The 1.5 megaton myth

[Mr. Oragahn]

Yet the Imperial captain who would actually run that operation knew that the real results were nothing like that.

The point, really, is that there, to this day, 13th of December, we've presented to you massive amounts of evidence, both from the EU and higher canon, that the firepower figures you think of are not legit.
At the very best you may obtain grounds for rare low-megaton levels of firepower.
I have recently listed the few sources that would allow a warsie to claim greater firepower, and they're nowhere close to ICS levels anyway (although one would allow for literal slagging, namely the quote from "Slave Ship", which is a book coming with another high end reference, one about extracting massive amounts of water from a planet, but which we already addressed and debunked in showing that there's nothing definitive to be found there).

You may also notice that you've sailed way off course from the main topic.

I'm afraid that you have failed to understand, Mr. O, that the various and numerous sources, half of them predating the ICS, quantifying Base Delta Zero as turning a planet's surface into molten slag are very much "legit" sources of evidence.

I know them and they certainly don't do anything on the side of quantification besides using the slagging terminology with a vague gesture of the hand. It's provided by characters. Tarkin said it, about stones running like water. He never said how long that one would take, and we can't take his words literally, because there's always the possibility that he was trying to impress his interlocutor.
The Dankayo one has been completely debunked. "Hutt Gambit" actually turns out to result in buildings being toppled, cinder and dust all over the place, ruins and burning corpses. Nowhere the melta't'on thing.
Plus we also had another description that said BDZ was about turning stuff to rubble and smoking ruins or something along those lines, and that within hours.
Plus all the other references, equally predating the ICS and nixing it entirely (Isaard's Revenge, Black Ice, to name a few.).

Why do you think outnumbered and hierarchically defeated claims still hold?

It's about time you become honest and accept the facts. The ICS and similar claims are completely at odds with the reality of SW, be it limited to higher canon or even the EU.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

[quote="Mr. OragahnI know them and they certainly don't do anything on the side of quantification besides using the slagging terminology with a vague gesture of the hand. [/quote]

We can turn the planet's surface into molten slag from orbit is not a "vague gesture of the hand". Slag is sometimes used figuratively; molten slag never is. Furthermore it is used by several different and seperate sources and characters. Surely they did not all think up of the same non-existent figure of speech.

It's provided by characters. Tarkin said it, about stones running like water. He never said how long that one would take, and we can't take his words literally, because there's always the possibility that he was trying to impress his interlocutor.

Too bad that Tarkin was not the only character to say it. Supreme Commanders of the Navy and Omniscient OOU narrators have as well, often times in their minds, denying the possibility of propoganda.

The Dankayo one has been completely debunked.

Bullshit.

Explain to me how you explain the atmosphere of the planet drifting away. Oh, yes, your solution is that the quote is in reference to the base's atmosphere. Then explain why the base's atmosphere, theoretically contained only by a force field or airtight seal, would lose its atmosphere only after the planet's topsoil is atomized and its entire surface evenly cratered. Why would the ISDs make a micrometer hole in the seal; enough to let air drift away, after they attack and blast to death the rest of the planet's surface, even though their objective was to turn the base to slag?

If we presume that the planet has an atmosphere (why wouldn't it, if it has a colony?), everything makes sense. There is no need to explain why 3 ISD's would prioritize atomizing useless topsoil before they make a tiny hole in the base's containment system to get rid of its atmosphere.

"Hutt Gambit" actually turns out to result in buildings being toppled, cinder and dust all over the place, ruins and burning corpses. Nowhere the melta't'on thing.

So your rebuttal to Supreme Commanders logically analyzing the next course of battle is to override it with a very inexperienced Boba Fett's emotional feelings to having to wipe out a planet?

Plus we also had another description that said BDZ was about turning stuff to rubble and smoking ruins or something along those lines, and that within hours.

"Smoking debris", which is difficult to quantity and could mean 1 million and 1 things. "molten slag" has a very, very clear and nonmetaphorical meaning; slag that is molten.

Plus all the other references, equally predating the ICS and nixing it entirely (Isaard's Revenge, Black Ice, to name a few.).

