Starfleet Jedi

Batman wrote: Batman. Absolutely no sense of humour. IOW how about you explain.

Watch how these fine folk will now trot out the same tired BS we've seen from every troll on SDN and Darkstars old board about how the ICS aren't accurate/rigged to make sure SW wins the versus debate/ Saxton is biased against ST because he made two posts on ASVS. You know the usual stuff that's been refuted a thousand times. The thread will then rehash the same ground for ten pages until we give up in frustration. It's one reason why I never argue SW canon on this board anymore.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

The thread will then rehash the same ground for ten pages until we give up in frustration. It's one reason why I never argue SW canon on this board anymore.

And since we see the type of behavior on SDN, except for the opposite view, it's the reason a lot of pro-Trek people don't want to debate there anymore...
I say potatoe, you say poh-tah-toh... :)

And didn't Saxton thank a lot of SDNers for their contributions to the ICS?

Praeothmin wrote:
And since we see the type of behavior on SDN, except for the opposite view, it's the reason a lot of pro-Trek people don't want to debate there anymore...
I say potatoe, you say poh-tah-toh... :)

Lets deflect criticism by pointing out that the other side does it too! Way to go! And way to fail to address the point at the same time!

And didn't Saxton thank a lot of SDNers for their contributions to the ICS?

And what if he did, who gives a sh*t? I'd also like to point out that you're doing exactly what I said you would: rehashing old long dead points.

Cpl Kendall wrote:And what if he did, who gives a sh*t? I'd also like to point out that you're doing exactly what I said you would: rehashing old long dead points.

Dead or not - and I don't think the point in question is "dead" in any real sense of the word - I'd like to ask that if there are people interested in talking about what is or is not required to justify or condemn the ICS, that we take it to another thread. The topic of this thread is quite broad enough already.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Lets deflect criticism by pointing out that the other side does it too! Way to go! And way to fail to address the point at the same time!

Well, as you yourself has said, the point has been adressed fully in many threads on this very site.
The problem with this debate is, you feel the ICS is backed 100% by the movies, we feel it isn't.
For every argument we come out with, you have a counter.
For every argument you have, we have a counter.
This debate hasn't gone anywhere in a long time, because both sides hold to their positions like dogs hold onto bones.
So you may feel I'm not adressing the point, I feel the point has already been adressed.

And what if he did, who gives a sh*t? I'd also like to point out that you're doing exactly what I said you would: rehashing old long dead points.

To you!
Those points are long dead to you, but to others, they aren't.
And if he thanks a lot of SDN members, people who have been arguing on the superiority of SW all along, people who are clearly biased towards SW in all regards, then there's good chance that the technical aspects he uses are aspects brought on by pro-Wars debaters, thus favoring SW.

I'm not saying that people from SDN contributing to the ICS book is a bad thing, hell, it was probably very fun for them.
I'm just saying the book, on certain aspects (because, had you read all our threads on the subject, you wood have found that people here do not discard the entire ICS), are not supported by what we see in the movies.
And the movies, no matter what interpretation of canon you adhere to, are the top canon reference, period.
If the EU contradicts the movies, the point being contradicted is invalid, not the whole work.

*Whew, I was starting to do exactly what I said I wouldn't do... :)*

Praeothmin wrote:Cpl Kendall wrote:

Lets deflect criticism by pointing out that the other side does it too! Way to go! And way to fail to address the point at the same time!

Well, as you yourself has said, the point has been adressed fully in many threads on this very site.
The problem with this debate is, you feel the ICS is backed 100% by the movies,

assuming this was adressed to the SDN crowd and not just the Cpl, no we don't. We feel it is 100% NOT CONTRADICTED by the movies. Which it isn't.

And if he thanks a lot of SDN members, people who have been arguing on the superiority of SW all along, people who are clearly biased towards SW in all regards, then there's good chance that the technical aspects he uses are aspects brought on by pro-Wars debaters, thus favoring SW.

Why don't you SHOW that to be actually the case as opposed to BLITHELY ASSUMING it, especially with Saxton's involvement in the vs debate being practically nonexistant. Show that the numbers DON't support the pro-Wars stance.

I'm not saying that people from SDN contributing to the ICS book is a bad thing, hell, it was probably very fun for them.
I'm just saying the book, on certain aspects (because, had you read all our threads on the subject, you wood have found that people here do not discard the entire ICS), are not supported by what we see in the movies.

Are they directly contradicted by the movies?

And the movies, no matter what interpretation of canon you adhere to, are the top canon reference, period.
If the EU contradicts the movies, the point being contradicted is invalid, not the whole work.

