StarDestroyer.Net BBS

DarkStar wrote:

SirNitram wrote: Check out his arguments concerning the fighter attack on the Death Star, then reread his chain reaction theory. You will find, amusingly, he demands that a bolt need to shot the 'splinter' effect for X-wings to have shields, but when he sees such a 'splinter' effect occour on Alderaan in ANH SE, he demands it be proof of a magic reaction more complicated than all power-generation theories.

You know, lying to me is one thing... I've come to expect it of you. But now you're lying to one of your own. Have you no shame?

No, I'm a shameless asshole, who is also evil, who reports the truth. You claimed both, Dark Star. I can dig through Google to prove it.

DarkStar wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Wow, a difference of a few meters between classes of SD that vary either a little or massively. I'm so terrified.

Well, watch me resolve this nitpick so seamlessly Dark Star will wonder how I did it(While claiming I'm talking out of my ass, of course, since he can't actually rebutt an argument).

The most obvious subclasses of ISD are the I and II. The II, it should be noted, carries noticably more weapons than it's predecessor, and according to WEG stats, these weapons have higher fire-control, and the ship has greater sensor power.

Therefore, I conclude that the difference in globe size is the direct result of the need for increased sensor power.

Continued variation can be explained by the varying number of weapons in different ISD's(Looking carefully at models and drawings, it becomes apparantly few ISD's are exactly alike.. Not unusual, considering how many facilities must have been used to assemble them, and supply shortages could have lead staff to improvise.).

Okay, so what? I was never concerned with why there were differences, just that there were differences which were not commonly acknowledged.

Perhaps because most can realize that there will be differences between ship classes, even if they are broadly similar. You, however, attacked this as yet another nitpick.

SirNitram wrote:
Your scaling is pretty good. Are you someone whose name I should know?

Well.. we don't know each other. I usually don't partake in VS debates, I only hang around to learn more about my hobby. It's quite a good source of things that you don't learn by the official material.

DarkStar wrote:
And as Saxton points out repeatedly (on that page and elsewhere), there is a consistency to bridge towers. Your point is moot, anyway, since the 31.5m figure is confirmed by comparison to the entire ISD-II the globes sit on.

I know he considers all the bridge towers the same size. The point is that different sources gives different results because of the large tolerance. A hundred metres on a ~17,6 km long ship is a 0,568 percent variance. Not exactly a large error.

DarkStar wrote:
Actually, the minimum he gives is 265, when he's actually stating a size range. And again, the point is that there are differences between ISD-1 and ISD-2 models... 41m doesn't fit for an ISD-2.

I know that too. I replied with the figure for the SSD in question. It's good that we agree on that the point is that there are model differences. That is what I was aiming at.

DarkStar wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a side note, I have studied your proposed theory on the possibility of the Death Star destroying Alderaan by a chain reaction rather than by direct energy input. You compare the visual evidence to the effects of the genesis device, but this is inherently faulty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many times do I have to remind people that the part in quotation marks was a simple aside? (Aside: not part of the main text) It was not the basis for my argument, nor was it used as proof thereof.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, your theory is based on a faulty assumption and is therefore automatically invalid, regardless of whatever other merit it may have, not that I found any.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, I was thinking decent things about you until this sentence, even though you had failed to read Saxton's bridge tower arguments and were defending a ludicrous figure for the ISD-II globes. 'We all make mistakes', I thought. But, now it's clear that your intelligence is simply lacking.

My, my. That would have been insulting if I wasn't confident with my intellect. But I forgive you, it can't be easy to be picked at all the time on a hostile board. I have in fact studied Saxton's board very carefully to find if there was such unexplained disrepancies as you claim. I never defended any "ludicrous figure" I just pointed out that this figure you came up with isn't a critical error, there is inherently a margin of error in the sources we have. I'm not going to debate your theory in this thread, but there is a lot more problems with it than the one I pointed out. If it is not a part of your theory, I suggest you just leave it out next time.