Can someone explain why your canon heiarchy goes like this:

Movies
TCW


EU that supports Trek





EU that supports Wars

It's about time you become honest and accept the facts. The ICS and similar claims are completely at odds with the reality of SW, be it limited to higher canon or even the EU.

The ICS is canon, and is far more consistent than EU sources that scale ship firepower by length and think that durasteel has the tensile strength of rubber, or that missiles have maximum ranges in space.

[Mike DiCenso]

Explain to me how you explain the atmosphere of the planet drifting away. Oh, yes, your solution is that the quote is in reference to the base's atmosphere. Then explain why the base's atmosphere, theoretically contained only by a force field or airtight seal, would lose its atmosphere only after the planet's topsoil is atomized and its entire surface evenly cratered. Why would the ISDs make a micrometer hole in the seal; enough to let air drift away, after they attack and blast to death the rest of the planet's surface, even though their objective was to turn the base to slag?

This is extremely irrational, and it is dishonesty at the very least. Yes, people came up with that because the context of the vague flavor text was in reference to the three ISDs conducting a bombardment of the Dankayo base. In fact, we don't even know if the whole planet was evenly cratered, the text is so vague, and not some large area around the base itself, which as has been pointed out to you numerous times, is the only thing described as being turned to molten slag. And yet enough of the base's structures survived the attack so that not only were Imperial ships and troopers able to land on the planet's surface, but they retrieved vital intelligence in the form of datapacks from the ruins. An event powerful enough to remove any large terrestrial world's atmosphere is going to not leave anything behind that would be useful. In fact, the whole thing would have sunk into the shattered crust and molten mantle, assuming it could survive not only such an energetic attack, but being left behind in such a hostile environment. The rebel agent ZNT-8 would have been killed even in his deep shelter, if a teraton or petaton-level attack had occured. The topsoil being blown around and even cratering would not be the result of such a high-energy assault. There'd be nothing but little shattered pieces of crust floating on a molten lava world and massive amounts of ejecta floating off into space.

But none of that occurs.

So why you keep clinging to what you say is beyond me given that scans of the actual freakin' text of the book have been more or less permamently archived here is beyond me, and it it's contents have been pointed out to you and linked to you many times. And you wonder why everyone thinks you're a troll.

Gain some credibility by start acknowledging these facts. Gain some more by acknowledging high-energy feats for Trek instead of hand-waving them away.
-Mike

[Praeothmin]

Mike, again, these facts have all been given to SWST on mutliple occasions, by Mr. O., you, Breetai, and me, in the BDZ thread...

You are repating things he's been told in the past...

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Mike, again, these facts have all been given to SWST on mutliple occasions, by Mr. O., you, Breetai, and me, in the BDZ thread...

You are repating things he's been told in the past...

Yes, and I've never denied any of the evidence presented to me, I've denied your interpretation of said evidence.

The above is something that I have also repeated to you over and over again. Indeed, I've stated this crucial difference to you multiple times. Your response is to debate with me for a while, then drop it and ignore me, then pop up again and state the exact same thing that you started with before. And it repeats, like a cycle.

I even tried reaching out to you on PM, and you ignored me. You'd rather jump in and state irrational accusations than actually say any substantial.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

This is extremely irrational, and it is dishonesty at the very least.

Do you have any idea what the terms "dishonesty" and "trolling" really mean, or do you love to throw them around to discredit your opponent on a whim?

Yes, people came up with that because the context of the vague flavor text was in reference to the three ISDs conducting a bombardment of the Dankayo base.

Then explain why the same quote also refers to the planet's topsoil being atomized, the planet's surface being evenly cratered, indeed, analyze the quote in better detail:

"... to rendezvous at Dankayo and reduce the tiny base to molten slag. Even before the last of its atmosphere drifted away,
before the dense clouds of atomized topsoil could begin to settle, Imperial transports Elusive and Timely, as well as a
complement of TIE fighters, moved in to perform "mop-up" operations and a through search of Dankayo's now evenly-cratered surface."

Exactly what other subject other than "Dankayo" exists in the sentence?

