Asteroids and Star Destroyers (NOT turbolaser-related)

[Super-Gagme]

*snip*

What the fuck is your damage? I'm not arguing for the bridge being destroyed in universe, I'm arguing for it conveying that message. Everything you said means nothing to me, I accept it wasn't destroyed you moron. I thought I made this quite clear.

And on a side note, I graduated high school 3 years ago. Jackass.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

You can't cite creator intention when you don't know specifically what that intention was, nor are you allowed to assume or guess what it was in the absence of explenation.

[Super-Gagme]

You can't cite creator intention when you don't know specifically what that intention was, nor are you allowed to assume or guess what it was in the absence of explenation.

That's a fair enough point, and surprisingly void of insults! Wow, IP should take some courses from you

[Illuminatus Primus]

*snip*

What the fuck is your damage? I'm not arguing for the bridge being destroyed in universe, I'm arguing for it conveying that message. Everything you said means nothing to me, I accept it wasn't destroyed you moron. I thought I made this quite clear.

And on a side note, I graduated high school 3 years ago. Jackass.

Than shut the fuck up and drop it. Besides, you still don't get it. "The intent" is fucking irrelevent to this debate and constitutes a thread hijack. Beyond that, its also fucking meaningless, and no one wants to see your waste of bandwidth anymore.

Idiot.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You can't cite creator intention when you don't know specifically what that intention was, nor are you allowed to assume or guess what it was in the absence of explenation.

That's a fair enough point, and surprisingly void of insults! Wow, IP should take some courses from you

Don't be an asshole. Publius explained in very thoughtful and careful detail the point to you and snapped back at him. But now we tack on smileys and its ok to be an asshole yuck yuck

Dumbass.

[McC]

I apologise for that, but it's frankly irritating for me to deal with someone who continuously fails to understand and frequently misapplies an easily understandable concept, and I unfortunately have a very thin patience for that.

But what I was specifically expressing irritation with in the above post was McC's seeming habit of having to rephrase and restate almost every arguement and conclusion that crosses his path. Nothing to do with claim of original credit, but it's something that McC does that rather annoys me, because he often uses his reinterpretations and restatings to his advantage, such as for platforms for nagging tangents and endless arguments.

The short version: then go away.

The long version...well, we've spent enough time cluttering this thread with our bickering. Let's take it to PM.

[The Nomad]

What's in the ESB novelization, BTW ?


Is there a rebuttal to this article from RSA, somewhere on SDnet : +http://www.furryconflict.com/tech/techn ... eroid.html ? It states novelization and script... are the quotes correct ?

From what I understand, there are two possible objections to the destruction :

1) we didn't see the bridge clearly obliterated. The clues in the novelization ( if any ) should then be used.

2) there are no clearly visible metallic debris from the tower. This is the most powerful objection. Another possibility is that the asteroid did not completely blast the entire tower, but rather crushed a part of it, sending little debris outside but doing significant internal damage.
Of course, RSA would object that the ISD towers are so frail that they were vaporized them to their component atoms .