Damien Hailey

May 16, 2002:

You're assuming they are incapable of adjusting their firepower from its maximums down to lower levels. If so, then what did General Veers mean when he ordered "maximum firepower" to his guns?

"Maximum Firepower" means more than just putting all power to your weapons. It can also mean to fire every available weapon on a single target. Yes, I know, the AT-AT only fired one set of weapons, but even that can mean more than just making your guns more powerful.

Irrelevant rebuttal. You made a claim whose validity was entirely contingent upon the assumption that firepower cannot possibly be adjusted downwards, hence high yields represent a tactical problem. In order to disprove that claim, all I had to do was show that it is possible to adjust firepower downwards.

I have done that, and your only response was to show that there are other (very weak) possible explanations. However, since I needed only demonstrate the possibility, and you have done nothing to disprove that possibility, your rebuttal is nothing but a completely irrelevant attempt to evade.

(Not sure of the validity of this point, but...)Take the Freespace series of games, for instance. In Freespace, adding power to your shields or guns doesn't make them more powerful, but instead increases their recharge rate. Meaning you can fire your guns longer(a must with some of the heavier weapons), and your shields will recharge faster, quickly regaining strength after a hit.

The fact that you even tried to bring a complete irrelevance such as a non-related video game into this discussion shows that you are desperate to make "points" even if they have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject.

Well, they're never mentioned as being maximum or standard, rather simply being "per shot." Unfortunately, there weren't any other weapons of a similar class in the ICS, or we could make better comparisons(too bad Saxton can't backtrack to previous ICSes. Wait, maybe he can...).

Maximum is implied if yield is known to be adjustable, and their blaster/turbolaser technology is known to have adjustable yield. The damage caused by General Veers' "maximum firepower" blast to the shield generator was far greater than the damage caused when those same guns were trained on enemy personnel. And unless you intend to argue that a single Mon Calamari cruiser somehow absorbed an entire planet-killing Death Star superlaser blast, ROTJ indicates that turbolaser-based weapons (yes, the Death Star superlaser is a turbolaser-based weapon) can be adjusted many orders of magnitude downwards from their maximum yields.

If you don't ask nicely, then don't expect a nice answer, and don't get snippy when you don't receive one.


Then you should understand why it's pointless to try to "debate" those people. Don't think small; I'm not out to convince one particular group; my site is intended for the entire Internet, not to convince a bunch of ignorant blustering brats on one particular sub-section of one particular bulletin board on one particular website. It's a simple matter of fact that you cannot convince an idiot of your position; you can only make arguments that an intelligent and/or impartial third party will agree with, or you can try to make it entertaining.

*shrugs* Maybe I just enjoy it.

It turns YOU off, because you're looking for something to attack. Since most of my E-mail is supportive rather than hostile, doesn't it occur to you that the omnipresent poisoning of the well (anyone mentions my site on spacebattles.com and a horde of whiners descend to attack it and him) has affected your perceptions? Why is the rest of the world so much more amenable to my website's general message than you and your associates?

Actually, it doesn't turn me off that much, but even then, When I look at your site(even the non-sci-fi stuff), I can easily tell wether or not you like the side you're opposing(normally, you don't.)

Why must I like the side I'm opposing in order to be reasonable? Must I like creationist idiots in order to be a reasonable science advocate? Must I like neo-Nazis in order to be a reasonable advocate of racial equality? Must I like dictatorships in order to be a reasonable advocate of democracy? Your bizarre notion that I must like my opponents in order to be reasonable is quite frankly insane.

Let's get something straight, Damien: I HATE STUPIDITY. Get it? Call me unfair if you like, but stupidity and ignorance are the root causes of incalculable tragedy in this world, and I see no reason why I should humour stupidity in any of its forms. Like it or not, I choose to lampoon stupid arguments and/or stupid people on my website, and no, I make no pretenses about liking either. If you think that a reasonable person must appear to like everybody, then you must have great respect for politicians.

As I said before, it seems that you have been uncritically accepting arguments from your associates on the basis of their popularity. Even the most casual glance at the scene will show the Executor right there behind the ship, and if someone approaches it with open mind and clear perspective, that won't slip by. But when you're just looking for evidence to confirm what you perceive to be the popular viewpoint, it will slip right by you.

Actually, I got it from the screenshots used in the debate:

[Editor's note: the two pictures show the ship before the impact and afterwards, in an attempt to “prove” that the ISD's entire bridge tower was completely destroyed by the impact even though the asteroid was pulverized on impact and the ship's captain was still alive in the next scene]

Changing the subject. I was talking about your assumption that the ship was making no effort to reduce the magnitude of its bombardment, when its proximity to the Executor clearly disproved that claim. Some idiot's attempt to claim that the bridge tower was completely destroyed (by deliberately interpreting a dark region as empty space rather than debris-obscured superstructure even though the ship's captain was still alive after the second screenshot) has no relevance whatsoever. Your foolish attempt to change the subject will fool no one.