In fact, we don't even know if the whole planet was evenly cratered,

Are you fucking kidding me?

a through search of Dankayo's now evenly-cratered surface

the text is so vague,

Yet you presume to have "proven" that the atmosphere was referring to that of the base, even though it is never stated nor implied. If that were true, you would have to say that the "atomized topsoil" was a part of the base too, which simply could not be.

and not some large area around the base itself, which as has been pointed out to you numerous times, is the only thing described as being turned to molten slag.

No, Mike, the objective was stated to turn the small Rebel base to slag. You are claiming that the Imperials bothered cratering the entire planet BEFORE they made a micrometer hole in the base's containment system and made its atmosphere drift away, even though their target was the base.

By my interpretation, the last of the atmosphere drifting away after such high energy events such as the entire planet being cratered and its topsoil being atomized makes perfect sense.

And yet enough of the base's structures survived the attack so that not only were Imperial ships and troopers able to land on the planet's surface, but they retrieved vital intelligence in the form of datapacks from the ruins.

Why are you trying to quantify a high energy, but (relatively) calculable event (the atmosphere being blown away and the soil being atomized) with a very disputed unknown (Star Wars structural strength)? Why not the other way around? Why are you using an unknown to calculate a known?

An event powerful enough to remove any large terrestrial world's atmosphere is going to not leave anything behind that would be useful.

Baseless conjecture. Obviously the Rebel base was very sturdy, given that it contained a "deep planetary shelter" (and even that was not a perfect safeguard).

In fact, the whole thing would have sunk into the shattered crust and molten mantle, assuming it could survive not only such an energetic attack, but being left behind in such a hostile environment.

Whoever said that the crust and mantle was "shattered"? The mantle is very large. The planet's atmosphere can be removed without its mantle being noticeably harmed.

The rebel agent ZNT-8 would have been killed even in his deep shelter, if a teraton or petaton-level attack had occured.

How do you know? Do you know how tough planetary shelters are? Or how deep it is? No, you don't. You're trying to deny that the atmosphere drifted away (even though the text clearly stated it did) by comparing it with an unknown quantity.

The topsoil being blown around

before the dense clouds of atomized topsoil could begin to settle

Cannot be performed by the entire modern nuclear arsenal. Was not accomplished by the K-T extinction event.

If you want to see an example of dishonesty (had it not been for the likely fact that you genuinely misunderstood), just look at this. You read the quote, know that it refers to the topsoil being atomized and blown into the sky to the point in which it took longer for it to settle than it did for the entire surface to be cratered, troops to be sent to do mop up operations and the atmosphere to drift away.

and even cratering would not be the result of such a high-energy assault.

Why do you state "even" cratering? Atomizing the topsoil is arguably more imrpessive.

Trying to deny that a certain event clearly stated to have occurred could have occurred because not all of the effects are as energy intensive is simple denial.

There'd be nothing but little shattered pieces of crust floating on a molten lava world and massive amounts of ejecta floating off into space.

Massive amounts of ejecta were floating out into space, namely the entire atmosphere based on my theory. And there may have been other ejecta not mentioned.

But none of that occurs.

I am still awaiting an explanation as to why the base's atmosphere would take longer to diffuse into the entire planet's empty space than it would for the ISD's to bombard the entire planet, even though their objective was the Rebel base. You see, this is your theory:

That the atmosphere was self contained within a tiny base
Objective of mission: to turn Rebel base into slag

Timeline 1
(0:0:00) Attack base, reduce it to slag
(0:0:01) Atmosphere of base leaks out [happens the instant a microcrack appears in the base's containment system]
(???) The entire planet is bombarded and much of its topsoil atomized
(0:5:00) The last of the base's atmosphere drifts away

Or (both yours)

Timeline 2

(0:0:00) Evenly crater the planet
(1:0:00) Atomize the planet's topsoil
(5:0:00) Then decide to start your objective and reduce base to slag
(5:0:01) Base's atmosphere leaks out the instant a microcrack is made
(5:1:01) The base's atmosphere is gone
(5:20:00) The base is reduced to slag
(???) Commander is fired for deciding to bombard the entire planet before they bother to attack the base.

Lesson that you don't understand: a self contained atmosphere in the base would disperse the moment you try slagging it. Therefore, as soon as the slagging begins, the atmosphere is GONE. It's the first thing that happens, before the base gets destroyed. This does not fit with the chronology in the quote in which the last of the atmosphere drifts away after several other high intensity events that were secondary (since they were not part of the primary objective) transpired.

