1.  That point is irrelevant to what had been posted. 

2.  Oh, irony. 

3.  What subsection would that be exactly?  Let's review the posts: 

First post (JOKA):  "Now all we need to do is create a ship that can travel 600x the speed of light and we can get there in a year!"
The first post says that to get there in a year, we NEED to travel 600 times the speed of light. 

Second post (HWS):  "For that all we need is an infinite amount of energy/hope relativity is wrong. It's almost TOO easy.

As for the planet, I'm not getting excited. It's considerably larger than the Earth and there are factors at play that we have no idea about (environment, axial tilt, etc) . To say it habitable is a stretch. This will be Gliese 581d all over again."

HWS states that for "that", i.e. the thing JOKA said needed to happen, traveling 600 times the speed of light, relativity would have to be wrong. 

(Alternatively, depending on how the slash is interpreted, he might have meant that to get there in a year, we need an infinite amount of energy OR relativity would have to be wrong.  The time dilation you talked about would only be possible after spending ridiculous, or near-infinite, amounts of energy on acceleration.) 

Third post (you):  "erm no. Special relativity would make it possible to reach the planet within a lifetime...time dilation means the time will move slower on a fast moving spaceship. Problem is that time on earth would be thousands of years ahead by the time you come back."

Your post starts with "NO", meaning you object to something HWS said -- you find fault with it.  I don't see how you can justify this in either interpretation of his post, and I don't see how you could have interpreted it otherwise. 

4.  You accused HWS of wrongly making you out to be arrogant; I don't think he did.  I don't really care if saying so offends you since you're the one who brought up the subject. 

No, relativity in fact says we can traverse such vast distances in one lifetime.

DONE. SEALED. OKAY GO AWAY.

I'm going to ignore you - mkay?

Because you're just being an ass now, and though there was some subtle point in logic that I missed due to being a tad hasty, you have most certainly taken the cake.

Woah Woah Woah! Hold on. I think you completely misunderstood what I said there. That statement wasn't meant to be serious. It was only mean to be a tongue in cheek comment about how you pick up on people's mistakes when it comes to physics. See the Smiley at the end? That means I was kidding. I didn't mean it to be offensive.

Also, I know you can't break special relativity, that's why I said you would need it to be wrong as my second point.

Final-Fan: Thanks for sticking up for me. I'm sorry that what I said seems to have been misinterpreted.

So you hate being proven wrong, and when anyone does prove you wrong they are therefore an incredibly rude asshole. 

Gotcha. 

No, it's a character from the Wheel of Time books.

Nuclear Pulse Propulsion will probably be the first step in interstellar space travel. can travel to the nearest star besides our own in around a human lifetime. looking at 50-60 years with this method.

Look up project Orion.

That and an energy source that isn't dependent on... time... since the minute you hit light speed, time would stop shutting down your engines.

And well, a timer that would let us stop.  A timer that doesn't rely on time... for the above reason. 

Really it'd probably be a lot easier to open up a gateway through a dimension we can't perceive.

In a universe with an estimated 10 sextillion stars, I don't consider finding one Earth like planet all that special.