I had actually forgotten how big that rock was. Then again, now I'm even more mystified that the ISD Gunners missed it. But even then, the ships are a good distance away. So far, in fact, that you can see some rocks between them.

Of course, because the density of rocks is extremely high. Despite repeated attempts to pound this into your head, you are still clinging to the moronic "they missed one rock out of thousands, therefore they suck" fallacy, in which anything less than perfection is deemed incompetence. Rather than address the point, you simply repackage the same idea and act as though it's a completely new point (and don't act as though its size is a revelation; I've been referring to it as a 70m wide asteroid for years).

Tell me, how do you define accurate targeting? 100% is accurate, anything less is inaccurate? How do you account for numbers of targets? How does this compare to Star Trek, where warships routinely miss 130 metre long vessels even at close range, or Babylon 5, where an entire squadron of fighters can fly straight toward an enemy vessel (in a group, no less) and swarm over its surface while only taking a few casualties on the approach (or worse yet, where Whitestars can do the same thing?)

The asteroids are coming from all directions simultaneously. It isn't a matter of approach routes; we're not talking about human attackers.

Right. But I can lighten my gunners' load by making sure that one of the directions the asteroids are coming from are another ISD's problem, and not mine.

Too bad; for a while there, you almost seemed like you were making a half-hearted effort to be reasonable. But now you're lapsing into standard fanboy stupidity again, by demonstrating a complete failure to comprehend the simple geometry of the situation. Are all of your little friends this dumb too, or did you make up this idea all by yourself?

First: the ISDs are not bumper to bumper, or they would be useless. Fanning out throughout an asteroid field and searching for a ship is far more effective when they are not parked in a cluster. Second: let's say the ships are 10 km apart. Let's say each ship can destroy anything and everything in a 5 km wide sphere (fairly ambitious, considering the target density). Do the math: a 5 km wide zone of complete destruction 10km away will only block out 1.6% of your sky. One point six percent, Damien. In other words, nothing.

Frankly, I shouldn't even have to produce the numbers to disprove this. It's a simple matter of a particular form of intelligence known as spatial perception. Work on it.

That was a massive "one" they missed, as shown in the pic above.

But yes, that is an obvious one. I just felt that it needed stating. To clarify, I would have some of my sensor tech tracking the larger asteroids in the area, to determine which ones are the closest threat. That one they missed was:

A.) A third of the size of the Destroyer's command tower

I see that your spatial perception isn't getting any better. That asteroid was nowhere near a third the size of the entire command tower.

[Editor's note: I suspect he means “a third of the end-piece of the command tower when viewed from a particular angle and completely ignoring the third dimension”]

B.) Coming right *for* said command tower.

It should've been #1 on the priority list.

It should have been #1? How do you know there wasn't another incoming asteroid five times bigger, or an entire shower of hundreds of asteroids the same size, out of which they destroyed all but one? Why do you ignore the observed asteroid density on the Falcon's entry to the field, and the novelization's descriptions of the same field density?

You still insist on assuming without a shred of evidence that this asteroid was alone and/or remarkable in some way, and that if they didn't destroy it, they must have been stupid. I have already addressed this point repeatedly, and your only response is to repackage the exact same idea in different words. This kind of "broken-record" debating style is the exclusive territory of idiots. Go ahead; whine that I'm being mean. But I told you before, I have no patience for stupidity.

Again, what makes you think the Executor was not assisting?

The lack of fire from the Executor.

Provide evidence that the Executor was not firing. Oh, wait ... I get it; you assume that if it didn't destroy that one particular asteroid, it must have not been firing at all, even though it must have been destroying many thousands of asteroids. Sorry, I forgot how mindless and dogmatic your basic approach is.

And again, given the size and treajectory of the asteroid, it should've been one of the first to go.

Again, you assume without a shred of evidence that this asteroid was the biggest threat facing the ship, when it might have simply been one of many. Didn't you notice how big some of those asteroids were when the Falcon flew into the field? How many times do I have to make the same point before you acknowledge it?

Sounds to me like you're going on someone else's description of the scene, instead of watching it for yourself. There is no obvious physical damage to the structure of the ship after the ion cannon impact. See the attached picture and video clip. It's sad how many anti-SW arguments rely on lies about the content of the film.

o_O No wonder this message is so big!
Okay, that was one of the last things I expected you to do. I have to salute you for that. *salutes*

Cute. But you're not answering the point, which is that you lied about obvious physical damage from the ion cannon impact, so you lied about visual proof that it was not the same ship that happened to be holding position close to the Executor. You're making an effort to appear reasonable, but you are lying about evidence, ignoring rebuttals, and generally committing 100% of the dumb-ass fallacies that I have come to expect from your "style over substance" friends (but of course, you defend the "style over substance" fallacy, don't you?)

