Damned-fool Idealistic Crusades...Selected from the Finest Vintage of Stupidity

This section of Famous Quotes is devoted to harebrained stunts and idiotic schemes to take over the newsgroup and/or supplant the FAQ. None were successful.

  July 19, 2000: Paul Jacques H.Jr relaunches his bid to take control of ASVS,
 which ultimately proves unsuccessful as he is a raving lunatic.
The NRWD remains an object of derision and mockery.
Pile up the sandbags and prepare the pepto-bismol, it's....the NRWD.
From: he791859@merlin.uqam.ca (PAUL JACQUES H.JR)
Subject: This FAQ is for new people.
Newsgroups: alt.startrek.vs.starwars
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:58:19 GMT


     ****  THE No Restrictions War Document ****

          ***  N  R            W   D  ***

                   *** NRWD ***

This is a second FAQ the NRWD.

When you use this FAQ (NRWD) for debates, you must write, in the
beginning of the title of your thread:*NRWD*. Why? By respect for 
the people who are using the original FAQ. This will avoid mix ups.


*NRWD* Borgs do have KE shields                           Elam Dukat
*NRWD* Trans Hyper drive                                  Wisemamal
*NRWD* Super S. Troupers would destroy the Borg.          Vapspike
*NRWD* A fleet of Sun Crushers against 8472s.             Shadow

Why a second set of FAQ (NRWD)? Because, some people are discontent
with the original FAQ. They want a different sort of debate.
Others have been put aside by flamers and want to debate freely.

Is this FAQ (NRWD) better than the original? Yes, it is real war.

Are these two FAQs compatible? No, this one is not bias.

Does this mean, that this NG use two FAQs and you can choose the
debate platform? Yes

If somebody who uses the original FAQ, answers my thread and says that Q
is not permitted, what do I say?
You say, this is permitted here, I use the NRWD and not the
original FAQ.

Do I have the right to use this FAQ (NRWD)? Yes, the internet if for

What is permitted with this FAQ (NRWD)?

*** common sense it the ultimate rule ***

-Q is permitted.
-Alliances are permitted.
-Time travel is permitted.
-Seen technologies are permitted.
-Creating new tech with old tech.
-Changing the characters behavior are permitted. (With justification)
-Logical extrapolations are permitted. 
-The fact that a side didn't use a tactic in a film or episode does
 not negate a tactic that you bring here.
-Any new tactic or technology seen once is considered available to be
 use again. Common sense, since war is not static.

A game is beeing created at this time. The moment it is ready it will
be presented. 

What sources can we take?

 a) Quotes from film and episodes.

 b) Visual from film and episodes.

When there is a contradiction between a and b. you take the one that is
more favorable for your argument.

 c) Books and technical manuals.

When there is a contradiction between c and (a,b) then (a,b) overrides c.

Are Mike Wong calcs valid here? As long it is taken as an opinion and
not fact. Even though there are presented in a scientific manner. The
reality is, when you dig a bit, they are opinions based on the
interpretation of a selected group of source.

Good debate! And don't worry about flames from jealous people here.
They are only words from feeble minds. Don't bother to reply to them.
To help you avoid potential flamers. Here is a list:

Jonathan Boyd.

Other names will be added as time goes by.

Have fun! :)  
[The list he has here consists of people who have beaten his sorry ass into the ground. --Ed.]

  August 24, 1999: About a year ago, TOWNMNBS (Timothy Jones) made his own dubious
 contribution to ASVS and ASVB5. Read it if you dare.
We take no responsibility if your brain melts.
If you need to loosen up after this pile of idiocy, read the MiSTing.
From: Timothy Jones <timelord@u.washington.edu>
Subject: The One Argument That Matters
Date: 1999/08/24
Forum: alt.startrek.vs.starwars 

        The only advantage Trek needs to win isn't even in dispute.
Someone has suggested:

> > Ultimately, the better crew would win :)

And other such diplomatic ideas before. The good guys will win. It
depends who's writing the story. It depends which world they're in. It
depends who fires first. And so on.

