongs site goes on and on with this.
I find your site a lot better, you go strictly from cannon, while he interprates the facts mostly (see above)
Congratulations, and live long and prosper
PS: I like SW too :)
(and on the 19th)
Again, I think you are superior to Wong, whos tactics are clearly to bash and to attack the people personally that have any ohter opinions. I am glad you biult this site up!!! Keep Going.
Wong must fear you...

(Not only was this some of the best feedback, but it was also my chance to learn from the author that the discussion is going strong in Germany, too. And at that forum, no one attacks anyone else. Seems that German engineering has found a better way once again.)

Date: Saturday, September 14, 2002


(Everyone's entitled to an opinion, I guess. Though, personally, I don't find it necessary to SCREAM mine in "Horrible Grammar" mode.)

Date: Thursday, September 19, 2002

Comment: Take a look at this little jewel I picked up from
Sothis: "To me, the whole point of what George Lucas has said is irrelevant. Regardless of what has been said by the big cheeses, the vast majority of fans on either side of the debate regard the EU as canon. Darkstar can either accept this, or never be taken seriously." So basically they've said that they don't care what George Lucas says about the EU. If they want it to be canon, it's canon. Do me a favor, put this on your site.


Date: Monday, September 23, 2002

Comment: Just to ask, did you ever factor in the fact that a Star Destroyer took serious damage from an attack on a planet near a star in the novel 'Dark Force Rising' that required three weeks to repair, while a Galaxy-class starship was able to remain within the outer region of a star in the TNG episode 'I Borg'? That gives and interesting comparison of shield strength.
Also, if the Empire has seperate shields for energy and particle weapons, then could a Starfleet phaser, being a particle beam weapon, penetrate energy shields to hit the particle shields. These, by the way, are described as stengthening the molecular bonds by the 'Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology', which, surely, is just the structural integrity field or the NX-01's hull polarisation defence.
One last thing, I like your site. Good luck!

(Alas, one of the perils of following the LucasFilm canon policy is that I don't get to whip out the embarrassing non-canon examples for Star Wars, even those that fit perfectly with the canon. That's probably why Wong continues to use the Star Trek Technical Manuals, since they give weapons energy limits far lower than what is seen in the show.)

Date: Friday, October 18, 2002

Comment: A while back, I used to think that the Empire was the ultimate force in sci-fi and couldn't be beaten by anyone. Then I went to your site, and the illusion conjured by Wong started to fade away. Thank you for showing me what is really going on.

Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2002

Comment: Thank you. Finally a intelligent view on this matter from the trek side!  Just my two cents keep up the good work !

Date: Friday, October 25, 2002

Comment: good site. I love the Mike Wong apples and oranges page. I got a good laugh at that. The sad thing is, it seems to be true!

(I included this for the general "good site" comment, since I can't take credit for any part of the page he refers to!)

Date: Thursday, October 31, 2002

Comment: Its good to see someone else with a decent good old fashioned logical viewpoint on the argument. Too much of it is simply star wars is better crap. Thanks for putting it out there.

Date: Friday, November 1, 2002

Comment: Glad to see some updates on your site. ... Man I can't wait for some of those future projects to come about.

(From a prior feedback respondent.)

Date: Monday, November 4, 2002

Comment: Greetings, oh ignorant one,

(I do so love diplomatic greetings . . . )

On your page about Star Wars maximum ranges and targeting systems, there is a small piece at the bottom refering to a scene in Episode I: The Phantom Menace. You state that when Queen Amidala's ship was trying to get past the blockade, not many shots hit. This, you say is because their targeting systems are so auful. However, this is because the guns were being operated by DROIDS. Their accuracy is notoriously poor.

(I found this amusing since the example he speaks of constitutes the longest canon example of starship weapons range in Star Wars, and the only time we see a hit at such a range!)

