Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/
Not true! Those star destroyers weren't necessary full. In fact, the vast majority were probably near-empty. I'd estimate we're looking at only a few hundred thousand troops, total.IceHawk-181 wrote:At least 242,500,000 as Star Destroyer Marine Detachments alone....
Can you say...pussy fence sitter?Heh heh...
Fortunately, the number and strength of the Republic and Confederacy armies does not have any bearing on any project I am currently working on for Lucasfilm.
My personal opinion? "Quintillions" of battle droids is much too high. 3 million clones is too low.
Note that the NEC mentions alternate sources of cloning (e.g. Spaarti), and also states that the Republic had a program of forced conscription. Both facts are published EU canon, and could logically be used to nudge that latter figure northward.
None of them like our ilk.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:I'm not sure if it's polite to point fingers, but the mod who banned Dan-K does not strike me as a unbiased mod in many debates.
Actually, ES banned Dan-K a full five minutes after Dan Wallace responded... which is exceedingly odd.Lord Poe wrote:Love this. "Daniel K" gets a 24 hour ban for asking Wallace his opinion on clone numbers, then Wallace quotes Daniel's message and responds to it!
That's awfully harsh. Consider Dan Wallace's position: he's a LFL employee, and he probably has to choose his words carefully regarding the work of another (active) author, especially when on an online community. I honestly wonder how much solidarity LFL contractees are supposed to show-- remember Stradly knocking Triple Zero and then suddenly backpedaling and apologizing soon thereafter? Or the whole bad blood between Stradly and Del Rey, which is vehemently denied now even though there's evidence to the contrary? Or how much Leland Chee seems to freak out when asked a controversial question?Lord Poe wrote:Can you say...pussy fence sitter?
Why? Seriously, ask him why?"Quintillions" of battle droids is much too high.
Don't expect to get an answer to that... Seriously, it seems to me as if 99 % of the people involved in the Star Wars EU (continuity editors, authors, artists etc.) have difficulties understanding the scale of the Star Wars civilization.VT-16 wrote:Why? Seriously, ask him why?"Quintillions" of battle droids is much too high.
The most pathetic thing about Ryan Kaufman's about-face was the insinuation that he was being quoted "out of context", which was a total lie. His post is clear and unambiguous, and he said nothing else in the post in question or anything surrouding it that would somehow alter the meaning. His "3 million 3 million 3 million" was the part that really made him look the fool. I have about as much respect for liars and backpedallers like that as I do for childish nitwits like Traviss. None.thejester wrote:The fact that Traviss' co-author withdrew a statement that contradicted Traviss' position would suggest quite a bit. He basically closed ranks, and made himself look a fool in the process, in order to offer protection to Traviss - apparently failing to notice that the statement in question was but one non-essential part of a much larger argument.
True enough. Right after Kaufman posted that, I asked why have the 3 million number then if LFL could not or would not give a set clone number. I don't think I ever got a response. The only one that bothered was a mod who half-assed answered the question.Vympel wrote:The most pathetic thing about Ryan Kaufman's about-face was the insinuation that he was being quoted "out of context", which was a total lie. His post is clear and unambiguous, and he said nothing else in the post in question or anything surrouding it that would somehow alter the meaning. His "3 million 3 million 3 million" was the part that really made him look the fool. I have about as much respect for liars and backpedallers like that as I do for childish nitwits like Traviss. None.thejester wrote:The fact that Traviss' co-author withdrew a statement that contradicted Traviss' position would suggest quite a bit. He basically closed ranks, and made himself look a fool in the process, in order to offer protection to Traviss - apparently failing to notice that the statement in question was but one non-essential part of a much larger argument.
Much as I don't agree with Kaufman's "about face," he did a decent thing for me, once.Vympel wrote:The most pathetic thing about Ryan Kaufman's about-face was the insinuation that he was being quoted "out of context", which was a total lie. His post is clear and unambiguous, and he said nothing else in the post in question or anything surrouding it that would somehow alter the meaning. His "3 million 3 million 3 million" was the part that really made him look the fool. I have about as much respect for liars and backpedallers like that as I do for childish nitwits like Traviss. None.
I have submitted a request form to be unbanned, but what in the name of heck did I do that even came CLOSE to warranting such disciplinary action?You have violated our Terms Of Service and are currently banned from using this board system.
In most cases, bans are temporary (24 hours to 1 week); occasionally they are accidental.
Please submit an unban request using this form to inquire in to the nature and the duration of your ban. Your request will be sent to one of our moderators for review and you should receive a prompt reply back. Please keep in mind that all aspects of the board system, including unban requests, are subject to the Terms Of Service
People evading bans by creating or using alternate accounts will have their alternate account banned, and time added to their original ban.
