Starfleet Jedi

I hesitated posting the link for a while, really. It's unfinished, though it's already starting pretty badly.

ICS "fact" page.

Ultimately, if you feel like adressing certain misconceptions, absurd claims and glaring errors...

Welllll, I already see one glaring error right at the beginning - contrary to what you write, the ICS is not consistent with the movie universe. It's not even consistent with other books.

A good page that mentions the most common disputes with ICS.
It is interesting that people who accept ICS are always accused of being fan boy wankers because of the numbers yet no one had any problem with ICS BEFORE the numbers. It is clear that the very people attacking Star Wars "wankers" are wankers themselves obviously very emotionally attached to the notion that Star Trek can beat Star Wars.

Naturally hardly anyone ever tries to dispute the actual numbers or explain how exactly do they contradict the films preferring instead to declare ICS non canon altogether.

And what people seem to forget is that ICS series were written as a direct tie in with the films and thus should be considered even more reliable than any other EU book.

As for the ridiculous Travissty number one just needs to look at the Coruscant and consider how big of an army you could create simply by issuing a conscription throughout the planet.

Kane Starkiller wrote:It is interesting that people who accept ICS are always accused of being fan boy wankers because of the numbers yet no one had any problem with ICS BEFORE the numbers.

That's because the overblown numbers are the main problem of ICS :)

It is clear that the very people attacking Star Wars "wankers" are wankers themselves obviously very emotionally attached to the notion that Star Trek can beat Star Wars.

I like Trek, I like Wars. I don't care which is more powerful.

Naturally hardly anyone ever tries to dispute the actual numbers or explain how exactly do they contradict the films preferring instead to declare ICS non canon altogether.

Just because you say so it doesn't make it true, fortunately :)

And what people seem to forget is that ICS series were written as a direct tie in with the films

Substitute that with "ICS series were meant to be written as direct tie in with the films" and your statement will be correct.

As for the ridiculous Travissty

Which, coincidentally, passed through exact same path as ICS. This is a double standard - that page points out that Dr. Saxtons work was validated by Lucasfilm. And yet, when it comes to Travis' work, it suddenly becomes irrelevant...

Still no explanation of how the ICS contradicts the films.
What a surprise. :)

I'm sorry you suffer from memory loss, Kane. Because that's the only way that can explain you not remembering the standard "the power was dialed down" excuse.

Still not hearing proof of contradiction.

Kane, just watch the movies, ok? All those ships in the movies demonstrate firepower far below ICS levels.

And the fact that ships never actually demonstrated that power level in films proves that they don't have that capability at all how exactly?

The fact hthat ships never actually demonstrated that power level in films and despite of that they're able to actually damage and destroy enemy units proves that they don't have the capability to increase their firepower.

Really now and you know what power level they used when they shot at enemy ships and what was the status of their shields at the time? Do tell.

"Commander! The enemy ship is losing shields!"
"Quick! Power down our weapons! We wouldn't want to finish them too quickly, now, would we?"

I don't believe that people in Star Wars universe are retarded. I don't believe you're retarded either, Kane, so please, stop pretending you are. You know damn well that weapon effects are inconsistant with power levels claimed by ICS. You know damn well that TF ships (and, by extension, Republic ships as well) are not capable of withstanding atmospheric reentry without significant damage. Are you seriously suggesting that every single time one ship loses shields the enemy powers down its weapon accordingly in order not to vaporise it (as in "leaving fragments no more than a centimeter in diameter")?

I'm not interested in your fictional dialogue. Show how weapon effects are inconsistent with ICS power levels. What is the strength of shields? What is the strength of internal forcefields of the ship?
You use atmospheric entry of a ship that was already heavily damaged by weapons fire as example of what Imperial ships can endure.
Naturally you completely ignore the fact that even relatively fragile TIE fighters can effortlessly enter and exit the atmosphere of a gas giant as witnessed in TESB.

Kane Starkiller wrote:I'm not interested in your fictional dialogue.

Well you should be, because it explains why the "powered down weapons" explanation is absurd.

Show how weapon effects are inconsistent with ICS power levels.

There are no giant explosions whatsoever. One would think that 200 gigatons thrown around would result in hundreds of specatular fireballs, but the're curiously absent.

You use atmospheric entry of a ship that was already heavily damaged by weapons fire as example of what Imperial ships can endure.

Well, yeah, considering that we can see undamaged parts peeling off in atmosphere.

Naturally you completely ignore the fact that even relatively fragile TIE fighters can effortlessly enter and exit the atmosphere of a gas giant as witnessed in TESB.

Naturally, I do no such thing. Considering that oridinary human beings can effortlessly survive in "the atmosphere of a gas giant as witnessed in TESB", this doesn't exactly prove your point.

Kazeite wrote:Well you should be, because it explains why the "powered down weapons" explanation is absurd.

Except you showed no evidence that that explanation is even necessary.

Kazeite wrote:There are no giant explosions whatsoever. One would think that 200 gigatons thrown around would result in hundreds of specatular fireballs, but the're curiously absent.

There are no fireballs in space.

Kazeite wrote:Well, yeah, considering that we can see undamaged parts peeling off in atmosphere.

And your evidence that it is undamaged? Oh yeah you have none.

Kazeite wrote:Naturally, I do no such thing. Considering that oridinary human beings can effortlessly survive in "the atmosphere of a gas giant as witnessed in TESB", this doesn't exactly prove your point.

It has a layer of oxygen so what? How does this disprove my point of tiny TIEs easily entering and exiting atmosphere?