So why you keep clinging to what you say is beyond me given that scans of the actual freakin' text of the book have been more or less permamently archived here is beyond me, and it it's contents have been pointed out to you and linked to you many times. And you wonder why everyone thinks you're a troll.

This statement makes absolutely no sense.

So why you keep clinging to what you say

given that scans of the freakin' text of the book

When have I ever tried to revise the text of the book? I'm using the same text as you are. The difference is in the interpretation. I am not fabricating evidence. I'm using the exact same evidence and

contents

as you are. The difference is that I disagree with your conclusions derived from it. This is called a disagreement. This is not called "trolling". Your train of thought that "denying X interpretation of text when text has been provided" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Gain some credibility by start acknowledging these facts. Gain some more by acknowledging high-energy feats for Trek instead of hand-waving them away.
-Mike

Why don't you admit that disagreeing with you over interpretation of evidence is not denying the existence of said evidence?

[Praeothmin]

I've denied your interpretation of said evidence.

And when asked what kind of weapons could make a planetary atmosphere drift off while leaving surface unscathed, you bullshited your way out of providing any proof.
If I recall correctly, you said:
"Maybe they were using airbursts" or some similar idiocy...
But perhaps I'm the dumb fuck here, so please, in clear and concise words, how can an entire planet's atmosphere be torn off the planet and leave unscathed surfaces, and not just molten magma across the entire planet?

I've stated this crucial difference to you multiple times.

And I've requested an explanation from you on this subject multiple times as well, yet never received a response...

then pop up again and state the exact same thing that you started with before.

And again, never received a proper answer...

I even tried reaching out to you on PM, and you ignored me.

Yes, and I will keep ignoring you because I don't feel it's worth my time responding to your PMs...

[StarWarsStarTrek]

And when asked what kind of weapons could make a planetary atmosphere drift off while leaving surface unscathed, you bullshited your way out of providing any proof.
If I recall correctly, you said:
"Maybe they were using airbursts" or some similar idiocy...
But perhaps I'm the dumb fuck here, so please, in clear and concise words, how can an entire planet's atmosphere be torn off the planet and leave unscathed surfaces, and not just molten magma across the entire planet?

So you admit that I did respond to your request, but deny that this shields me from accusations of ignoring posts because you felt that it was "idiocy"? Since when is posting theories you disagree with a crime?

I do not appreciate your implicit insult at all.

The surface wasn't unscathed at all. Its topsoil was atomized. Not that this at all supports your side of the debate one bit, as the quote itself explicitly states that the atmosphere drifted away. Indeed, it stated that the last of it drifted away after the topsoil was atomized, leaving in room for slagging.

I fail to see how dismissing my explanation as "bullshit" counts as a legitimate argument.

I fail to see how denying something that is clearly stated in a quote by using other facts in the exact same quote is going to prove that the part of the quote you disagree with is the "wrong" part and should be thrown out. Why is the "evenly cratered surface" part more valid than the "last of the atmosphere drifted away" part? They're both of equal status in the same quote in the same level of canon. The most you can accomplish with this is to get the quote itself thrown out as self-contradicting, which is a neutral result. Then I'll just go to several other quotes explicitly stating that an ISD can turn a planet's surface into molten slag. Then you'll go back to claiming that "molten slag" is a figurative term, even though a a quick google search shows half of the results referring to fictional universes and the other half being very much literal phrases.

And I've requested an explanation from you on this subject multiple times as well, yet never received a response...

I have, air-bursting and the logical fallacy of denying clearly stated facts just because I cannot explain every last detail of how it was managed without X and Y occuring.

And again, never received a proper answer...

I did give you a long rebuttal that you completely ignored, P.

[Mr. Oragahn]

[quote="Mr. OragahnI know them and they certainly don't do anything on the side of quantification besides using the slagging terminology with a vague gesture of the hand.

We can turn the planet's surface into molten slag from orbit is not a "vague gesture of the hand". Slag is sometimes used figuratively; molten slag never is. Furthermore it is used by several different and seperate sources and characters. Surely they did not all think up of the same non-existent figure of speech.[/quote]

And why not? If it's called a figure of speech for a reason, it's precisely because many people use it in that particular way.
Are you going to claim that FoP don't exist now?

