First, I can't help but notice that two or three people keep insisting that we "agreed" on a carrier-battleship. Let me be very clear: we did not. What we did was discuss it, reach about a 50/50 split (with more against than for, as I recall), and then we dropped it.
People who want a carrier should honestly defend it from the points made across the board against it. Because most of what I've seen so far involves: a) naval analogies that have been shown to be inapplicable, b) insistence that the issue "has already been decided", and c) recourse to the fact that "other people have done it", which is simply an appeal to the Rule of COOL, and does not address any actual argument.
Now, let me be clear, not everyone arguing for a carrier is doing this. PJOZ, David, and a couple others have made some valid points for retaining a fighter force on some level. But I think the only argument for a dedicated carrier is "it's cool!"
I also don't mind fighters with short-range naquadriah hyperdrives. But most people want to slap on so much stuff that, as Tom said, we're just calling a gunship a fighter 'cause it's "cool".
I say that fighters do have valid uses; they're just very limited.
Now, on a less controversial subject, I don't see why we would need a re-vote if somebody wins by a small margin. That's how voting works. Now, kudos to all for a close competition, but if the votes are in for one person then that person wins. Should PJOZ be 1 point ahead come Wednesday, I'll be a bit disappointed, sure, but he'll still have won, and I'll accept that.
And I agree on a separate voting thread.
Now . . . on to Gunships!
(Oh, and arguing about how long the thread is only makes the thread longer. I find that hilarious.
)
People who want a carrier should honestly defend it from the points made across the board against it. Because most of what I've seen so far involves: a) naval analogies that have been shown to be inapplicable, b) insistence that the issue "has already been decided", and c) recourse to the fact that "other people have done it", which is simply an appeal to the Rule of COOL, and does not address any actual argument.
Now, let me be clear, not everyone arguing for a carrier is doing this. PJOZ, David, and a couple others have made some valid points for retaining a fighter force on some level. But I think the only argument for a dedicated carrier is "it's cool!"
I also don't mind fighters with short-range naquadriah hyperdrives. But most people want to slap on so much stuff that, as Tom said, we're just calling a gunship a fighter 'cause it's "cool".
I say that fighters do have valid uses; they're just very limited.
Now, on a less controversial subject, I don't see why we would need a re-vote if somebody wins by a small margin. That's how voting works. Now, kudos to all for a close competition, but if the votes are in for one person then that person wins. Should PJOZ be 1 point ahead come Wednesday, I'll be a bit disappointed, sure, but he'll still have won, and I'll accept that.
And I agree on a separate voting thread.
Now . . . on to Gunships!
(Oh, and arguing about how long the thread is only makes the thread longer. I find that hilarious.
)
Comment