[Graeme Dice]

TaoLibra said:
I am not "hostile" to the idea. I simply reject the notion that it's either plausible or rational, because it's not.

ie. You are hostile to the idea, as you continually ignore all arguments contrary to your position.

And while that FAQ isn't "hostile" to the idea, it does say all the same things I've already said, and it does support my contention that no race capable of building one would need one.

No, it doesn't say the same things that you've already said. It lists several reasons one might want to build a Dyson sphere, and several different structures that would be possible. It also says nothing about not needing one except that it would require supertechnology to build a rigid Dyson sphere. It also explicitly states that the material requirements are considerably lower than your initial claim that you'd need to use all the solar systems, including their stars, within the nearest thousand lightyears.

So does LOGIC.

In order to claim that logic supports you, you must first supply a logically sound argument.

IN Science Fiction, it isn't a problem. Neither are any of Science Fiction's many other implausible fantasies — like replicators, transporters, universal translators, inter-breeding species, and faster-than-light speed travel for that matter. I didn't object to the presence of such things in Science Fiction, I merely pointed out that they are fiction.

No, you certainly objected to the presence of Dyson spheres, or else you wouldn't be so openly hostile to the idea that there are legitimate uses for them. Openly hostile to the point where you aren't even acknowledging your opponents' arguments.