It's provided by characters. Tarkin said it, about stones running like water. He never said how long that one would take, and we can't take his words literally, because there's always the possibility that he was trying to impress his interlocutor.

Too bad that Tarkin was not the only character to say it. Supreme Commanders of the Navy and Omniscient OOU narrators have as well, often times in their minds, denying the possibility of propoganda.

So much?
Do you remember that BDZ thread we have here, in which you actually failed to defend similar claims?
Be the quotes coming from SWTC or SDN, we covered all of them (and even those not present on those pages).
The point is that Tarkin's words don't need to be taken as a technical description of what goes on during a BDZ.
The memories of Fell or the other technical descriptions we have provided prove that the destruction is not what you claim it is. You are extremely welcomed to, again, go to the BDZ thread and make your point there.

Remember, that's something I told you to do many times. You constantly refused to face arguments, only to reboot BDZ sub-debates in countless other threads. You're doing it again here.

The Dankayo one has been completely debunked.

Bullshit.

It is. You have constantly refused to debate the Dankayo case in the BDZ thread. Even when I was generous enough to debate it elsewhere at first, I had no problem to make you eat your arguments, like many others.

Explain to me how you explain the atmosphere of the planet drifting away. Oh, yes, your solution is that the quote is in reference to the base's atmosphere. Then explain why the base's atmosphere, theoretically contained only by a force field or airtight seal, would lose its atmosphere only after the planet's topsoil is atomized and its entire surface evenly cratered. Why would the ISDs make a micrometer hole in the seal; enough to let air drift away, after they attack and blast to death the rest of the planet's surface, even though their objective was to turn the base to slag?

If we presume that the planet has an atmosphere (why wouldn't it, if it has a colony?), everything makes sense. There is no need to explain why 3 ISD's would prioritize atomizing useless topsoil before they make a tiny hole in the base's containment system to get rid of its atmosphere.

All you ask for, idiot, has already been explained in the BDZ thread. I have no intent to repeat myself over a cold case.

"Hutt Gambit" actually turns out to result in buildings being toppled, cinder and dust all over the place, ruins and burning corpses. Nowhere the melta't'on thing.

So your rebuttal to Supreme Commanders logically analyzing the next course of battle is to override it with a very inexperienced Boba Fett's emotional feelings to having to wipe out a planet?

They logically analyzed shit. Where did you see that?
They merely said, in some flowery language, ruin that world.
Now we havef the clear vision of a trained Imperial captain who actually knows what this order is all about. It's considerably more valuable than hyperbole.
Thanks for trying (again, after a million former tries).

Plus we also had another description that said BDZ was about turning stuff to rubble and smoking ruins or something along those lines, and that within hours.

"Smoking debris", which is difficult to quantity and could mean 1 million and 1 things. "molten slag" has a very, very clear and nonmetaphorical meaning; slag that is molten.

You don't get smoking debris after hours of bombardment in a model that melts the surface of a planet under an hour.
Besides, mentioning the smoking debris while ignoring the oceans of newly made lava would be particularly stupid.
We already went over that one as well a billion times.

Plus all the other references, equally predating the ICS and nixing it entirely (Isaard's Revenge, Black Ice, to name a few.).

Can someone explain why your canon heiarchy goes like this:

Movies
TCW


EU that supports Trek





EU that supports Wars

What? Is that a scale or something? How am I supposed to read that?
And who the fuck talked about Trek EU? And why do you bring Trek into that again?
I didn't spoke of Trek here.
Damn, you even had JMS warning you about that like one day ago.

Man this post of yours is so going to get reported. I can't see how you could evade that ban.

It's about time you become honest and accept the facts. The ICS and similar claims are completely at odds with the reality of SW, be it limited to higher canon or even the EU.

The ICS is canon,...

And? So are all the other sources.
The ICS is outnumbered. Do you understand what that means?
What it claims is never supported in the movies. However, terajoule level heavy bolts is. It fits, and it's been demonstrated way too many times.

...and is far more consistent than EU sources that scale ship firepower by length...