        These are all well-thought and noble sentiments. Usually, my
response consists of such arguments that Trek shields (which B5 lacks)
and tougher hulls give a strong edge, or that Trek weapons are many
times more powerfull. But with both the star wars crowd and the B5ers,
the facts that prove these things are rarely accepted, though I consider
the excuses for this to be just that.
        So instead, I'm just going to point out the one thing that you,
like they, seem to be overlooking. The one factor which, irrespective of
the rest, ends *both* debates with Trek starships prevailing. I'm
talking about, of course, warp drive.
        I don't think any side is going to accept that any other has
significantly superior weapons, hulls, shields, sensors, sensor-jammers,
*or* crews. It is my opinion that Trek has a clear and rather wide
supremacy in all of these extraneous things, in relation to both B5 and
star wars. But I can also see the reality of the situation in these
debates. As obvious as they appear to me, the fact of the matter is
they've been going on for a long time, even warranting their own
dedicated newsgroups! {Like these.}
        But you know, it really doesn't matter. Because if we are left
with the apparant default situation we seem to be in the position of
being forced to work with (if we *ever* -- and I do mean *EVER* -- want
to be listened to by the other side, get through to them one iota, and
make any kind of real progress in these discussions), namely that the
hulls, "shields," sensors, jammers, weapons, and yes even the crews are
going to have to be treated as being more-or-less equal between the
involved storyworlds...if, I say, this is what we're going to have to
jointly agree to settle for in order to stop going in circles with each
other forever, if *that* is where we are left to base our positions on,
then people, it should be obvious to you that warp drive alone ends
these debates. And it ends them with Starfleet winning. Every battle.
Every war. Every time. 
        Babylon 5 and star wars ships simply *cannot* fight Starfleet
ships from within hyperspace. There will then *be* *no* hyperspace
battles. The fighting, whether anyone likes it or not, *will* occur
entirely in normal space. And *in* normal space, all quibbeling about
accelerations or top nominal sublight speeds for B5 or star wars
notwithstanding, the undeniable fact of the matter is *none* of them are
going to be able to achieve *any* speed at or beyond the speed of light.
        Well people, Starfleet ships *can*. They can, and they *will*.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but I for one have yet to see
warp speed travel *or* maneuvering be a hinderence to either their
sensors or their use of torpedoes. As of DS9, it doesn't even prevent
phaser use. You don't want to admit to the awesome kinetic energy of a
warp speed torpedo? You want to hit me with a warp field's AMRE
(Apparant Mass-Reduction Effect), even though there's no mention of it
re torpedoes and even though it still leaves more than enough KE to
vaporize any B5 or star wars ship? Very well.
        {But even ignoring *that* reality in these debates, a maximum
yield torpedo will still possess a matter/anti-matter warhead
capable of creating a blast area of not less than 15 kilometers, with 
an energy release equivelant to about 60 Megatonnes.}
        And warp speed travel under tactical conditions remains a fact.
And it leads to two more facts. Fact one: No Trek ship at warp could be
caught by any other ship not at warp, *or* its weapons fire. Fact Two:
No ship not at warp can *avoid* being caught or hit by the warp-speed
weapons fire of a Trek ship at warp. So, honestly people, exactly where
in the name of hell do you think you can go with this? The non-Trek
ships will never know what hit them or most likely even be able to see
in coming, forget about fighting back!
        So okay, okay, let's say I'm missing something pretty huge when
we're snipping at each other about B5 organics being weaker than a true
energy shield, or about a star destroyer's turbolasers being worthless
by definition against a Starfleet vessel. And let's even say hyperspace
is many times faster in *both* storyworlds than warp drive. Can someone
tell me what the hell difference it makes if we can smack you over and
over with as many maximum yield torpedoes and/or ACB-jacketed phaser
discharges as it takes, while you can neither hit us back, nor avoid
being hit *by* us?
        This is not something that's a matter of interpretation. And
it's not about what sources of information are canon, official, or
inadmissable. This is about a signature technology, the establishments
of which are copiously referenced, endlessly demonstrated, and
ultimately undeniable. There's no ambiguity. There's no way to get
around it. And there's no doubt of the outcome once this most obvious
matter is acknowledged. Warp drive ends the debate. The imperial navy or
the various B5 governments may be able to control the rest of whatever
galaxy they're in. But they cannot hope to possess one sector of space
occupied by the UFP, or any other warp-capable civilization. Personally,
I maintain that Trek technology has numerous other technological
advantages that hand them each and every battle as well. But ultimately,
they don't need them. And I don't need to argue for them. Warp drive
ends the debate.