Hate Mail
Adarx Page 6
My third reply
Right here, and other places, it is difficult
to distinguish my text from yours.
I suggest you place a few blank lines between
my text and your text, and don't use the > symbol in front of your words.
This will help us identify each others' text.
I didn't think I was using it in front of
my words but I will try to be more careful. Anyway, Is this better?
Much better.
When I am formatting this debate for use on a webpage and color-coding
it, I don't want to mix up our text.
Are you ready to give actual evidence that *this*
fighter took damage?
That is the only way to show that your theory
is more valid than mine.
There are only two ways you can argue my quote
("They are much less resilient to enemy fire than their larger counterparts,
as at least one was destroyed by a single volley from an Earthforce Thunderbolt
starfighter in Into the Fire.").
*You can show that the quote has no evidence
to support it.
*You can show evidence that Vorlon fighters are
more resilient than larger Vorlon ships.
No. I can also fight the supporting evidence
you give for the less resilient line. The destroyed in one volley
was what I have the problem with. If I can prove it likely that it
took damage, the "destroyed in one volley" part would be speculation as
I stated. I don't have to fight in either way you described, I am
going to show evidence that the Vorlon Fighter had recieved prior damage
to the "single volley" which you claimed destroyed it. I do not dispute
the whole line, only the final 18 words of it.
You mean the final words "at least one was destroyed by a single volley
from an Earthforce Thunderbolt starfighter in Into the Fire?"
I can debunk that right now. Just view the video. We clearly
see a Vorlon fighter being destroyed by an Earthforce fighter.
Anyway, unless you can show evidence that this fighter did take previous
damage, then your idea is speculation, not mine. I described exactly
what happened in the episode. You are speculating that since there
were so many other ships present, this ship is likely to have been hit
before this event. At least, that is what you claimed over at Spacebattles.
This is an "Appeal to Ignorance" fallacy. It is like saying "Since
we aren't sure that it didn't, it must have!"
Or "Mom didn't say we couldn't go, so it must be okay!"
Try that in real life. "I forgot if I paid my bills or not.
I'm not sure I didn't, so I must have!"
You also mentioned a comic book that indicated that the Vorlons had
10,000 ships present, the Shadows had 10,000, and the young races had 8,000.
So, following your train of thought, the Earth fighter also took previous
damage! This damage had to be from either a Vorlon or Shadow vessel,
since that is who they were combatting. It survived, was in working
order, and
had enough power to destroy a Vorlon fighter, damaged or not!
Those Thunderbolts must be the toughest thing in the series! :)
In fact, since the Vorlons were in combat with 18,000 enemy vessels,
and the young races were in combat with 20,000 vessels, it is 10% more
likely that the Earth fighter took a prior hit than the Vorlon fighter.
This is not evidence, Adarx. It is speculation. You know, that stuff you are accusing me of.
My theory is that the Earth fighter destroyed the Vorlon fighter, thus
Vorlon fighters are less resilient than large Vorlon warships.
The first part of that (above) sentence is completely supported.
See the video. This is exactly what happened.
The second part of the sentence should be common sense. If you
need proof, all I need to do is find a clip where a Vorlon warship larger
than a fighter took hits from an Earth fighter without blowing up.
Or one that took a hit from something more powerful than an Earth fighter.
Your theory appears to be that since the Vorlon fighter was destroyed, it must have taken previous damage. Your supporting "evidence" appears to be the fact that there were a lot of ships around shooting.
Occam's Razor tells us that my theory is superior. In addition
to that,
*your theory contains speculation on previous damage
*that possible previous damage is not quantifiable
*the number of ships present may decrease the chances of the fighter
being hit.
I can't prove that no previous damage was inflicted, but there is nothing
that indicates there was. Thus, a statement that previous damage
was inflicted is "unsupported speculation," as you call it.
Idea without evidence = unsupported speculation.
Unless you can show that *this individual fighter* sustained damage
prior to this event, you have no case. All you have is an "Appeal
to Ignorance" fallacy.
Yes. I believe the Vorlon Fighter was damaged
before hand and thus the one volley line is invalid.
Then show evidence to that effect.
Note the statement that it "likely" took damage is, as you say, unsupported
speculation.
No evidence = unsupported speculation.
No evidence = no valid theory.
I even offered to give you any clip you want from the episode to find
that evidence. I won't charge you one of your 5 posts to ask for
it.
In the interest of fairness, I'll make the video
clip in question available to you to examine and extract images from *for
this debate.*
http://www.babtech-onthe.net/quicktime/eashootvfighter.mov
All I get is a white screen while it is playing.
Don't worry though, I have it on video.
I bet you don't have Quicktime 6, do you? I didn't think about
that.
No problem,
http://www.babtech-onthe.net/adarx/adarx1.mov
http://www.babtech-onthe.net/adarx/adarx2.avi
An older Quicktime codec, and a Divx 5.0.2 video. Both are under
500k.
I figure I will be ready to go this weekend.
I think we have the preliminaries pretty much wrapped up except for the
name issue.
Then I'll look forward to your first post in 48-72 hours.