Comments on "Vaporizing a Small Town" page

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:14 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:I see no reason to further engage in nuke specifics since you yourself claim it is not the same mechanism that turbolaser operates on and neither am I.
Very good.
I claim it is a focused impact on the ground that will operate similarly to a high speed asteroid impact.
I'd say that's actually taking us further from having a good model of the event. Going with your ground strike, I would expect a turbolaser bolt to basically create a small-source area of extremely high energy density like a nuke.

A small asteroid at high velocity, besides coming with its own problems of what it's doing to the atmosphere on the way down, will also be depositing much of its energy into the ground in the form of motion and compression . . . i.e. cratering. The asteroid itself will vaporize on impact, yes, but the energy involved in that is small compared to the energy that is involved in the cratering process.

For example, in your initial post to this thread, you gave a link to the impact effects calculator at Arizona.edu, and for human vaporization figures you ended up using numbers for a 1m impactor of uber 50000kg/m^3 density at 1/40th lightspeed at a range of 1km.

But, per the calculator, some 71.2 megatons of energy would've been deposited into the atmosphere on the way down, with much of that in the lower sections given its higher density. Further, cratering of over 2km width would occur, meaning that all of Mos Eisley would be cleanly blown off the map, along with most of what was under it.

What that means, then, is that in trying to get a thermal energy release estimate for human vaporization that you want, based on the nuke-specific, 3rd-degree-burn specific, improperly modified formula that you use, you claim a figure involving blasting a Mos Eisley-size crater.

I don't think it appropriate to use that value at all. Not only is it based on inappropriate requirement calcs, but it is also massive overkill.
You claim that turbolasers can be "set to flak" and to back it up you provide numerous quotes that mention flak bursts. Of course not a single one actually mentions turbolasers themselves somehow exploding into flak bursts.
If an Imperial warship is dispensing a barrage of flak bursts via bolts, just what do you think that entails?
2046 wrote:What would one expect to be exposed body areas? I would presume arms, legs, and head, unless there were belly dancers in operation.
Which is not vaporization of a town.
Don't move the goalposts. I answered your question.
Vaporization of a town is turning it's every building, droid, vehicle and organic being to vapor.
That is not what the term 'vaporize' means in unscientific descriptions, especially in relation to the destruction of urban areas, as has been demonstrated.

Indeed, Stover also uses the term "vaporize" in reference to fighter combat, noting that one fighter vaporizes another with its cannons . . . something not seen in the film whatsoever, nor supported by what we see in the film regarding fighter firepower.

In the TPM novelization, Anakin flies through the "vaporized wreckage" of another podracer that just exploded . . . conceptually confusing if you insist on literalism.

I note these to point out the fact that literalism is a decent default position, but sometimes we're supposed to know better.
I am really curious as to how you can claim that possibility of fragments actually reinforces the vaporization statement made by Chakotay who was, incidentally not a science officer. Vaporization is not the same as fragmentation so this is a clear case of contradiction.
There is no contradiction whatsoever, and it is ridiculous to claim otherwise. A single explosive device was to vaporize a nickel-iron asteroid, as was obviously known to all the folks who spoke on the bridge, including the science officer and a foreign scientist. The possibility of a few escaping fragments of no more than a centimeter in diameter hardly disproves the idea.

If you can't figure out why, then the fault is your own. Like I've said before, it's a photon torpedo, not a space blender.

Of course you know this, so your feigned curiosity is simply a ruse. You've tried to argue this point before on my blog comments, Kane, and you failed miserably there, too. As you said, the vaporization was "According to Kim. We have no confirmation." (Of course here you just tried to claim that it was from Chakotay, as if he went off all willy-nilly on the bridge, and you stopped to point out that he's not a science officer. Do try to keep your claims straight, Kane.) You go on, saying: "And the fact that there were to be escapees means that no one expected to be completely vaporized doesn't it? And certainly there is no evidence for your arbitrary 60% figure."

Of course, "we shouldn't be seeing fragments more than a centimeter in diameter" very much supports the idea of complete vaporization, because any fragments that existed would be tiny. I kindly assume merely 60% vaporization, leaving 40% of the asteroid to engage in highly unrealistic orderly self-mincing. And yet that doesn't satisfy you.

You went on later, saying:
Kane wrote:You might be able to sway your ignorant buddies with that ignorant "Cuisinart" comment but anyone with any scientific knowledge knows that it indeed is possible to pulverize an asteroid to small pieces without vaporizing it. Hitting an asteroid with a photon torpedo and letting it punch through several meters before detonation will cause and area of superheated plasma which will expand rapidly in all directions thus shattering the asteroid.
I'll reply thusly again:

Wow. And you really think that, don't you? You don't even realize that even a centrally-buried device would have to have enough energy to largely vaporize the asteroid in order to shatter it to a degree where there would only be smaller-than-1cm fragments.

In short, you pooh-pooh the Space Blender yet believe in it whole-heartedly.

Of course, the torpedo was not centrally buried, and furthermore asteroid destruction simply doesn't work like a space blender. Even a centrally-buried ten-megaton device on a real asteroid doesn't chop it up into neat little bits:

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=334

Even a stony-iron asteroid, which would have around twice the density of Golevka, isn't going to be Cuisinarted like you need. Further, even if you aim for a solid metal asteroid of the Wongian variety, you're not going to get the kind of perfect, less-than-1cm fragmentation you need without having vaporized the vast majority of the thing to start with.

"Ignorant" Space Blender 4000, indeed.

***

What's basically happening is that you want complete vaporization of everything including the ground within the area of Mos Eisley (though I'm sure you'd prefer to use a larger town), but you want to ignore vaporization of asteroids in Trek by downplaying asteroid size and dismissing the possibility of vaporization (even at a very polite 60% level) by pretending you don't understand how any particles could escape an explosion that could vaporize the asteroid.

So big whoopie, Kane. I hear you now, just as I've heard you before. And I dismiss your foolish claim. Ideally going on to the end of the last argument will prevent you from trying to rehash it here all over again, but I know you. So do forgive me if I ignore any further asinine claims regarding "Rise". Or don't forgive me . . . won't hurt my feelings at all.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:26 am

Okay, I guess things shouldn't surprise me anymore.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Why do you insist on misquotation and contradictions? The presence of a wall does not invalidate the canon fact that the docking bay consisted mostly of an entrance rampway and an enormous pit gouged from the rocky soil.
Misquotations? You should actually reread the extracts you provided, and compare that to the film!

Docking bays's floors don't appear to be below street level.
THEY GO DOWN STAIRS TO ENTER THE DOCKING BAY.
A gouge pit, by definition, points to a rough hole grossly dug in the ground, and nothing else.
Even if we accepted your definition, the novelization doesn't use the phrase "gouge pit". So off you go misquoting again.
A giant dirt pit.
Completely inaccurate description of what the docking bay is in the film.
Only in your mind. If you instead accept the script as accurate unless directly contradicted by the films (y'know, being canon and all), then you are in fact looking at a dirt pit.

I already know that, in your mind, a dirt pit ought to be something that looks like someone just made it with a shovel in sand. But your presumption is not evidence of contradiction.

We're told that this is a pit gouged from the rocky soil, implying some structural stability of the same type seen in the more rough-hewn pit that served as shelter for the Lars family.

We are also aware of some of the construction methods on Tatooine.

"His home was small and shabby and packed tight against dozens of others, its thick walls comprised of a mixture of mud and sand."

TPM Ch. 2

And also the notations quoted previously.

We can see that there are walls built up around this pit . . . you assume this means that all claims of excavation are invalidated, and even that these must be uberwalls, but this is not so.

Thus the most likely surmise to make is that the walls are themselves composed of the dirt initially taken from the pit. To argue otherwise is to insist on a contradiction where none is necessary.
To sum up:

- It is not a giant dirt pit.
Please show that it is not dirt. Please explain the fact that it is a pit.
- It is not an enormous pit gouged from the rocky soil, shabbily cut and run-down.
I guess that's a matter of personal perspective. If you don't want to consider imperfections visible even in your caps as evidence of the bay being run-down, that's your call. Don't expect me to agree, though.
- It has no sloping sides.
This does seem contradictory, but one can hardly invalidate vast portions of the canon on this basis.
- It is not crumbling in pieces.
If you don't want to consider imperfections visible even in your caps as evidence of crumbling, that's your call. Don't expect me to agree, though.
- The walls are smoothly fashioned.
A claim you make based on the most distant CGI shots, which feature additional little entry-bay areas not present in live-action views. Of course, given your usual modus operandi in this thread, you must therefore consider one or the other completely invalid. You also ignore areas that aren't smooth.
We can even spot dark traces running down the walls, proving the existence of other materials within the walls, either tubes, beams or bricks.
What? How does that prove the existence of other materials? Does it not merely suggest the absence of wall material?
We obviously see that both the script's and book's descriptions, globally agreeing with each other, do clearly not correspond to the reality of the film.
While it was undoubtedly quicker and cheaper to build walls and paint them within a stage building than it was to actually excavate a pit outside and have everything (including the Falcon set piece) set up on location, room is left in the film depiction for the descriptions given.
What looks like a gouge pit is, for example, Owen's farm.
That's actually soft rock with whitewashed areas, if I recall past discussions correctly. I don't remember if there's any particular substance mentioned in the books, but a quick pass showed none.
Ultimately, I don't even know why you brought this,
You insist we should see 94 different buildings. I quoted the part of the novel which said that Docking Bay 94, like other grandiosely named bays, was little more than a hole in the ground. You freaked out and started trying to pretend you were from SD.Net. And so here we are.