I don't know any EU source that openly measures firepower by scaling it the way you describe. Thus far, the ICS is merely more consistent than sources that don't exist. Bravo.

... and think that durasteel has the tensile strength of rubber,...

Sure.

... or that missiles have maximum ranges in space.

In an age of jamming and missiles formerly fed guidance by computers before being fired, it does make sense that the range of a guided missile be limited the more they're exposed to jamming.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Explain to me how you explain the atmosphere of the planet drifting away. Oh, yes, your solution is that the quote is in reference to the base's atmosphere. Then explain why the base's atmosphere, theoretically contained only by a force field or airtight seal, would lose its atmosphere only after the planet's topsoil is atomized and its entire surface evenly cratered. Why would the ISDs make a micrometer hole in the seal; enough to let air drift away, after they attack and blast to death the rest of the planet's surface, even though their objective was to turn the base to slag?

This is extremely irrational, and it is dishonesty at the very least. Yes, people came up with that because the context of the vague flavor text was in reference to the three ISDs conducting a bombardment of the Dankayo base. In fact, we don't even know if the whole planet was evenly cratered, the text is so vague, and not some large area around the base itself, which as has been pointed out to you numerous times, is the only thing described as being turned to molten slag. And yet enough of the base's structures survived the attack so that not only were Imperial ships and troopers able to land on the planet's surface, but they retrieved vital intelligence in the form of datapacks from the ruins. An event powerful enough to remove any large terrestrial world's atmosphere is going to not leave anything behind that would be useful. In fact, the whole thing would have sunk into the shattered crust and molten mantle, assuming it could survive not only such an energetic attack, but being left behind in such a hostile environment. The rebel agent ZNT-8 would have been killed even in his deep shelter, if a teraton or petaton-level attack had occured. The topsoil being blown around and even cratering would not be the result of such a high-energy assault. There'd be nothing but little shattered pieces of crust floating on a molten lava world and massive amounts of ejecta floating off into space.

But none of that occurs.

So why you keep clinging to what you say is beyond me given that scans of the actual freakin' text of the book have been more or less permamently archived here is beyond me, and it it's contents have been pointed out to you and linked to you many times. And you wonder why everyone thinks you're a troll.

Gain some credibility by start acknowledging these facts. Gain some more by acknowledging high-energy feats for Trek instead of hand-waving them away.
-Mike

Let's not feed that troll too much.

"Some" evidence that SWST keeps rebooting the Dankayo case and many other BDZ-related elements (including mods pointing it out):

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 5&start=30
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 5&start=60
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 6&start=15
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... &start=270
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... &start=120
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... &start=120
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... &start=210
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 1&start=15
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... &start=330
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 6&start=30

[Mr. Oragahn]

Mike, again, these facts have all been given to SWST on mutliple occasions, by Mr. O., you, Breetai, and me, in the BDZ thread...

You are repating things he's been told in the past...

Yes, and I've never denied any of the evidence presented to me, I've denied your interpretation of said evidence.

The above is something that I have also repeated to you over and over again. Indeed, I've stated this crucial difference to you multiple times. Your response is to debate with me for a while, then drop it and ignore me, then pop up again and state the exact same thing that you started with before. And it repeats, like a cycle.

I even tried reaching out to you on PM, and you ignored me. You'd rather jump in and state irrational accusations than actually say any substantial.

Reversed accusation, repeated lies, dishonesty. All heavily documented.
SWST always evades the debate when he loses ground, only to reboot it elsewhere.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

And why not? If it's called a figure of speech for a reason, it's precisely because many people use it in that particular way.

Fine then.

Show me three separate sources in the entire World Wide Web in which the phrase molten slag is used figuratively by a semi-intelligent person.

Come on.

All you ask for, idiot, has already been explained in the BDZ thread. I have no intent to repeat myself over a cold case.

No, it hasn't. I debated you in the BDZ thread. Your focus was on the effects contradicting each other. You never analyzed, to what I remember, the chronology of the events.

Unless, of course, if you can direct me to the link in which you did.

They logically analyzed shit. Where did you see that?
They merely said, in some flowery language, ruin that world.