A pity the ICSes DON'T contradict the movies, then.

Per my earlier comment, I've made this a new thread.

For those members of our audience who may not have seen this "a thousand times," to recycle Cpl. Kendall's turn of phrase, I will summarize the existing positions I am aware of with regard to the ICS.

First, the controversial information seen in the ICS books in question (pick one of the following five):

• Are required to be true by the movies.
• Fail to indirectly contradict the movies.
• Fail to directly contradict the movies.
• Indirectly contradict the movies.
• Directly contradict the movies.

Note that, logically speaking, #3 and #4 go together quite well (do not directly, although do indirectly, contradict), but are generally stated by different people who refuse to agree with each other.

This, in turn, means that (pick one of the following four):

• The ICS are wholly correct and can be relied upon without any question.
• The ICS are mostly correct, and can be relied upon except where they can be shown to contradict the movies.
• The ICS are dubious, and cannot be relied upon except where the movies can be shown to support them.
• The ICS are mostly incorrect, and cannot be relied upon at all .

It is my considered opinion that the distinction between "directly" and "indirectly" contradicting the movies is one which is developed to support an epistemologically unsound argument.

After all, any sufficiently complex theory can account for pretty much any apparent contradiction between two conflicting sources. While it is wise to keep the third-party materials involved in testing whether or not the sources contradict to a minimum, a certain amount of such is required in order to produce any meaningful test of congruence.

In consideration of what I have read in the compiled ICS book, I would say that with regard to technical data and scientific explanation, I find myself taking the fourth conclusion: The ICS seem dubious enough that they are better ignored entirely as potential sources.

For the sake of the ICS credit point I will post the exact wording from the final page of the AOTC ICS as I'm looking at it right now:

I would also like to thank: Pete Briggs, Robert B.K. Brown, Elwyn Chow, Albert Forge, Adam Gehrls, Martyn Griffiths, Frank Gerratana, Michael Horne, Ethan Platten, Wayne Poe, Andrew Tse, Anthony Tully, Michael Wong, and Brian Young, who were prominent among the hundreds of people contributing to constructive debates about Star Wars technicalities over the years, resulting in the consenssus of conceptul and physical foundations applied in these pages:

As you can see, SDN is not mentioned and the fact that that none of the discussions are current is mentioned as well. Saxton was under an NDA agreement as you well know and would have lost his contract with LFL if he had discussed the ICS with anyone while working on it. This point has been raised numerous times with you people but you continue to ignore it. Saxton has also never participated on SDN although I believe he lurks. He corresponds privately with the named individuals via email or possibly telephone. The nature of the thank you is so vague that they could have discussed anything from the nature of the Acclimator thrust figures to the colour of the capital world of the Repulic's sky. There's no way to tell, only your very over active immagination and eagerness to chalk everything up to the great Warsie conspiracy is driving this.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

And what if he did, who gives a sh*t? I'd also like to point out that you're doing exactly what I said you would: rehashing old long dead points.

Well gosh, what a suprise! I mean now it's a crime that we use perfectly vaild reasons for disregarding a dubious source of SW technical information. If Praeothmin wants to use them, more power to him. They are just as vaild now as they were back then, dispite your so-called "refutations". Oh and I got to love this tired old nonsense from you:

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Watch how these fine folk will now trot out the same tired BS we've seen from every troll on SDN

Everybody who disagrees with Saxton and his ICS book are trolls? People who have a reasonable suspicion, especially given the thanks to certain pro-Wars contributors to the book via a secret little online cabal, are trolls? Anyone who uses any argument are just parroting RSA, ect, ect. And you accuse US of trotting tired old BS? Come on, Kendall!

Hell, the damn AOTC ICS doesn't even match up with much of the rest of the freakin' SW EU, never mind the movies, for crying out loud as has been pointed out in a good number recent and past threads here.
-Mike

Cpl Kendall wrote:For the sake of the ICS credit point I will post the exact wording from the final page of the AOTC ICS as I'm looking at it right now:

I would also like to thank: Pete Briggs, Robert B.K. Brown, Elwyn Chow, Albert Forge, Adam Gehrls, Martyn Griffiths, Frank Gerratana, Michael Horne, Ethan Platten, Wayne Poe, Andrew Tse, Anthony Tully, Michael Wong, and Brian Young, who were prominent among the hundreds of people contributing to constructive debates about Star Wars technicalities over the years, resulting in the consenssus of conceptul and physical foundations applied in these pages:

As you can see, SDN is not mentioned and the fact that that none of the discussions are current is mentioned as well. Saxton was under an NDA agreement as you well know and would have lost his contract with LFL if he had discussed the ICS with anyone while working on it. This point has been raised numerous times with you people but you continue to ignore it. Saxton has also never participated on SDN although I believe he lurks. He corresponds privately with the named individuals via email or possibly telephone. The nature of the thank you is so vague that they could have discussed anything from the nature of the Acclimator thrust figures to the colour of the capital world of the Repulic's sky. There's no way to tell, only your very over active immagination and eagerness to chalk everything up to the great Warsie conspiracy is driving this.