The initial point, which you have not touched, is that most Mos Eisley docking bays are not buildings we should expect to see.
but globally, this shows that there's a need for room for those buildings.
Where there is anything built, yes, and for as many as exist, for which we have no count.
IIIA. You still get it wrong. I say that in town shots show the existence of other tall buildings, not far from the two sister towers, yet they're no where to be seen on the wide shot.
Contradiction.
Other buildings of similar height to the two towers of the wide shot (ignoring for the moment the suggestion that those are the two towers of the crane shot) are visible in the wide shot at various locations.
No, or point out their existence compared to in town shots please.[/quote]

So you choose to ignore the other tall buildings in the wide shot?
For example, try to point out:

Image

- the whitish building seen in the distant background, on the left of the landspeeder. If you consider the the perspective lines by looking at the orientation of the TL tower's roof, the tower I'm pointing to would ought to be even significantly higher.
I'm not going hunting for uber-tall buildings that you're imagining. You have no evidence for that building being more distant even than the TL tower. Should it not be visible in the crane shot and/or beyond the TL tower in this pic if it were?:

Image

My god, could it be a contradiction within the in-town shots!?!? Damn, I guess we must now dispense with the entire sequence, given the theory of even slight contrariness requiring complete dismissal.

I guess the film should cut from them on the cliff to the cantina then immediately into space.
But let's look at more examples of particularily tall structures.
In the first, you point to three buildings which you claim are tall and distant. Okay, fine. Then you point to two other pictures showing buildings perhaps twice as tall as the surrounding small buildings. Okay, whatever. Then you say:
These are examples of taller buildings.
They would not be hard to spot at all on this picture:

Image
And where should we look for them? We have no information as to their location. It isn't like they have to be to the left of the two towers, though I'm sure that's the impression you wanted to give. However, they appear a few shots after the crane shot, so they could be just about anywhere.

There are multiple buildings in the height range of the two towers, so even if we accept your theory that they should be within that height range or greater, there are plenty of contenders.
It would also be helpful if you could show that Mos Eisley is completely flat, though of course that won't be possible even given the entry CGI shot.
Solely based on this, this and this shots, we can largely see that Mos Eisley is globally flat.
So a handful of flat roadways constitute globally flat surface to you? Interesting. But honestly, I'm not so much interested in the point as I am your analysis methodology, so whatever.
IIIB. There's no such a wide area where it should be. You're free to precisely point it out if you wish, to prove me wrong. Thus far, you stand corrected.
Image

Look at the right-most portion of your circle. Just above that, your circle follows the road, assuming the two towers are the same. Just below that is wide open space. I can't tell if you reject the existence of that area or just that it could be the same one you're so on about, but either way your rejection confuses me.
What's to be confused about? My point was rather clear. The wide shot is inaccurate regarding the in town shots, and there's no way to know the size of the sort of structures seen on the wide shot besides looking for the size of towers in the in town shots.
Then, with those measures, you return to the wide shot angle, while it's vastly inaccurate regarding the in town shots. But that's not a bugger to you, you still go on and assume that your 25-30m tall structure corresponds to the taller structure seen on the wide shot.
Obviously, using a measurement from a set of in town shots, to a wide shot picture with proportions being different, and lacking several structures, is wrong.
Why you little . . .

So wait, lemme get this straight. You claim there is a discrepancy between the crane shot and the wide shot because there is no area in which a 90m long vessel could park. You challenge me to point it out on the wide shot. Upon my pointing out of where this area would be, using as reference point two towers that resemble each other in both shots and which are otherwise consistent, you reject it because the crane shot and wide shot have discrepancies, in your view.

Simplifying the above, you don't think A and B are the same because you claim X is only part of A and not B. You challenge me to show X on B. I do. So you dismiss that because A and B are not the same in your opinion.

Way to go, O. You just demonstrated a perfect circle of reasoning.

Concession accepted.
If you look at the TL tower in the in wide shot zoomed in, you can see that the shadowed side is roughly as large as the one receiving light.
Where "roughly" = "not at all", I guess you're right. But if you insist on this point, then you open up every part of flat ground in the lower half of your green circle as possibilities, so either way your argument is nullified.
No, your personal interpretation of the "shining hairlines" concept is flawed. That's all.
Of course, because it just makes much more sense to actually point to something that's not shiny,
You believe objects that are luminescent cannot be described as shining. Ergo the sun does not shine, light bulbs do not shine, and turbolaser bolts damn sure don't shine.

. . . (sigh) . . .

Honestly, Oragahn . . . and take this as personally or whatever as you like . . . but I really don't feel the need to waste my time with your complaints about the novel quote if they're going to be that frakking stupid. Think of me as an ass or whatever you like for saying so, but there simply isn't an emotionally-satisfying way to describe how utterly ridiculous your belief is without a lot of cursing and capslock usage.
II. What you're point out is that just basically, everybody disagrees on the definition and scope of villages, towns and cities.
Therefore there's no point arguing on this and trying to form an argument, since no one has the same definition of even a low standard for each type of somehow urban agglomeration.
Concession accepted, then.
If you want to consider that a concession, then fine. It's just as much a concession on both sides then, since you precisely point to the evidence that villages and towns can be of any sizes, constitutions and dimensions, but you consider that you can decide which is fine and which is not to define a town.
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT MOS EISLEY IS EXPLICITLY CALLED A TOWN IN THE FRAKKING NOVEL??

Take your accusations of dishonesty and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.

Oh, well, crap, given your definitions of "shining" the sun doesn't shine anywhere. Nevermind then . . . just keep them away from me.
IV. That blackdrop enhancement argument is reasonable. You just have to look at the film to get plenty of shots stacked upon blackdrop
Those are few and far between, inasmuch as the true black of space is concerned. You can see, in the pic of mine you use as reference for the idea that we can't see bolts mere kilometers distant, that the black ain't so black.
We have shots where the camera is looking at the stars, with the planet out of screen, and often below the camera.
And they're in the frakking atmosphere, so unless they're looking within a few degrees of straight up I hardly care.
I reject it because you can barely see even the heavier shots
You know what? I don't give a damn what you think you can or can't see. We know they could see them from the surface against the black of space, so that's what we know. Your complaints are nullified.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:33 am

A suggestion: Discussion is getting rather divergent in this thread, and starting to spread into a number of other topics, which may confuse some of our readers; it would be nice to create separate threads that would be easier to follow.

That, and I'm hearing a good bit of heated anger in this thread, especially from 2046, and I'd like to see that cool off. (Making new - and more specific - threads may help with that, I hope.)

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:37 pm

2046 wrote:THEY GO DOWN STAIRS TO ENTER THE DOCKING BAY.
You're right. They do walk down a staircase. But not a rampway.
Anyway, I was not categorical on that point.
Doesn't make a difference in the end, and helps to spot another contradiction.
Even if we accepted your definition, the novelization doesn't use the phrase "gouge pit". So off you go misquoting again.
That is absurd. It says "pit gouged".
Woah, what a difference!
Maybe we could focus on something a bit more constructive, eh?
A giant dirt pit.
Completely inaccurate description of what the docking bay is in the film.
Only in your mind. If you instead accept the script as accurate unless directly contradicted by the films (y'know, being canon and all), then you are in fact looking at a dirt pit.

I already know that, in your mind, a dirt pit ought to be something that looks like someone just made it with a shovel in sand. But your presumption is not evidence of contradiction.

We're told that this is a pit gouged from the rocky soil, implying some structural stability of the same type seen in the more rough-hewn pit that served as shelter for the Lars family.

We are also aware of some of the construction methods on Tatooine.

"His home was small and shabby and packed tight against dozens of others, its thick walls comprised of a mixture of mud and sand."

TPM Ch. 2
That's who's home exactly?

Anakin's? Of course, it isshabby! It's built in the slave sector of Mos Espa.
Any simple comparison between his house and DB 94 shows that the DB is more refined.
And also the notations quoted previously.

We can see that there are walls built up around this pit . . . you assume this means that all claims of excavation are invalidated, and even that these must be uberwalls, but this is not so.
It does not invalidate the possibility of an earlier excavation to build the DB. That's an absurd strawmen you're making.
Thus the most likely surmise to make is that the walls are themselves composed of the dirt initially taken from the pit. To argue otherwise is to insist on a contradiction where none is necessary.
Just like they could be reinforced and made of other elements inside. We just don't know. If the novelisation from ROTS is of any indication, the DB could likely have an internal structure relying on a double layer of durasteel.
That would, in fact, be expected for the structures which are ought to deal with more than sandstorms and other forms of erosion; namely, starships' engine exhaust.
To sum up:

- It is not a giant dirt pit.
Please show that it is not dirt. Please explain the fact that it is a pit.
Watch the picture. Many houses are built upon excavations. Yet, this does not serve as a correct basis to claim that those houses, or gardens, or whatever, are vulgar pits, just because back when the construction started, a hole had to be made in the ground.
It's once again an improper metaphor, at best, or a completely inaccurate technical description, at worst.
Just pointing to a solid building, no matter what it's made of, and saying it's just a dirt pit and nothing more, is not correct.
It is asurd to claim the contrary.
Or on the other end, serves no purpose, just as much as I could call a Boeing 747 a giant tincan.
- It is not an enormous pit gouged from the rocky soil, shabbily cut and run-down.
I guess that's a matter of personal perspective. If you don't want to consider imperfections visible even in your caps as evidence of the bay being run-down, that's your call. Don't expect me to agree, though.
The novelisation doesn't even pretend to make a mention of the finely aligned walls and the rest of the building's structure.
You are putting the element out of context, because the whole description provided by the novelisation does not in the slightest apply to the film's reality.
And even when taken piece by piece, the descriptions are inaccurate.