In addition to assuming that "molten slag" is a figure of speech that I have never been seen used before in my experience with the English literature, that is used not only once, but a gazillion times by various different authors, you speak incorrectly. Here is a factual, matter of fact use of the term:

"Suddenly scrutiny from the Empire brought al normal life on Nar Shaddaa to a screeching halt. Moff Sarn Shild proclaimed the Hutts' lawless territory would benefit greatly from stricter Imperial control. As a public-relations stunt, Shild was authorized to blockade Nal Hutta and turn the smuggler's moon into molten slag."

LOTF Bloodlines:

We can reduce a planet to molten slag from orbit

While discussing strategy.

And who the fuck talked about Trek EU?

I would use more "flowery language" now had it not been for a respect of this board's civility rules.

EU that supports Trek

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU GET "TREK EU" FROM "EU THAT SUPPORTS TREK?"

Sure.

...

So a galactic civilization having thousands of starships is silly, but durasteel that makes this:



and this



and this



Can be made out of the equivalent of rubber?

What about Traviss's claim that you measure tensile strength by kilos/cm^2?

Let's not feed that troll too much.

"Some" evidence that SWST keeps rebooting the Dankayo case and many other BDZ-related elements (including mods pointing it out):

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1955&start=30
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1955&start=60
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1976&start=15
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=886&start=270
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1763&start=120
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=411&start=120
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1684&start=210
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2071&start=15
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1631&start=330
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1926&start=30

So according to you, rebooting an argument is illegal.

Even though the thread that we debated over earlier, which you started, was called Base Delta Zero revisited.

Even though every single thread in the first page of the board involves debate and argument that has been used again and again, because a two decade year old debate cannot possibly be continued without "rebooting" "old" debates.

[Mr. Oragahn]

And why not? If it's called a figure of speech for a reason, it's precisely because many people use it in that particular way.

Fine then.

Show me three separate sources in the entire World Wide Web in which the phrase molten slag is used figuratively by a semi-intelligent person.

Come on.

Show me in the entire World Wide Web some evidence that there's a civilization on Earth currently capable of building massive spaceborne warships capable of nuking planets from orbit and flying from star system to star system in little time.

Now I wonder if you'll understand what I mean there.

All you ask for, idiot, has already been explained in the BDZ thread. I have no intent to repeat myself over a cold case.

No, it hasn't. I debated you in the BDZ thread. Your focus was on the effects contradicting each other. You never analyzed, to what I remember, the chronology of the events.
Unless, of course, if you can direct me to the link in which you did.
[/quote]

By analyzing the events and effects, it's rather obvious that there's an underlying chronology. However, insisting on putting the chronology at the foreground isn't relevant. It doesn't change anything to known effects, known claims and known goals regarding the Dankayo base. That's all we need.
Your insistance on using some *very important* chronology is just a red herring.
So we're back to the point where I dealt with Dankayo thoroughly and still wait for your intervention in the BDZ thread. We know you won't do it, because it will only take me a few clicks to show how you haven't corrected your misbehaviour.
Mind you, I made sure that it also was transparently clear outside of the BDZ thread, and the mods are clearly well aware of it as well.
So I'm probably replying to someone who'll get soon banned for two long months.

They logically analyzed shit. Where did you see that?
They merely said, in some flowery language, ruin that world.

In addition to assuming that "molten slag" is a figure of speech that I have never been seen used before in my experience with the English literature, that is used not only once, but a gazillion times by various different authors, you speak incorrectly. Here is a factual, matter of fact use of the term:

"Suddenly scrutiny from the Empire brought al normal life on Nar Shaddaa to a screeching halt. Moff Sarn Shild proclaimed the Hutts' lawless territory would benefit greatly from stricter Imperial control. As a public-relations stunt, Shild was authorized to blockade Nal Hutta and turn the smuggler's moon into molten slag."

Just like it could have been said that he was allowed to turn the place to radioactive dust.
Fact is that Fett knew better.
Now stop with that shit.

LOTF Bloodlines:

We can reduce a planet to molten slag from orbit

While discussing strategy.

Oooooooh. God forbid people from using figures of speech in the middle of some discussion on strategy. It's not like Star Wars is quite full of it.

And who the fuck talked about Trek EU?