I think the point that many people make here is not that Saxton secretly involved his pals in the writing of the ICS, but that he clearly used the conclusions reached with these people from over the years, to shape his book, and even soup 'em up.

That's actually a good point there, Mr. Oragahn. I think that the whole secrecy thing is silly in and of itself that they had to resort to that. But the real kicker is indeed the fact that Saxton chose to take the opinions of a certain select group of people, who, like himself it seems, were predisposed towards making SW technology as powerful as they could possibly justify (at least to themselves), and did not seek out any other viewpoint which would or could provide a counter to the one they wanted.
-Mike

Exactly. The problem doesn't lie in how he let himself be influenced.
Well, it could be a problem, in fact.
But the real problem is that his conclusions are just so in line with the most inflated interpretations of pretty much anything Star Wars could not even be, but still has to be because some warsies opinionatedly said so for years.

When you have a troop transport's shields, supposedly working by wattagesd & thresholed sink holes, and able to repel kilotons of energy per second, and yet get downed by sub hand grenade weapons, you know that the figures in the ICS, which are all interlinked and proportionate to each other, are just plain nonsense.

I can't say, today, which is the best out of his claims. Maybe his whole absurdly complex explanation of what a turbolaser beam is... it has to be light, and flak burst attributes don't exist.

Ah, blah, who gives. Kendall and his clique hasn't come here to debate it openly, he won't concede a point, we won't either, cause we consider we went through a lot of this BS anyway, so let's just leave it there.

We'll adress other issues from the ICS, and debunk it even more, but certainly not spend time... waste time, in fact, trying to convince those who don't even seek the possibility of seeing things differently.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:

but certainly not spend time... waste time, in fact, trying to convince those who don't even seek the possibility of seeing things differently.

Well, we're pretty much all guilty of that.
I won't budge from my position because I haven't seen any argument to convince me, just as Cpl Kendall and Batman, and you and many others won't either.

But that's ok, it doesn't mean we cannot have interesting discussions... :)

Oh, and I don't believe in the conspiracy theory either.
I simply believe that Mr. Saxton used material from like minded people.
He may even have used only a small percentage, it doesn't matter.
The fact is, he loves SW, and he wants to make it as powerful as he can.
He dosn't believe in Flak bursts, while other people who saw the same movies do.
That's okay too.
Having a PHD doesn't mean you can't make mistakes, or that all PHD graduates will arrive to the same conclusion when presented with the same material.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:I think the point that many people make here is not that Saxton secretly involved his pals in the writing of the ICS, but that he clearly used the conclusions reached with these people from over the years, to shape his book, and even soup 'em up.

LOL!!!!

Good god, the tinfoil hat contingent gets funnier every time.

Saying that Saxton needed a consult from me, or Brian Young, of Pete Briggs, Robert Brown etc. is like saying Albert Einstein needed my help with his math homework.

The point that flies over your pointy heads is, we were all talking to one another via email well before there was a SDN. And those very few on that list who were involved in VS debates were using Saxton's webpage, not contributing to it.

If you look at the actual history of the debate, Usenet poster Stephen Cumblige came up with the initial asteroid calcs. He's not in the acknowledgments of the AOTC:ICS. (But is cited on SAxton's website)

Me personally? I can barely balance my checkbook.

Robert Brown isn't in to long involved calcs; doesn't care one bit about the VS debate, and has little to do with Star Wars at all, anymore.

Pete Briggs is a Hollywood screenwriter, and doesn't participate in VS debates.

Mike Horne wrote a few Star Wars related sourcebooks.

Brian Young dabbles in calcs, but he, like Michael (Wong) in some cases, often defers to Curtis' calcs.

And so on. Really, gents. This is so 2002.

Hey it's this old debate again: How credible is Saxton?

Let me say this: he based his calcs nearly exclusively on the EU, not from the movies as claimed. Also, there are numerous contradictions between the ICS and the movies. Hence they should be taken with a grain of salt, whether or not Saxton had an agenda.

Me personally? I can barely balance my checkbook.

Didn't stop you from making BS calcs and pass them as valid on your website though.