And what's about imperfections?
Let's not blow the thing out of proportion, please. Slight at best, with small packets of sand eventually stuck in corners. That is all.
A far cry from the completely crater-like description from the novelisation.
- It has no sloping sides.
This does seem contradictory, but one can hardly invalidate vast portions of the canon on this basis.
Does seem contradictory?
Dude, please let's call a cat a cat, and admit that it simply is contradictory.
It clearly shows that what the author had in mind does not fit at all with the reality.
- It is not crumbling in pieces.
If you don't want to consider imperfections visible even in your caps as evidence of crumbling, that's your call. Don't expect me to agree, though.
Of for pet's sake, crumbling in pieces, in the context of the whole description, it makes the thing sound like it's almost in ruins.
The truth is, where I live, I'm surrounded by houses which walls are even less aligned than those of DB 94, which have more cracks and erosion traces than those seen in DB 94, yet they're hardly crumbling in pieces. They are sturdy and have been holding on for more than a whole century, and they're hardly nonchalantly summed to vulgar accretions of dirt or whatever. They are houses. Buildings. Just like DB 94.
- The walls are smoothly fashioned.
A claim you make based on the most distant CGI shots, which feature additional little entry-bay areas not present in live-action views. Of course, given your usual modus operandi in this thread, you must therefore consider one or the other completely invalid. You also ignore areas that aren't smooth.
Additional little entry-bays?
Where so?

Anyway, even on the non CGI shots, the walls are smooth. Yes, it doesn't need to be glossy slick.

So the walls are smoothly fashioned. The book is, once again, wrong.
We can even spot dark traces running down the walls, proving the existence of other materials within the walls, either tubes, beams or bricks.
What? How does that prove the existence of other materials? Does it not merely suggest the absence of wall material?
It could be traces of water drip due to the growth of fungus on the walls, otherwise it's due to liquids permeating through the walls, and being coloured by the other materials being inside. This would happen if there were liquid leaks, water, coolant, oil, or else, and go through the plaster that's on the walls. Again, this happens even to the sturdier buildings.
Examples of stained walls:

http://mayang.com/textures/perl/preview ... 261329.JPG
http://mayang.com/textures/perl/preview ... l_2491.JPG
http://mayang.com/textures/perl/preview ... ll_487.JPG
http://mayang.com/textures/perl/preview ... l_2488.JPG
http://mayang.com/textures/perl/preview ... 141232.JPG
We obviously see that both the script's and book's descriptions, globally agreeing with each other, do clearly not correspond to the reality of the film.
While it was undoubtedly quicker and cheaper to build walls and paint them within a stage building than it was to actually excavate a pit outside and have everything (including the Falcon set piece) set up on location, room is left in the film depiction for the descriptions given.
That's wishful thinking.

The script limits itself to giant dirt pit, which itself is already a very inacurrate, gross and superficial description of what DB 94, as a real building, actually is.
The novelisation goes even further, literally negating the existence of the structure, and goes on a complete description about a vulgar crater-like excavation with just a ramp going down there.

Claiming that they don't disagree with the film is a severe lack of ability to understand the simple meaning of the words present in both the script and the novelisation, to grasp their simple contexts, to look honestly at what the film shows, and to be able to properly compare rather fairly easily comparable materials.
What looks like a gouge pit is, for example, Owen's farm.
That's actually soft rock with whitewashed areas, if I recall past discussions correctly. I don't remember if there's any particular substance mentioned in the books, but a quick pass showed none.
Rock or not, that still makes the Lars farm a gouged pit nonetheless.
Ultimately, I don't even know why you brought this,
You insist we should see 94 different buildings. I quoted the part of the novel which said that Docking Bay 94, like other grandiosely named bays, was little more than a hole in the ground. You freaked out and started trying to pretend you were from SD.Net. And so here we are.
First, I was Mange the Swede.
Then I freaked out (?).
After that, I even pretended I was from SD.Net!

Image

... *sigh*
The initial point, which you have not touched, is that most Mos Eisley docking bays are not buildings we should expect to see.
The initial point, which I actually touched especially since I was the one who brought it, and argued on it first - but let's pretend we didn't see that lie of yours - is that I finely desmontrate that your claim that DB 94 is not a building that takes room is simple incredibly erroneous, on many levels, and the extracts you use actually play against you.

Now, we see two other smaller docking bays as well, not far from the famous two towers.
Actually, since the novelisation says that most docking bays are all the same, and since, as you said, we should, most of the time, try not to ditch too much canon because of the existence of certain contradictions, it would mean that most docking bays in Mos Eisley look like DB 94. That's a building of significant size, which requires lots of room.
So all of them would require a significant amount of space.

Coupled to my earlier observation that we hardly see a concentration of docking bays at all, this points out to the necessit of having them spread over the whole town, lowering their concentration, and thus requiring the town to be wider.




Other buildings of similar height to the two towers of the wide shot (ignoring for the moment the suggestion that those are the two towers of the crane shot) are visible in the wide shot at various locations.
No, or point out their existence compared to in town shots please.
So you choose to ignore the other tall buildings in the wide shot?
No. Please, point them out.
For example, try to point out:

Image

- the whitish building seen in the distant background, on the left of the landspeeder. If you consider the the perspective lines by looking at the orientation of the TL tower's roof, the tower I'm pointing to would ought to be even significantly higher.
I'm not going hunting for uber-tall buildings that you're imagining. You have no evidence for that building being more distant even than the TL tower.
The tower is even fainter than the two famous ones. It is more distant.

Image
Should it not be visible in the crane shot and/or beyond the TL tower in this pic if it were?:

Image
No. Check out the orientation of the towers. The tower I'm pointing at would be on the left, offscreen.
But let's look at more examples of particularily tall structures.
In the first, you point to three buildings which you claim are tall and distant. Okay, fine. Then you point to two other pictures showing buildings perhaps twice as tall as the surrounding small buildings. Okay, whatever. Then you say:
These are examples of taller buildings.
They would not be hard to spot at all on this picture:

Image
And where should we look for them? We have no information as to their location. It isn't like they have to be to the left of the two towers, though I'm sure that's the impression you wanted to give. However, they appear a few shots after the crane shot, so they could be just about anywhere.
They are ought to be taller and as large, if not larger than the sister towers we often get to see, including the TL one.
You would not have to look for them.

They would be as glaring as the two easily and most visible structures seen on the wide shot.
There are multiple buildings in the height range of the two towers, so even if we accept your theory that they should be within that height range or greater, there are plenty of contenders.
I don't think so. Please point them out, and prove that they stick out just as much as the two "center town" sister towers.

Once again, let's compare those shots:

Image

And now look at the tallest and farthest buildings on the two following shots:

Image
Image

See how in the first cap, the buildings are largely more blue than the tall ones seen in the last two shots, even when they are far, actually?
The explanation is simple: they're even more distant. Far more distant. Yet, they are tall and large.

Buildings 1 and 2 strongly look like skyscrappers, and considering that there's a significant amount of atmosphere between us and the tower, which explains the very strong blue tint (a point you completely neglect), we know that for towers to still look tall from that distance, they would dwarf the center town towers.

It would also be helpful if you could show that Mos Eisley is completely flat, though of course that won't be possible even given the entry CGI shot.
Solely based on this, this and this shots, we can largely see that Mos Eisley is globally flat.
So a handful of flat roadways constitute globally flat surface to you? Interesting. But honestly, I'm not so much interested in the point as I am your analysis methodology, so whatever.[/quote]

So why bring it?

You're asking me to prove a negative. Superb. With all evidence available, we see that there's no reason to consider the existence of a significant difference of levels, like the city climbing on hills or else.

IIIB. There's no such a wide area where it should be. You're free to precisely point it out if you wish, to prove me wrong. Thus far, you stand corrected.
Image

Look at the right-most portion of your circle. Just above that, your circle follows the road, assuming the two towers are the same. Just below that is wide open space. I can't tell if you reject the existence of that area or just that it could be the same one you're so on about, but either way your rejection confuses me.
What's to be confused about? My point was rather clear. The wide shot is inaccurate regarding the in town shots, and there's no way to know the size of the sort of structures seen on the wide shot besides looking for the size of towers in the in town shots.
Then, with those measures, you return to the wide shot angle, while it's vastly inaccurate regarding the in town shots. But that's not a bugger to you, you still go on and assume that your 25-30m tall structure corresponds to the taller structure seen on the wide shot.
Obviously, using a measurement from a set of in town shots, to a wide shot picture with proportions being different, and lacking several structures, is wrong.
Why you little . . .

So wait, lemme get this straight.