I would use more "flowery language" now had it not been for a respect of this board's civility rules.

Why would you do that?
I didn't talk about Trek, even less its expanded universe.

EU that supports Trek

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU GET "TREK EU" FROM "EU THAT SUPPORTS TREK?"

Because that's the only logical conclusion one can get, genius.
You write EU and Trek in the same pseudo sentence (without punctuation btw).

EU that supports Trek means, in my book, EU that supports Trek against SW. A way to say that Trek's EU supports Trek against SW (and its own EU).
Boy, do I have to spill everything for you?

Sure.

...
So a galactic civilization having thousands of starships is silly,

Strawman (another one).

but durasteel that makes this:



and this



and this



Can be made out of the equivalent of rubber?

Did I speak of rubber, sweetie?
No.

What about Traviss's claim that you measure tensile strength by kilos/cm^2?

What about Star Wars that has sounds and gasoline explosions in space?
Now I'll ask for a citation.

Let's not feed that troll too much.

"Some" evidence that SWST keeps rebooting the Dankayo case and many other BDZ-related elements (including mods pointing it out):

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1955&start=30
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1955&start=60
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1976&start=15
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=886&start=270
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1763&start=120
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=411&start=120
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1684&start=210
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2071&start=15
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1631&start=330
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1926&start=30

So according to you, rebooting an argument is illegal.

Endlessly, against mod advice and former warnings resulting in increasingly longer bans? I guess yes.
Why you haven't figure out that yet probably is the reason why we won't see you for another two months very soon methinks.

Even though the thread that we debated over earlier, which you started, was called Base Delta Zero revisited.

I'm sure I didn't want to revisit anything since you had not properly concluded your visit of the former thread, if you catch my drift. ;)

Even though every single thread in the first page of the board involves debate and argument that has been used again and again, because a two decade year old debate cannot possibly be continued without "rebooting" "old" debates.

Oh, you can try to start new debates, new fictional scenarios. But rebooting established evidence? Different cat.

[Praeothmin]

The surface wasn't unscathed at all. Its topsoil was atomized. Not that this at all supports your side of the debate one bit, as the quote itself explicitly states that the atmosphere drifted away. Indeed, it stated that the last of it drifted away after the topsoil was atomized, leaving in room for slagging.

Except that there was NO SLAGGING, as evidence by the "evenly cratered surface" that was left instead of the "molten rivers of magma" that should hev been left...

I fail to see how denying something that is clearly stated in a quote by using other facts in the exact same quote is going to prove that the part of the quote you disagree with is the "wrong" part and should be thrown out. Why is the "evenly cratered surface" part more valid than the "last of the atmosphere drifted away" part? They're both of equal status in the same quote in the same level of canon. The most you can accomplish with this is to get the quote itself thrown out as self-contradicting, which is a neutral result.

And thus, you prove my point, finally...
This is exactly what YOU have been doing all along, using part of the quote to conclude slagging while the rest disagrees with your interpretation, and this is what all the rest of the posters here were arguing about...
Your interpretation was based on the atomized topsoil, and the drifting atmosphere, but ignored the "evenly cratered surface", or the "mop-up operation", or the fact that a lone survivor could walk the surface of the planet after the bombardment...
So then, I agree with your latest interpretation, SWST, that

the quote itself be thrown out as self-contradicting, which is a neutral result.

Then I'll just go to several other quotes explicitly stating that an ISD can turn a planet's surface into molten slag. Then you'll go back to claiming that "molten slag" is a figurative term

Nope, I'll just show you the movies, TCW, and all the other events in the EU which show that it can't... :)
See, I don't care whether slag is taken literally or not, I don't need to care, since it's contradicted by much, much more incidents where it can't happen, especially in the higher Canon like the movies or TCW...

[Picard]

Because that's the only logical conclusion one can get, genius.
You write EU and Trek in the same pseudo sentence (without punctuation btw).

EU that supports Trek means, in my book, EU that supports Trek against SW. A way to say that Trek's EU supports Trek against SW (and its own EU).
Boy, do I have to spill everything for you?

Actually, "EU that supports Trek" can easily mean "Star Wars EU that supports Trekkie claims on Star Wars firepower/x/y/etc".