And here's the second to last message:Master of Ossus wrote:Havac, please calm down. IMO this clearly crosses the line that the moderators have established for this thread, and I do not wish to see this thread locked because of the actions of a small minority of posters.Havac wrote: Are you saying that thinking a person is being an arrogant, self-important fool who has no right to dictate thread content automatically makes me a Karen Traviss-lover? Are you saying that you truly think of this debate in such simplistic terms that you don't believe anyone can disagree with you without being some sort of Traviss maniac? Or was that just spam?
I guess that I clearly warrant a ban for violating the TOS.I wrote:I have. And this will be great.Havac wrote:Read the argument again.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Palpatine was consulted.Havac wrote:He is making claims that the Jedi did not tell Palpatine, and bases his argument that Palpatine is out of the loop on that. He is drawing a conclusion without evidence to back it up.
Havac wrote:SO I can say, "Senator Fang Zar is actually a Yuuzhan Vong in an ooglith masquer," and I'll be right because no one can disprove me?
Thanks for savaging your own argument. Let me paraphrase:
"Senator Fang Zar [Chancellor Palpatine] is actually a Yuuzhan Vong in an ooglith masquer [was actually consulted]," and I'll be right because no one can disprove me?
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO'S DEMANDING PROOF OF A NEGATIVE.
The original supposition, which you rejected, was "Chancellor Palpatine was not consulted."
There is no evidence, whatsoever, that he was consulted. Ergo, the reasonable conclusion is that he was not consulted. This inference is supported by a multitude of logical principals, including Occam's Razor.
Havac wrote:Then how come whenever anyone offers any sort of theory that would make the Clone Wars work with 3,000,000 clones, it gets shot down because they're just providing theories without evidence?
It is clear to me that you do not understand how logical principals operate. I will attempt to explain this to you, but since logical reasoning is an important skill in life and since I have no chance (or desire) of describing this in a comprehensive manner I would advise you to take a class in this if you are still in school or engage in independent study of the subject if you are not.
If there is no evidence for something, then it should be rejected. That is why we reject the claim that Palpatine was consulted (ie. no evidence exists suggesting that he was consulted, ergo it is reasonable to claim that he was not). Similarly, there is no evidence that Senator Fang is a Yuuzhan Vong, and so we reject that claim using the same reasoning. If you accept the argument that Senator Fang is NOT a Yuuzhan Vong in the absence of evidence, you MUST similarly reject the idea that Palpatine was consulted in the absence of evidence. The reasoning moving us to both conclusions is identical.
Since we have rejected the idea that Palpatine was consulted in this case, any hypotheses that we present involving this fact should not include the term "Palpatine was consulted." StarKiller's does not include this term. To reject StarKiller's hypothesis on such grounds is to utilize the "Appeal to Ignorance" fallacy.
There is no double standard. It is impossible to prove a negative proposition (ie. it is impossible to prove that Palpatine was NOT consulted; it is impossible to prove that Senator Fang Zar is NOT a Yuuzhan Vong). Several statements in this thread rely on this principal, inluding StarKiller's and your own. It is possible to REFUTE a positive proposition, such as the one that StarKiller based his argument on. Thus, one side of this discussion is providing a testable hypothesis while the other one is wasting time. It so happens that no evidence exists which would refute the testable hypothesis that StarKiller presented, and so his opponents (like you) have taken to appealing to ignorance in a misguided effort to discredit his ideas.Havac wrote:I'm sorry, but until StarKiller can back up his theories with any evidence, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Either accept that, or change your double standards on evidence.
Probably.Vehrec wrote:You demonstrated a capacity for logical thought, in direcet defiance of their new 'suck up to VIPs' rule. Therefore, you have been banned. Terms of Service violation in this case probably just means that you made someone mad and they had some pull from kissing up to a mod.
What does he mean I "haven't learned to refrain?" When have I been accused of anything similar in the past?DP4M wrote:You clearly haven't learned to refrain from engaging in making personal
remarks about the people you claim to be debating. That's not a
debate.
Thus, your ban is for 72-hours. The next time it'll be a week. The
time after that probably a month, etc, etc, etc.
Thanks,
David (dp4m)
mailhost.in.snowball.com @ 5/22/2006 11:04:23 AM
The "What to do if you are banned" thread (+http://boards.theforce.net/rules_announ ... 4099/p1/?0 ) says that:Master of Ossus wrote:Does TF.N have any method for allowing an impartial review of the moderating process (and by that I mean a different moderator)? Furthermore, why are they cutting Havac so much slack? Did he not describe another user as an arrogant fool?
If you feel you are innocent, use the [email protected] email, not the unban request form.