1. You claim there is a discrepancy between the crane shot and the wide shot because there is no area in which a 90m long vessel could park.
2. You challenge me to point it out on the wide shot.
3. Upon my pointing out of where this area would be, using as reference point two towers that resemble each other in both shots and which are otherwise consistent, you reject it because the crane shot and wide shot have discrepancies, in your view.

4. Simplifying the above, you don't think A and B are the same because you claim X is only part of A and not B.
5. You challenge me to show X on B.
6. I do. So you dismiss that because A and B are not the same in your opinion.

Way to go, O. You just demonstrated a perfect circle of reasoning.

Concession accepted.[/quote]

1. It is an element of the whole contradiction, not the only one. But it is a major one nonetheless.
2. Yes, I do.
3. In my view? You keep missing a fairly simple point of building orientation! Just look at the "crane shot" and see how the two towers are placed regarding each other, look at their height, their bases and in which direction the edges of the TL tower are pointing to. Then see in which direction the street goes. It the shots were consistent - which is your claim - the street would have been going down at more than a 90° angle off your claim.

4. You're making the error to think that the whole contradiction solely relies on this idea.
5. Yes, I do. if A = B, then that X (the large plaza) should be very easy to spot. Especially since a 90m long ship is parked on it, and does certainly not occupy the whole place. In comparison, you estimate that the tallest towers are only 25-30 m high. So really, even a blind man would have no issue to spot it.
6. Incorrect logic. I dismiss your answer, simply because it is wrong. Since you fail to prove the existence of X, you fail to prove that A = B. That's not cirtuclar reasoning, it's simply asking for the simple evidence.

Thus far, you're still wrong. As simple as that.
If you look at the TL tower in the in wide shot zoomed in, you can see that the shadowed side is roughly as large as the one receiving light.
Where "roughly" = "not at all", I guess you're right.
Please. At least pretend you paid attention.

Image

See? It wasn't that hard.
But if you insist on this point, then you open up every part of flat ground in the lower half of your green circle as possibilities, so either way your argument is nullified.
Vagueless and senseless claim. Please point to those open flat grounds, or concede.




Regarding the shining hairlines & turbolasers, I'm done. I still disagree, but we won't ever agree on anything regarding this issue.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:28 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:You're right. They do walk down a staircase. But not a rampway.
Devastating! The point was clearly that it is subsurface, as intended, and as you attempted to reject.
Even if we accepted your definition, the novelization doesn't use the phrase "gouge pit". So off you go misquoting again.
That is absurd. It says "pit gouged".
No, it says it consisted mostly of a pit gouged into the rocky soil. Wiggle room is left that the set designers inhabited. It's a bit of a stretch, but it isn't wholly inconsistent with what we see.
A giant dirt pit.
Completely inaccurate description of what the docking bay is in the film.
Only in your mind. If you instead accept the script as accurate unless directly contradicted by the films (y'know, being canon and all), then you are in fact looking at a dirt pit.

I already know that, in your mind, a dirt pit ought to be something that looks like someone just made it with a shovel in sand. But your presumption is not evidence of contradiction.

We're told that this is a pit gouged from the rocky soil, implying some structural stability of the same type seen in the more rough-hewn pit that served as shelter for the Lars family.

We are also aware of some of the construction methods on Tatooine.

"His home was small and shabby and packed tight against dozens of others, its thick walls comprised of a mixture of mud and sand."

TPM Ch. 2
That's who's home exactly?

Anakin's? Of course, it isshabby!
Yes, so?
It's built in the slave sector of Mos Espa.
Yes, so?
Any simple comparison between his house and DB 94 shows that the DB is more refined.
Okay, and . . . ?

My point is that we've certainly seen the type of construction method I'm specifying as being in use. You're calling the place some sort of durasteel fortress and insisting on materials for which you have no evidence.
And also the notations quoted previously.

We can see that there are walls built up around this pit . . . you assume this means that all claims of excavation are invalidated, and even that these must be uberwalls, but this is not so.
It does not invalidate the possibility of an earlier excavation to build the DB. That's an absurd strawmen you're making.
Hardly . . . you've simply been forced from your earlier claim that the docking bay was at street level, in this very message.
Thus the most likely surmise to make is that the walls are themselves composed of the dirt initially taken from the pit. To argue otherwise is to insist on a contradiction where none is necessary.
Just like they could be reinforced and made of other elements inside. We just don't know.
So, in defiance of Occam, and by employing argumentum ad ignorantiam, you continue to insist on a contradiction?
If the novelisation from ROTS is of any indication, the DB could likely have an internal structure relying on a double layer of durasteel.
That would, in fact, be expected for the structures which are ought to deal with more than sandstorms and other forms of erosion; namely, starships' engine exhaust.
Why would engine exhaust contribute a great deal to wall erosion? They're antigravs. It's not like the Falcon blasted dust about when she took off, if you recall. Her engines weren't even all the way to blue. Hell, walls made of ice did very well on Hoth when the Falcon's engines were blue and bright.
Many houses are built upon excavations. Yet, this does not serve as a correct basis to claim that those houses, or gardens, or whatever, are vulgar pits, just because back when the construction started, a hole had to be made in the ground.
Unlike your claim of strawman, I'll be kind and simply assume you misunderstood.

I'm saying that if you dig a hole in the ground and shape the dirt into a rim wall along the outside, you still have a hole in the ground. You're saying you've made a building. I guess in some senses we're both correct, but in this instance my case has canon backing whereas yours requires insistence on contradictions without evidence (and without Occam, but with fallacies). Therefore, in this instance, mine is the correct position to take.
And what's about imperfections?
Let's not blow the thing out of proportion, please. Slight at best, with small packets of sand eventually stuck in corners. That is all.
Oh yeah, it's a great place, really upscale. I love the crack . . .

Image

. . . and the five or six meter-wide chunks here that are out are nifty-cool, too:

Image

But heaven forbid we think it might be run-down and crumbling in places!
Of for pet's sake, crumbling in pieces, in the context of the whole description, it makes the thing sound like it's almost in ruins.
That's your imagination at work, nothing more.
- It has no sloping sides.
This does seem contradictory, but one can hardly invalidate vast portions of the canon on this basis.
Does seem contradictory?
Dude, please let's call a cat a cat, and admit that it simply is contradictory.
Actually, let's do nothing of the kind. I meant precisely what I said.

Upon further review, the inner walls of the docking bay are sloped. Ergo, while it seemed contradictory, it isn't.
Anyway, even on the non CGI shots, the walls are smooth. Yes, it doesn't need to be glossy slick.

So the walls are smoothly fashioned. The book is, once again, wrong.
The walls are not smoothly fashioned merely because you redefine 'smooth' as needed. The walls are shaped, but the surface is obviously rough.
A far cry from the completely crater-like description from the novelisation.
You habitually imagine very specific things from the texts and insist that only those readings are correct. I'm not suggesting that we re-read the text at our whim . . . I'm simply insisting that we not "enhance" literalism with liberal supposition.
We can even spot dark traces running down the walls, proving the existence of other materials within the walls, either tubes, beams or bricks.
What? How does that prove the existence of other materials? Does it not merely suggest the absence of wall material?
It could be traces of water drip due to the growth of fungus on the walls, otherwise it's due to liquids permeating through the walls, and being coloured by the other materials being inside.
Neither fungus nor other materials are necessary. If it's simply water as opposed to some other substance, that alone can produce staining. Why there would be water wasted in such a fashion on a desert world I have no idea, of course, but in any case there's no evidence for additional materials from that example.
We obviously see that both the script's and book's descriptions, globally agreeing with each other, do clearly not correspond to the reality of the film.
While it was undoubtedly quicker and cheaper to build walls and paint them within a stage building than it was to actually excavate a pit outside and have everything (including the Falcon set piece) set up on location, room is left in the film depiction for the descriptions given.
That's wishful thinking.
No, wishful thinking is the insistence that only your specific visualization of the words of the text is accurate, and all others are wrong and contradictory.
Claiming that they don't disagree with the film is a severe lack of ability to understand the simple meaning of the words present in both the script and the novelisation, to grasp their simple contexts, to look honestly at what the film shows, and to be able to properly compare rather fairly easily comparable materials.
Very well, I'm a fool and a liar. Why, then, does my position not require fallacies and reading into the text as yours does? I've developed a cohesive understanding of the docking bay based on all of the canon. I fully recognize that the less-than-perfectly-consistent depictions complicate things, but the point stands.

You demand contradiction based on your ill-reasoned re-reading of the text and your insistence on things unseen in the film.

Were it not for the depiction of the canon film then I would probably agree that what we ought to see of DB94 might as well be a crater, but we are forced to amend that somewhat. You feel this amendment is a road too far, based on your imaginings regarding the text and film, but I don't think it is.