Date: Friday, November 8, 2002

Comment: I like this site. I have a suggestion, you may and probably have already done this, but if you look at what Malcolm Reed said in the Enterprise episode "Silent Enemy", he said that the Phase cannons had a maximum power output of 500 gigajoules for a 1 terajoule dual cannon blast. The Episode II ICS said that Slave I had a blaster cannon rated at 600 gigajoules per shot. All Slave I managed to do was scar a landing platform when it fired a stream of blaster shots at Obi-Wan, the NX-01's Phase cannons managed to level a large mountain with a 5 terajoule blast. This, in my opinion, would be the best argument against any of those Rabid Warsies. Every time I've posted that piece of information on some Star Trek vs. Star Wars battle, it seems to be ignored by the Warsies. And this is coming from a big Star Wars fan. I like both Star Trek and Star Wars so I think that my opinion is still unbiased.

(Any time you point out a lower energy figure than a non-canon one they prefer, it is "rationalized" as the shooter having dialled down the weapon's power level. This is even true for non-canon examples explicitly stated to be the maximum.)

Date: Monday, November 11, 2002

Comment: Nice to see more pages.

Date: Sunday, November 17, 2002

Comment: This is a good ST vs SW site. First good one i've seen that isn't biased against trek.
I look forward to any of your upcoming projects.

Date: Monday, November 18, 2002

Comment: Loved your site. I read Mike Wong's site and was ready to puke when i stumbled onto yours. Finally a site that doesn't give Star Trek the shaft. I love your presentation of the issues. I'm particularly interested in the vs. articles that you are planning. If you need help researching anything, i'd be glad to help. 


Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2002

Comment: I saw Mike Wong's site before yours and although it was obviously biased against anything remotely Trek I almost started believing that the Galactic Empire could wipe out the UFP with but one ISD... thank you for changing my opinion.

(My pleasure.)

Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2002

Hi just mailing you for two things, first the site is looking great I like the news section and I also think the coming soon section is a welcome addition. ... keep up the good work.

(From a prior respondent via e-mail.)

Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2002

You've got to be kidding me right? Okay you've been banned from their forum since august and they're still b!tching. Yikes it just never ends with them does it? Just for the record most Trek fans support your site and its purpose...

Bernd Schneider (that's right folks Bernd Schneider of EAS): "Welcome Darkstar, Defender of Sense and Sensibility! I enjoyed your posts in the SD Forum. Feel free to post the parody on your site."

(From a prior respondent via e-mail. The Bernd Schneider quote comes from this thread at the Subspace Comms Network, and the parody referred to is reprinted here.)

Date: Thursday, November 28, 2002

Comment: Great site, really shows up some of those crap Warsie claims.

Link Description

This isn't feedback per se, but I noticed in someone's answer to "How did you find this site?" that a person arrived from a link at an Enterprise History site. I looked, and found it on the wondrously extensive links pages attached to this excellent site:

"G2k's Star Trek vs. Star Wars - Collection of thoughtful essays on comparing the universes, with extensive and complete analysis."


Date: Saturday, November 30, 2002

Comment: Sure go ahead, it would help to show that the warsies are far from correct as painting you as [an] unsupported wacko :)

(From a prior respondent via e-mail, when asked if I could post his feedback.)

Date: Sunday, December 1, 2002

Comment: A few years ago I was Warsie. I still am. :) Anyway, from the B^2 page I found some pro-wars pages.
I was very suprised. All that time I thought that Trek ships were more powerful than Wars ship, and there I had calculations that proved me othervise. But then... I started too see some cracks in many reasonings and calculations... And I realized than those pro-warsies may actually be wrong! :) So, even without the help of your page I find many small things that prove to me, that Star Wars universe is not that all powerful as many people claim...

(This may be my coolest feedback simply because the fellow hails from eastern Europe, making him the most distant thus far. (see update note below))

Date: Monday, December 2, 2002

Comment: Hi there!
Great site, Robert! This is what I've been waiting for so very long! An ASVS website that actually deals with canon fact, and not rabid Warsie or Trekkie fanboy(or fangirl) wank material.
As someone who's had a hand in trying out the Versus debates (long before the ASVS ng was around) I can tell you that I understand exactly where you're coming from. When I read things like the "debating tactics" section I shook my head sadly, as I've experianced it for myself. It is nothing new. Though the one you forgot to put, and was demonstrated so well towards the end of the 'debate' with Mike Wong was : "Declare victory and bravely run away!" ;-) 

Date: Monday, December 2, 2002

Comment: Obsidian Order Project is very funny to read... Let's see Wong argue his way out of this one... 