Tell me, how many of these arguments are yours, as opposed to being parrotted from someone else? The novel said the ship "plunged into deep space". It did not say that this condition was somehow permanent, and that they were never able to regain control, and that they never rejoined the rest of the group.

No, I actually got it most recently from a copy of the script:
The Rebel transport and its escort race away from the white planet, closely followed by the two red energy beams. As the Rebel transport races toward the waiting Imperial Star Destroyer, it is overtaken by the two scarlet energy bolts. The Imperial Star Destroyer is hit in the conning tower by the powerful bolts, which set up fiery explosions on its metal hull. The big Star Destroyer veers, then spins wildly out of control. As the Imperial ship careers into deep space, the Rebel transport races away to safety.

Yet again, you completely ignore the point with this moronic evasion (gee, just quote a piece of script which does not address my point at all!), so I will repeat myself. I quote from my previous E-mail: "It did not say that this condition was somehow permanent, and that they were never able to regain control, and that they never rejoined the rest of the group." Get it now?

A holo-transmission is different from a voice-only transmission.

Asteroids collide, creating a fireworks display outside the bridge window. Rock Vader stands, staring out the window above the control deck. Then slowly turns toward the bridge. Before him are the hologram images of twenty battleship commanders. One of these images, the commander of a ship that has just exploded, is fading away quickly. Another image, in the center and a little apart from the others, is faded and continually disrupted by static. It is the image of Captain Needa, commander of the Star Destroyer most hotly on the tail of the Millennium Pidgeot. Admiral Piett and an aide stand behind the Dark Lord.
PIETT: Lord Vader.
VADER: Yes, Admiral, what is it?
The admiral is scared, his face white as a sheet.
PIETT: The Emperor commands you make contact with him.
VADER: Move the ship out of the asteroid field so that we can send a clear transmission.

I got two things from those passages:
#1. That ISD was destroyed(apparently changed to at least seriously damaged in the movie)

That scene also describes a 20-officer holoconference, while the scene only showed three. It is either a completely different event, or the text description is hopelessly inaccurate. And remember: we saw the officer still alive after the impact in question. I have pointed this out before, and you have ignored it. Now you are committing the Lord Edam trick of quoting huge pieces of text which have no bearing on the point, in order to make it appear as if you've done your homework.

#2. That it was not the shields, but the *Asteroids* that interfered with holotransmissions. One of the holo-images is only destorted, and Vader only mentions moving out of the belt in order to send a clear signal to the Emperor.

Ah, so we must choose between shields or asteroids? It can be one or the other, but not both? Even though the effect of active shielding upon incoming matter and energy is similar to the effect of a solid barrier? Hmmm ... maybe you can't (or won't) see what's wrong with your false dilemma, but I'm betting that most people who read this exchange will be more observant than that.

The novelization never mentioned the entire incident. It mentioned a smaller ship (presumably a support vessel which we never saw) being completely destroyed by an "enormous asteroid" (and 70m is hardly enormous relative to an Imperial vessel), but there was nothing about a relatively small asteroid hitting an ISD's bridge tower.

Again, see above. That was no small rock.

Again, you make no attempt whatsoever to think in relative terms. Relative to the ship, or to some of the other asteroids passed by the Falcon on its way into the field, this was a small rock. You continually insist on describing everything (accuracy, threat levels, sizes of asteroids) in absolute terms, when everything is relative. Accuracy is only important when it is related to other weapons systems or other sci-fi series. Threat levels are only important in relation to other threats. Sizes of asteroids are only important in relation to other asteroids. I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

I seriously doubt that you or any of your fellow debaters will be able to figure it [the riddle] out, but I'll wait until tomorrow before posting this exchange. After that, everything is AOTC, AOTC, and more AOTC.

Sorry about the delay. Something came up.

It's amazing how much time you have for generating these long but completely irrelevant posts, while carefully avoiding my most pointed questions.

[Editor's note: Since he obviously has no intention of answering my little riddle (or perhaps more likely, he is incapable of figuring it out), go to my Shield Technology page for the answer]

Return to main Hate Mail page

Click here to return to the main Hate Mail page.

Valid HTML 4.01!Valid CSS!This website is owned and maintained by Michael Wong
This site is not affiliated with Lucasfilm or Paramount
All associated materials are used under "Fair Use" provisions of copyright law.
All original content by Michael Wong is copyrighted © 1998,2004.
Click here to go to the main page