And still you haven't changed the fact that, whatever the depiction of DB94, there's nothing supporting an amendment of our understanding of most of the other grandiosely named bays of Mos Eisley.
Ultimately, I don't even know why you brought this,
You insist we should see 94 different buildings. I quoted the part of the novel which said that Docking Bay 94, like other grandiosely named bays, was little more than a hole in the ground. You freaked out and started trying to pretend you were from SD.Net. And so here we are.
First, I was Mange the Swede.
Then I freaked out (?).
After that, I even pretended I was from SD.Net!
By hanging your arguments upon gross irrelevancies and fallacies, then insisting that they overwhelm basic logic, yes.
The initial point, which you have not touched, is that most Mos Eisley docking bays are not buildings we should expect to see.
The initial point, which I actually touched especially since I was the one who brought it, and argued on it first
Well make up your mind. First I brought it and then you did.
- but let's pretend we didn't see that lie of yours -
No, no, let's pretend you're not pretending to be from SD.Net.
is that I finely desmontrate that your claim that DB 94 is not a building that takes room is simple incredibly erroneous, on many levels
DB94 doesn't take room? I never claimed that to begin with. Perhaps if you could read you wouldn't fantasize that I'm lying. What I did point out was that whereas you expected to see 94 buildings, there is no evidence for 94, and as most docking bays are not buildings, they would not be visible as such in the wide shot.
Now, we see two other smaller docking bays as well, not far from the famous two towers.
Actually, since the novelisation says that most docking bays are all the same, and since, as you said, we should, most of the time, try not to ditch too much canon because of the existence of certain contradictions, it would mean that most docking bays in Mos Eisley look like DB 94. That's a building of significant size, which requires lots of room.
So all of them would require a significant amount of space.
Hahaha . . . cute. Invalid, but cute.

Again we return to the facts:

1. There is no evidence for 94 docking bays.
2. Seeing three open-top structures does not mean all docking bays look like that, nor does the text say they "are all the same", your misrepresentation to the contrary.
So you choose to ignore the other tall buildings in the wide shot?
No. Please, point them out.
So you do ignore them. Very well:

LINK TO HUGE PIC

That's an enhanced view of the frame, bear in mind, so some structures that appeared to be towers to me in the more pixellated version may not be in this one.
For example, try to point out:

Image

- the whitish building seen in the distant background, on the left of the landspeeder. If you consider the the perspective lines by looking at the orientation of the TL tower's roof, the tower I'm pointing to would ought to be even significantly higher.
I'm not going hunting for uber-tall buildings that you're imagining. You have no evidence for that building being more distant even than the TL tower.
The tower is even fainter than the two famous ones. It is more distant.

Image
Is that why you've been using a differently-colored pic the whole time? Here's the relevant portion of the frame from the HDTV version:

Image

As you can see, the building appears lighter in color than the TL tower, and slightly lighter than the lighter round-top, which is hardly a bright white building (though it does have good reflectivity given its dingy state).

Image

Now, let's assume, like you do, that this lighter color is merely an effect of haze and thus that the light left tower is more distant and taller. If this were true, it should show up somewhere in the crane shot (as I already said and which you said "no" then agreed with).

I've created this panoramic view of the crane shot. While naturally imperfect since the camera moves quite a bit during the shot, the panorama is focused on prominent background structures a couple of blocks beyond the roadway and thus gives an acceptable view of nearby buildings and the horizon. Click it for a larger version.

Image

Now, where the devil is this ubertall tower of yours? Remember, you yourself said it should be off to the left, and judging by this pic:

Image

. . . if the roundtop is closer then this ubertall tower of yours ought to be more than visible, since it would have to be straight along a line connecting the round-top and the TL tower, or else behind that line (from the perspective of the crane shot).

So where is it? You're the one claiming that the in-town shots are all mutually consistent and that the wide shot is inconsistent and hence wrong, so obviously you ought to be able to see it.

Of course, you can't, because it isn't where your claims suggest it ought to be.

Meaning that unless we wish to assume that they were imploding a building just after the Mos Eisley entry shot, then either (a) your thesis of that building being more distant (and hence taller, and hence an inconsistency with the wide shot) is wrong, or (b) the speeder entered Mos Eisley from the other way, meaning the ubertall tower, which still need not be ubertall, is actually to the right of the crane shot, and is one of the tall structures I've already noted. Your thesis would thus still be wrong but for another reason.

Take your pick. I don't give a damn.
But let's look at more examples of particularily tall structures.
In the first, you point to three buildings which you claim are tall and distant. Okay, fine. Then you point to two other pictures showing buildings perhaps twice as tall as the surrounding small buildings. Okay, whatever. Then you say:
These are examples of taller buildings.
They would not be hard to spot at all on this picture:

Image
And where should we look for them? We have no information as to their location. It isn't like they have to be to the left of the two towers, though I'm sure that's the impression you wanted to give. However, they appear a few shots after the crane shot, so they could be just about anywhere.
They are ought to be taller and as large, if not larger than the sister towers we often get to see, including the TL one.
You would not have to look for them.
I didn't have to, since they were plainly visible, but neither do we have to ignore them as you do.
There are multiple buildings in the height range of the two towers, so even if we accept your theory that they should be within that height range or greater, there are plenty of contenders.
I don't think so. Please point them out
Done.

LINK TO HUGE PIC AGAIN
Once again, let's compare those shots:

Image

And now look at the tallest and farthest buildings on the two following shots:

Image
Y'know, the right-hand building in your first pic is the same color as the right-hand multi-story structure on the second. Why do you consider that proof of extreme distance? The building in the second pic might be another block or two beyond the farthest brown-walled white-dome, but it isn't like the white-dome is especially tall. We can see dudes walking in front of it:

Image

Further, the left tower in the first shot appears to have the shadow of the brown building to its right on it. Yet you call its blue color proof of extreme distance and therefore extreme height. How could the not-bluish brown building be of that same extreme distance given that thesis?

Image

Also, I note how you use as evidence the middle structure, one of your "skyscrappers" in the first pic, obstructed by the walking dude, and claim that it is also a blue and distant tower. Naturally you are mistaken, though if I were less polite I'd simply assume that you intentionally used the obstruction of the sandy-colored building in order to support your lies.

Image

That's a satellite dish on top of a close sandy-colored building, as you can see in this unobstructed view. That building might be four stories tall, give or take . . . nothing compared to the TL tower, which is about 16 times taller than the guy on the most-distant right in the red shirt:

Image
Buildings 1 and 2 strongly look like skyscrappers, and considering that there's a significant amount of atmosphere between us and the tower, which explains the very strong blue tint (a point you completely neglect), we know that for towers to still look tall from that distance, they would dwarf the center town towers.
As long as I'm completely neglecting building color, let's also neglect architecture:

Image

As you can see in this pic, your #3 right-most building, presumably also a "skyscrapper", is awfully similar in design to the structure on the left in front of the dome. The left structure seems to have a tank-like assembly in the front and a tower with a ladder on it in the rear, on the right. The same is true of the right-hand structure, though it may be a bit wider and taller. However, the two are clearly of the same basic design, and you can even see the same ladder assembly on the right-hand structure.

The size of that left structure is interesting, since it has a more bluish top compared to other buildings yet is clearly in front of the dome. Its bluish top is similar to the bluish top of the right-hand structure you claim to be a tall building.

According to you, that means it must be very distant, subjected to bluish atmospheric haze. However, that is nonsense in this case. It is also nonsense in regards to the right-most structure, since unless the person who climbs that ladder can smell the blood of an Englishman, then that building isn't of exceptional height either . . . just of exceptional color.
It would also be helpful if you could show that Mos Eisley is completely flat, though of course that won't be possible even given the entry CGI shot.
Solely based on this, this and this shots, we can largely see that Mos Eisley is globally flat.
So a handful of flat roadways constitute globally flat surface to you? Interesting. But honestly, I'm not so much interested in the point as I am your analysis methodology, so whatever.
So why bring it?

You're asking me to prove a negative. Superb.[/quote]

What part of the entry CGI shot did you not understand? According to Pablo Hidalgo the landspeeder actually bounces off the uneven ground.

Further, it appears to me that the right side of Mos Eisley in the wide shot is crawling up a bit. But that's not necessary to my position, nor is any question of uneven terrain. However, flat earth is required for your view.
What's to be confused about? My point was rather clear. The wide shot is inaccurate regarding the in town shots, and there's no way to know the size of the sort of structures seen on the wide shot besides looking for the size of towers in the in town shots.
Then, with those measures, you return to the wide shot angle, while it's vastly inaccurate regarding the in town shots. But that's not a bugger to you, you still go on and assume that your 25-30m tall structure corresponds to the taller structure seen on the wide shot.
Obviously, using a measurement from a set of in town shots, to a wide shot picture with proportions being different, and lacking several structures, is wrong.
Why you little . . .

So wait, lemme get this straight.

1. You claim there is a discrepancy between the crane shot and the wide shot because there is no area in which a 90m long vessel could park.
2. You challenge me to point it out on the wide shot.
3. Upon my pointing out of where this area would be, using as reference point two towers that resemble each other in both shots and which are otherwise consistent, you reject it because the crane shot and wide shot have discrepancies, in your view.

4. Simplifying the above, you don't think A and B are the same because you claim X is only part of A and not B.
5. You challenge me to show X on B.
6. I do. So you dismiss that because A and B are not the same in your opinion.

Way to go, O. You just demonstrated a perfect circle of reasoning.

Concession accepted.
1. It is an element of the whole contradiction, not the only one. But it is a major one nonetheless.
2. Yes, I do.
3. In my view? You keep missing a fairly simple point of building orientation! Just look at the "crane shot" and see how the two towers are placed regarding each other, look at their height, their bases and in which direction the edges of the TL tower are pointing to. Then see in which direction the street goes. It the shots were consistent - which is your claim - the street would have been going down at more than a 90° angle off your claim.