Date: Sunday, December 15, 2002

Comment: I greatly enjoyed your site, for quite some time I've been hoping for a "Trek bastion of sanity" to be established, in the wake of the many pro-wars sites which cropped-up originally due to the whole STvSW debate. Make no mistake, I enjoy SW as much as the next guy. However, the arguments I commonly saw put-forth while I still debated at made me feel frustrated to say the least. Your site is excellent. I must also say that I got a kick out of the "Warp Manuevering" section, with the pics of the Nebula class banking during warp. The whole scene seemed to scream "Hello! I'm here!". Keep-up the good work, I await the rest of your Wong debate. Good Hunting.

(Regarding the "Hello, I'm here!" . . . if there's one thing I've learned, it's that some parties on the other side of the aisle are more than willing to ignore what is not held right in front of their face . . . and some still won't accept it, then.)

Date: Sunday, December 15, 2002

Comment: Good to see someone putting a lid on some of the EU hype. You may want to consider a change of colour for link text. Dark blue on black background makes some people feel like they are colour blind.

(Hope you like the new color scheme better!  Even I had noticed that the deep blue and purple looked funny.)

Date: Monday, December 30, 2002

Comment: This is great, finally someone here to answer wong's arrogance!!!

Date: Monday, December 30, 2002

Comment: Love the site, have read through it a few times now and agree with just about everything.

(I received this just as I was starting to think "man, my site's getting pretty big" . . . and this fellow read through it a few times and burst my bubble wide open.)

Date: Monday, January 6, 2003

Comment: You suck-diddly-uck you worthless ass clown.


Date: Monday, January 6, 2003

Comment: Have to say I love the site, has lots of good analyses and ideas. Good job man.

Date: Wednesday, January 8, 2003

Comment: This site is quite interesting.  It is one of the very few I have found that is not biased in favour of Star Wars.

Date: Thursday, January 9, 2003

Comment: Like the site. I've seen way too many radically pro wars sites and this is a relief.

Date: Sunday, January 12, 2003

Comment: OK i just read the refutation of your site by Mike Wong and i wonder how the heck you intend to disprove what he said?

(With ease.)

Date: Sunday, January 12, 2003

Comment: Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but we uncivilised 'warsies' don't force it on others.  Your crazy.

(I have to say, this amused me greatly.  I have created a website, and thus force my opinion on others.  I wonder what this fellow thinks of ASVS and SD.Net's BBS, where pro-Trek parties are flamed incessantly?)

Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2003

Comment: I really like your site.  This site sticks with canon.  I really liked reading the Obsidian Order project.  I really look forward to your commentary on TIEs vs. Peregrines and ISD II vs. the GCS.

Date: Thursday, January 23, 2003

Comment: I have just broke in to the the ST vs SW debate thing.  The first page I ever read was Wong's.  The problem is I don't hold any physic's degrees and it took some time to digest every thing he was saying.  Plus it just seemed like a one side effort with his 'generosity' seemingly half-hearted.  It was nice to find your site.  Edam site was nonsense and (IMO)he didnt have the knowledge to back up his perserverence.  You have shown a great understanding of the science, a love for the genre, and a willingness to fight back against people who (IMO) twist the facts to turn the debate to thier favor.  I think you did an excellenct job being objective and analyzing the facts from both sides.  My hat is off to you.

(Wow.  I like this guy.)

Note:  09-26-03 
Sorry I haven't updated these in awhile, though the above constitute a good sample of the sorts of feedback I receive.   Now I just receive lots more.   

There is one thing I wanted to note, however.  Since the move to the new web host, I've discovered that my site statistics abilities are dramatically enhanced.  I can now see where the people who view the site are trying to view from, country-wise.   Here's a list:


United Kingdom
USA Military 
New Zealand 
United Arab Emirates 
Russian Federation 
Old style Arpanet 
USA Government 
Czech Republic 
Saudi Arabia 
Trinidad and Tobago 
Hong Kong 
Dominican Republic 



See also the feedback which resulted from the site link from here