4. You're making the error to think that the whole contradiction solely relies on this idea.
5. Yes, I do. if A = B, then that X (the large plaza) should be very easy to spot. Especially since a 90m long ship is parked on it, and does certainly not occupy the whole place. In comparison, you estimate that the tallest towers are only 25-30 m high. So really, even a blind man would have no issue to spot it.
6. Incorrect logic. I dismiss your answer, simply because it is wrong. Since you fail to prove the existence of X, you fail to prove that A = B. That's not cirtuclar reasoning, it's simply asking for the simple evidence.

Thus far, you're still wrong. As simple as that.
Blah blah blah. Quit whining.

You asked for something and got it, but it wasn't something you wanted so you're trying to weasel your way out of it.

The initial point was whether a wide-open space in which a 90m vessel could be parked was visible near the two towers in the wide shot. It is, and there's plenty of room for it, as anywhere in the green area would suffice:

Image

(And do try to remember, O, that we're looking on Mos Eisley from a shallow angle.)

So don't try to reject that on the grounds that the shots have other discrepancies. That's how dishonest twits operate. Just accept that there is a large area of more-than-sufficient size and *then* try to bitch about your other imagined discrepancies.
If you look at the TL tower in the in wide shot zoomed in, you can see that the shadowed side is roughly as large as the one receiving light.
Where "roughly" = "not at all", I guess you're right.
Please. At least pretend you paid attention.

Image

See? It wasn't that hard.
Oh get real. You're including areas of other buildings.

Let's look at the enhanced view:

Image

And now let's look at a non-enhanced view:

Image

In both cases the shadow side is at or near twice the width of the sunny side. Your randomly-drawn lies notwithstanding.
But if you insist on this point, then you open up every part of flat ground in the lower half of your green circle as possibilities, so either way your argument is nullified.
Vagueless and senseless claim. Please point to those open flat grounds, or concede.
Done.

Image
Regarding the shining hairlines & turbolasers, I'm done. I still disagree, but we won't ever agree on anything regarding this issue.
Yes, sorry, it's a character flaw of mine to vehemently reject directly ignoring direct canonical statements. But I still love you.

So let's review what you've got so far:

I. You still insist that the novelization and script suggest a craterish depression in the ground for DB94, which is true, but insist that this impression overrides the film view and thus requires contradiction. That is false.

2. You still insist that there should be 94 docking bays, based on one "grandiosely" named one. That is silly.

3. Based on buildings that are whiter or more bluish than other structures, and a frickin' satellite dish, you've claimed the existence of "skyscrappers" in Mos Eisley that are not visible in the wide shot. Those claims are false, and a waste of my time.

4. You have rejected the existence of a large field in the wide shot based on circular reasoning. You have then defended that circular reasoning with circular reasoning. That is now dishonesty, and a waste of my time.

5. You have asserted that the wide shot should be discarded because of these erroneously-claimed inconsistencies with the in-town shots, yet you also acknowledge that there are inconsistencies within the in-town shots yet you hold fast to them over the wide shot, despite the internal contradictions of your claims. This dizzying illogic is silly.

6. You've claimed . . . and now simply tried to 'agree to disagree' . . . that luminescent objects do not shine, and that poetic descriptions directly said to refer to X cannot refer to X because you don't agree (again, on the grounds that luminescent objects do not shine, along with other elements of your imagination that run contrary to the direct statements of the canon). This can only be considered evidence that you smoke crack, nothing more.

7. You've generally been an annoying pest in this thread, one who has only managed to drag things out about Mos Eisley this long because I haven't had enough time to open up the GiMP until now. You've tried to bolster your stance with claims that I'm a liar and a fool since page one, but you've only served to embarrass yourself and generally piss me off.

Stop wasting my time, stop trying to mislead, and take your personal attacks and shove them where the sun doesn't shine (which, in your mind, it doesn't do anywhere).

Good day.

p.s. You're almost sure to reply since you obviously have a lot more time on your hands, and since you have clearly wanted to pick a fight with me. That was made plain by the vague and senseless effort and length of your initial post and your opening of the personal attacks. But please, do remember that I am entirely uninterested in having my time wasted, so if I deign to reply I'm going to ignore anything absurd. I have more than enough with which to idiot-proof the page, for which I thank you, and so any effort on my part beyond that is just silly.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:56 am

2046 wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:You're right. They do walk down a staircase. But not a rampway.
Devastating! The point was clearly that it is subsurface, as intended, and as you attempted to reject.
Yes, and I conceded this. Beating the deadhorse won't make you gain any extra points, expecially on such a minor issue. That said, that's just another minor issue which shows that the book isn't even right when it comes to point out staircases.
That is absurd. It says "pit gouged".
No, it says it consisted mostly of a pit gouged into the rocky soil. Wiggle room is left that the set designers inhabited. It's a bit of a stretch, but it isn't wholly inconsistent with what we see.
A bit of a stretch? That's a ludicrous spin.
Most of = at least, more than 50%, if we're conservative.
Your point would stand if it would make any sense to point to a building and only sum it to the former excavation made before construction even started!
I think no one is stupid enough to do that.

Not to say that to make such a building, even the crudest building, you'd need more than a shabbily clad hole with slope edges.

Plus let's laugh again:

Image
Image

This mostly is a gouged pit.

Nevermind if, both seen from the outside and the inside, such docking bays actually largely look like buildings. Wait. They are building, and decent ones.

Plus, funny how you nitpick on that. The "mostly" part is from the book, while the "pit gouged" one is from the script. Rich from the person who accused me of misquoting.

Finally, the simple fact that the book completely fails to mention any part of the building, and only concentrate on features which can't even be seen, is enough to show that first, you're just beyond sense and mere observation ability on this issue, and that secondly, that the book is just plain wrong.
Only in your mind. If you instead accept the script as accurate unless directly contradicted by the films (y'know, being canon and all), then you are in fact looking at a dirt pit.

I already know that, in your mind, a dirt pit ought to be something that looks like someone just made it with a shovel in sand. But your presumption is not evidence of contradiction.

We're told that this is a pit gouged from the rocky soil, implying some structural stability of the same type seen in the more rough-hewn pit that served as shelter for the Lars family.

We are also aware of some of the construction methods on Tatooine.

"His home was small and shabby and packed tight against dozens of others, its thick walls comprised of a mixture of mud and sand."

TPM Ch. 2
That's who's home exactly?

Anakin's? Of course, it isshabby!
Yes, so?
It's built in the slave sector of Mos Espa.
Yes, so?
Huh. You point to buildings which have nothing to do with DBs. Slave buildings, in particular, and you don't see the problem?
Plus, it's funny how you shot your foot.

The quotation you provided actually mentions walls.
I guess those poor slave houses are much more worth a proper description than a docking bay that looks a thousand times more finished and firm than any slave house seen in TPM!

What they are made of isn't particularily relevant. Not that the materials are necessarily poor. Mud and sand can do wonders btw.
We can really appreciate the irony...

Any simple comparison between his house and DB 94 shows that the DB is more refined.
Okay, and . . . ?
My point is that we've certainly seen the type of construction method I'm specifying as being in use. You're calling the place some sort of durasteel fortress and insisting on materials for which you have no evidence.
Strawman. I never ever susggested that a DB was akin to a durasteel fortress, nor even necessarily implied that the walls were mainly made of durasteel.



Thus the most likely surmise to make is that the walls are themselves composed of the dirt initially taken from the pit. To argue otherwise is to insist on a contradiction where none is necessary.
Just like they could be reinforced and made of other elements inside. We just don't know.
So, in defiance of Occam, and by employing argumentum ad ignorantiam, you continue to insist on a contradiction?
The hell, you provided a quote saying that some of the buildings would actually have walls containing layers of durasteel.
If the novelisation from ROTS is of any indication, the DB could likely have an internal structure relying on a double layer of durasteel.
That would, in fact, be expected for the structures which are ought to deal with more than sandstorms and other forms of erosion; namely, starships' engine exhaust.
Why would engine exhaust contribute a great deal to wall erosion? They're antigravs. It's not like the Falcon blasted dust about when she took off, if you recall. Her engines weren't even all the way to blue. Hell, walls made of ice did very well on Hoth when the Falcon's engines were blue and bright.
Heat differential. Especially at night.
Nevertheless, I simply said there could be durasteel in the walls. There's no point harping on hours on the question of any durasteel being there or not in the end.
Many houses are built upon excavations. Yet, this does not serve as a correct basis to claim that those houses, or gardens, or whatever, are vulgar pits, just because back when the construction started, a hole had to be made in the ground.
Unlike your claim of strawman, I'll be kind and simply assume you misunderstood.

I'm saying that if you dig a hole in the ground and shape the dirt into a rim wall along the outside, you still have a hole in the ground.
Please. The question, really, is not if it's a hole or not, since I accepted the point that it was at substreet level.
The point is to properly describe what that "hole" actually is.
You're saying you've made a building. I guess in some senses we're both correct, but in this instance my case has canon backing whereas yours requires insistence on contradictions without evidence (and without Occam, but with fallacies). Therefore, in this instance, mine is the correct position to take.
BS. My insistance is that the descriptions point to a poor pit, a glorified crater and nothing more.
The book totally fails at describing a building. It described nothing more than a vulgar savagely excavated dirt pit with a rampway to do down there. Nothing more.

And what's about imperfections?
Let's not blow the thing out of proportion, please. Slight at best, with small packets of sand eventually stuck in corners. That is all.
Oh yeah, it's a great place, really upscale. I love the crack . . .

Image
Oh, a crack in a wall! Oh noes, my argument is ruined!

Dude, I think you should think outside of America, and realize that houses aren't always made of wood.
Go to Venice, one day. Or, better, I could take pictures of my house. It's a fine one. It uses plenty of materials, notably due to recent extensions, from metal to modern agglomerates to limit heat exchanges. There are concrete pillars, and whole wall sections made of concrete brick. There's also a large amount of metal inside.
However, all of it is covered by several layers of plaster and paint, and they're cracked at several points.
Some of these cracks are largely multi meter long.
Nevermind, I'd never exchange by house for one of those lousy wooden cans that any wind blow can level.
. . . and the five or six meter-wide chunks here that are out are nifty-cool, too:

Image

But heaven forbid we think it might be run-down and crumbling in places!
That is stupid. You point to, what? A few cracks and holes in high, large and globally smoothily shaped walls, and that somehow must equal to the sloping sides of a shabbily clad enormous dirt pit?
Do you even understand the term shabby by any chance?
It's even more absurd, since the descriptions describe absolutely nothing of a building, don't even mention walls, fails to mention the staircases and think rampway instead...

Oh, besides, let's put a footnote here. Say "A". So basically, you're trying to show, now, that the description of the books match the film, and that the pits are docking bays are buildings. We'll see more on that later.
This does seem contradictory, but one can hardly invalidate vast portions of the canon on this basis.
Does seem contradictory?
Dude, please let's call a cat a cat, and admit that it simply is contradictory.
Actually, let's do nothing of the kind. I meant precisely what I said.
Sure, even before you actually noticed that some of the walls were... huh, negligibly sloped.
Upon further review, the inner walls of the docking bay are sloped. Ergo, while it seemed contradictory, it isn't.
Yes, they're so slightly sloped that one will simply miss it. They actually look much more vertical than sloped, and I'd like to see how the whole sides are sloped.
It requires a stupidly close inspection to start noticing the slope.
Funny that this same close inspection isn't used to properly describe the DB!
Ah, double standards...

Nevermind if it mentions sides, not walls. I mean, woah, how hard would have it been to talk about walls... you know, those same walls that actually range even above street level. Even slave houses in Mos Espa have walls. But apparently, docking bays don't.
Oh but I guess. These are just sides, just as much as there are no rectangular caves, nor plenty of pipes in the walls (which there are not, lies!), no notches, no mechanical bliping gizmos, etc.
This is just a "shabbily cut and run-down" pit.

Image

Sure, these are just "sides". Muddy, sloped and shabbily dug sides! See!
Nevermind the near perfect circular and multinotched structure!
It's not there, it's a product of my imagination. How can I look at this and dispute the idea that it's a shabbily gouged pit!

Plus, see, sides are crumbling instead of being smooth... it's not me, it's the book that says "instead of" anyway.

In any situation, anyone would have simply pointed out that the book is wrong.




But let's go back in time, and remember why the whole docking bay argument structure was brought.

I argued that having a docking bay requires lots of room.

In this post, you say:

"Whether the docking bays are numbered sequentially, and their average size, is not known. Most are said to be mere gouges in the dirt, for what it's worth, and hence we need not expect to see buildings for most."

We're most than right to expect buildings.

As we've seen in point A, if the book was right, then it would mean that all docking bays are ought to be like DB94, and thus be buildings of significant volume.
Not that I think the book is right, but remember, if we only keep what is correct from the book, then all docking bays are structural copies of DB 94, of varying sizes of course.

But anyway, this is not necessary. We have seen what a DB looks like, and we saw two more in Mos Eisley.

The point is quickly made that all docking bays will be similar structures.

End.



First, I was Mange the Swede.
Then I freaked out (?).
After that, I even pretended I was from SD.Net!
By hanging your arguments upon gross irrelevancies and fallacies, then insisting that they overwhelm basic logic, yes.
That was a very stupid thing to say.
- but let's pretend we didn't see that lie of yours -
No, no, let's pretend you're not pretending to be from SD.Net.
They're everywhere! CIA, FBI, greys, terrorists (muslims, of course), etc.
You need psychiatric attention.
As simple as that.



So you do ignore them. Very well:

LINK TO HUGE PIC

That's an enhanced view of the frame, bear in mind, so some structures that appeared to be towers to me in the more pixellated version may not be in this one.
Precisely. They may not be towers at all!
It's lovely. All of the so called towers you point to, besides the two main ones, are packs of pixels horizontally segmented by various miserably shaped lines, or bands, of lighter or darker pixels, yet it doesn't stop you from claiming they're unique structures.
Eventually, the possible candidates are just so far on the outskirts of the city that they are just irrelevant.

The tower is even fainter than the two famous ones. It is more distant.

Image
Is that why you've been using a differently-colored pic the whole time? Here's the relevant portion of the frame from the HDTV version:

Image

As you can see, the building appears lighter in color than the TL tower, and slightly lighter than the lighter round-top, which is hardly a bright white building (though it does have good reflectivity given its dingy state).
It was from the SE. Some of the other caps, I found them elsewhere, couldn't remember where. As often as I could, I used HD caps instead of the SE version.
Now, that just makes the tower easier to spot.

It is interesting, as we get the real look of the structure.
The tower is still faint and whiter.
Image

Now, let's assume, like you do, that this lighter color is merely an effect of haze and thus that the light left tower is more distant and taller. If this were true, it should show up somewhere in the crane shot (as I already said and which you said "no" then agreed with).
This tower largely looking more like a tall tower than a rather closer one.
A checkout on photoshop interestingly shows that the more distant the object, the more blue it contains, in the total amount of RVB, while the closer buildings have much more red than other colours, even in their whitest parts. This is verified on buildings for which we know their distance.
The tower I was pointing to has the highest amount of blue, on any region you can pick, and sometimes, even in slightly higher concentrations in regards of the two other colours.

This coupled to the lack of details on its surface, and its global more stylized and clean cut aspect make it look much more like a tall building than some closer house structure.

Last but no least, on enhancing the contrat a lot, we see that the shadow on the tower disappear the closer you get to the base.
Not surprising, as the whitish fog gets denser as it comes close to the horizon, and the distance explains it.

Image

The TL tower is affected by the same effect, to a smaller degree. The cousin mushroom like tower almost not, and that's right, as it's closer, even if we don't see their full base. But this would apply even more to the distant tower I pointed out.

So yes, I persist to claim that in that shot, the tower I pointed to is a very tall one, and due to perspective, just as tall, or taller than the TL one.

The fact that the shadows on the tower are extremely faint, due to a significant amount of haze between us and the tower, proves that it is at a large distance.
I've created this panoramic view of the crane shot. While naturally imperfect since the camera moves quite a bit during the shot, the panorama is focused on prominent background structures a couple of blocks beyond the roadway and thus gives an acceptable view of nearby buildings and the horizon. Click it for a larger version.

Image

Now, where the devil is this ubertall tower of yours? Remember, you yourself said it should be off to the left, and judging by this pic:

Image

. . . if the roundtop is closer then this ubertall tower of yours ought to be more than visible, since it would have to be straight along a line connecting the round-top and the TL tower, or else behind that line (from the perspective of the crane shot).

So where is it? You're the one claiming that the in-town shots are all mutually consistent and that the wide shot is inconsistent and hence wrong, so obviously you ought to be able to see it.
Mutually consistent. If that's so, it's only to a degree, precisely because I've been pointing out, a while ago, how even shadows are completely fucked up in the crane shot.

So another mistake in that shot would surprise me... not.
Of course, you can't, because it isn't where your claims suggest it ought to be.

Meaning that unless we wish to assume that they were imploding a building just after the Mos Eisley entry shot, then either (a) your thesis of that building being more distant (and hence taller, and hence an inconsistency with the wide shot) is wrong, or (b) the speeder entered Mos Eisley from the other way, meaning the ubertall tower, which still need not be ubertall, is actually to the right of the crane shot, and is one of the tall structures I've already noted. Your thesis would thus still be wrong but for another reason.

Take your pick. I don't give a damn.
You went through a lot of trouble for someone who doesn't give a damn.
A should have been the right one, but there's an inconsistency.
B is wrong. If it were true, the TL tower would look even way taller and bigger than the mushroom tower.
These are examples of taller buildings.
They would not be hard to spot at all on this picture:

Image
And where should we look for them? We have no information as to their location. It isn't like they have to be to the left of the two towers, though I'm sure that's the impression you wanted to give. However, they appear a few shots after the crane shot, so they could be just about anywhere.
Three buildings of that size shouldn't be hard to spot. Simply put, while on the wide shot, without any zoom, it seems we can notice what the VFX team wanted to be the sister towers, it does require severe zooming on a HD cap to start extrapolating about the presence of other towers, and this remains arguable.
They are ought to be taller and as large, if not larger than the sister towers we often get to see, including the TL one.
You would not have to look for them.
I didn't have to, since they were plainly visible, but neither do we have to ignore them as you do.
Of course, you're going to claim that they were easy to spot. It's interesting, however, that the zoom in makes these towers look like they could be anything, from a series of aligned small buildings to eye tricks due to the distance and poor level of detail.

The following HD shots are interesting. That's the shortcomings of not having access to the highly detailed video medium.
Once again, let's compare those shots:

Image

And now look at the tallest and farthest buildings on the two following shots:

Image
Y'know, the right-hand building in your first pic is the same color as the right-hand multi-story structure on the second. Why do you consider that proof of extreme distance?
It's still bluer and has less sharp in its colours. And this applies to the three structures.
The building in the second pic might be another block or two beyond the farthest brown-walled white-dome, but it isn't like the white-dome is especially tall. We can see dudes walking in front of it:

Image
Interesting. Still no real way to tell how behind the houses, the bigger building is.

If the smallest of the three whitish dome, the one on the right, at mid height, is of any indication, and as small as any of the smallest domes seein in Mos Eisley, it points to a large building.
The presence of such a dome, plus the beams supporting this smaller structure, seem to point to a small room of some sort, like a balcony.
Further, the left tower in the first shot appears to have the shadow of the brown building to its right on it. Yet you call its blue color proof of extreme distance and therefore extreme height. How could the not-bluish brown building be of that same extreme distance given that thesis?

Image
That could be another glitch.
Reminds me of a trick I used to create a distant background in a CGI composition as well.
See, there's that shadow that is cast on the tower. It's quite dark. The building's self cast shadows are way more faint than the one strangely cast from that very contrasted and coloured building, next to it.

The whole building is significantly blue. Way bluer than the distant one on this picture.

I think I know what they might have done. Instead of making a big building, and placing at the correct distance, they quickl assembled a small structure, changed the materials, and put it not too far from the intermediate background. Unfortunately, it was too close to one of the houses, and that model cast its shadow on the building which was supposed to be far away.

It's either that, or it's not a and glitch, then there's a roughly taller building next to it, but due to the angle of view near the ground, it remains masked.
That is possible. Preferable actually, since it doesn't require an argumentation of about a VFX glitch.

Plus the way the shadow is cast is weird. It shouldn't extend more downards, instead of looking like an hemisphere, if it was cast from the adjacent building.
Also, I note how you use as evidence the middle structure, one of your "skyscrappers" in the first pic, obstructed by the walking dude, and claim that it is also a blue and distant tower. Naturally you are mistaken, though if I were less polite I'd simply assume that you intentionally used the obstruction of the sandy-colored building in order to support your lies.

Image

That's a satellite dish on top of a close sandy-colored building, as you can see in this unobstructed view. That building might be four stories tall, give or take . . . nothing compared to the TL tower, which is about 16 times taller than the guy on the most-distant right in the red shirt:

Image
I didn't make the caps. I only had a couple of shrinked HD caps, the ones you've seen. I'd have obviously chosen one which would have allowed a far better view of the structure if I could.
As long as I'm completely neglecting building color, let's also neglect architecture:

Image

As you can see in this pic, your #3 right-most building, presumably also a "skyscrapper", is awfully similar in design to the structure on the left in front of the dome. The left structure seems to have a tank-like assembly in the front and a tower with a ladder on it in the rear, on the right. The same is true of the right-hand structure, though it may be a bit wider and taller. However, the two are clearly of the same basic design, and you can even see the same ladder assembly on the right-hand structure.
Looks like one guy tried to create some busy background with the assembled models they had at hand, or something close to it, because they clearly look similar on the HD.
But that's not all...
The size of that left structure is interesting, since it has a more bluish top compared to other buildings yet is clearly in front of the dome. Its bluish top is similar to the bluish top of the right-hand structure you claim to be a tall building.

According to you, that means it must be very distant, subjected to bluish atmospheric haze. However, that is nonsense in this case. It is also nonsense in regards to the right-most structure, since unless the person who climbs that ladder can smell the blood of an Englishman, then that building isn't of exceptional height either . . . just of exceptional color.
It is not nonsense. The whole structure in the background is blue tinted, not just the tip, and its shadows are, once again, extremely off, which is an effect of a dense volume of haze between the object and the viewer, while the very similar structure in the foreground, which is not excessively bigger if we compare the ladder-like external structure, has very dark shadows, and contrasted "hot" colours.

Obviously, the intent was to create some kind of building that would look distant, with what they had at hand.

You can observe it easily:

Image
So why bring it?

You're asking me to prove a negative. Superb.
What part of the entry CGI shot did you not understand? According to Pablo Hidalgo the landspeeder actually bounces off the uneven ground.

Further, it appears to me that the right side of Mos Eisley in the wide shot is crawling up a bit. But that's not necessary to my position, nor is any question of uneven terrain. However, flat earth is required for your view.
Not in the slightest, especially since there's not that much of difference of height.
The bump... actually, it doesn't seem that it bumps on the ground, since the landspeeder's shadow disappears when it gets closer to the tip of the dune, so it rather hops from one "dune" to another.

The pictures in the middle of Mos Eisley globally show a major part of the city being flat. If a bit of city climbs on a hill towards the far east rim, that's not even dramatic at all.
Blah blah blah. Quit whining.

You asked for something and got it, but it wasn't something you wanted so you're trying to weasel your way out of it.

The initial point was whether a wide-open space in which a 90m vessel could be parked was visible near the two towers in the wide shot. It is, and there's plenty of room for it, as anywhere in the green area would suffice:

Image

(And do try to remember, O, that we're looking on Mos Eisley from a shallow angle.)
So don't try to reject that on the grounds that the shots have other discrepancies. That's how dishonest twits operate. Just accept that there is a large area of more-than-sufficient size and *then* try to bitch about your other imagined discrepancies.
Nope, you still get it extremely wrong. This time, there's no magical HD trick to pull out of your hat.

See why:
Image

See? It wasn't that hard.
Oh get real. You're including areas of other buildings.

Let's look at the enhanced view:

Image

And now let's look at a non-enhanced view:

Image

In both cases the shadow side is at or near twice the width of the sunny side. Your randomly-drawn lies notwithstanding.
I'm including area of other buildings? That is possible, however, in doing so, I do it equally on both sides. What you forget is that what you remove from one side, you remove from the other as well, and in the end, the orientation of the buildings is just extremely similar to the one in this shot:

Image





But if you insist on this point, then you open up every part of flat ground in the lower half of your green circle as possibilities, so either way your argument is nullified.
Vagueless and senseless claim. Please point to those open flat grounds, or concede.
Done.

Image[/quote]

Stop humouring me, please.

Why don't you paint the whole valley while you're at it?
A vast bulk of your green pond of goo goes way beyond several bands of a dark soil.

Image

See the colour of the ground around the ship. Just the same light coloured sand that paves the whole city.

Even more, you extend the area an absurd distance away from the edge of the city, when we know that the plaza is just a few houses down the street, and we see plenty of other buildings on the left, behind the Gallofree transport.
So it can't even be outside.

Plus you still get the orientation of the street wrong.

Image

Where a vast plaza should be... we just see a cramped pack of structures.
The plaza has to be inside the city, since we can see plenty of structures on the left of the transport.

The horizontal blue line is the so called TL tower's height, turned 90°. You assumed this tower being 50 m tall. The transport itself is 90m long, and there's still room around.
The green horizontal lines and arrows point to the towers's bases (though I was too generous regarding the mushroom tower, but I'm not arsed to redo the picture - the arrow should be a few pixels higher).

There is just no way the plaza can be there.

Let's compare this to another earlier zoom:

Image

And then to your grossly inaccurate positioning:

Image

End.



So let's review what you've got so far:

I. You still insist that the novelization and script suggest a craterish depression in the ground for DB94, which is true, but insist that this impression overrides the film view and thus requires contradiction. That is false.
No, but I'm not surprised you so glaringly try to twist my words.
The book simply describes what is nothing more than a glorified crater. It makes ZERO mention of all the elements which actually make the docking bay be a building in the film.
Capice?
2. You still insist that there should be 94 docking bays, based on one "grandiosely" named one. That is silly.
Ahem, I never insisted on that much, and simply considered it a possibility only since page 2.
3. Based on buildings that are whiter or more bluish than other structures, and a frickin' satellite dish, you've claimed the existence of "skyscrappers" in Mos Eisley that are not visible in the wide shot. Those claims are false, and a waste of my time.
Ooh, I'm just so sorry wasting your time.
Word.
4. You have rejected the existence of a large field in the wide shot based on circular reasoning. You have then defended that circular reasoning with circular reasoning. That is now dishonesty, and a waste of my time.
Talk to my hand. I have made a picture that should be enough for anyone sensible, to see that there's no plaza where there should be one.
Arguing beyond this point would be for sure pointless and idiotic, but who knows?
5. You have asserted that the wide shot should be discarded because of these erroneously-claimed inconsistencies with the in-town shots, yet you also acknowledge that there are inconsistencies within the in-town shots yet you hold fast to them over the wide shot, despite the internal contradictions of your claims. This dizzying illogic is silly.
No, I simply point out that most everything in those shots is not consistent.
Which means that in the end, there is no way to know which set of evidence is the right one.
But you decide that that the wide shot is accurate enough.
7. You've generally been an annoying pest in this thread, one who has only managed to drag things out about Mos Eisley this long because I haven't had enough time to open up the GiMP until now. You've tried to bolster your stance with claims that I'm a liar and a fool since page one, but you've only served to embarrass yourself and generally piss me off.
I didn't need much work to do so. You've largely helped me.
Stop wasting my time, stop trying to mislead, and take your personal attacks and shove them where the sun doesn't shine (which, in your mind, it doesn't do anywhere).
If you felt like I was wasting your time, you were equally free not to post here any longer.

Post Reply