Trekkies and the Complete ICS

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2006-10-26 01:11am

"We can certainly hope Saxton's numbers get cut."

Christ on a boogy board, but this is pathetic. Whining, moaning, rampant and incorrect speculations, and accusations. It's just like 2002 all over again! I have a vision of Gstone and co. playing Bruce Springsteen's "Glory Days" as the participate in that thread!

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-10-26 01:49am

Some delusional idiot wrote:A little birdie told me Saxton isn't writing for the re-release as of this point in production. Perhaps Lucas Licensing has indeed decided that it has had enough of Star Wars being made a mockery of.

Frankly, I myself have gotten tired of how much Star Wars has gotten made fun of by other SF fans on account of the ICS books. Star Wars doesn't deserve to become the laughingstock of fandom.

Yeah, Star Wars is the butt of everybody's jokes, and LFL really gives a shit about what some no-name fanboy thinks about their books.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-10-26 02:55am

Even if the stats weren't there, there's nothing to suggest the earlier versions are invalid. Suck it down, morons. 8)

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2006-10-26 03:36am

But they'll try to spin the "exclusion" of the stats as proof they've been removed (IE the earlier editions are invalid.)

of course, this assumes they actually stop Publishing the previous books too. I'd be surprised if they did (I'm betting they don't!)

Of course, even if they delete the stats, there are also quite a few "non-numerical" tidbits in the ICSes (especially the ROTS:ICS) that are quantifiable. Like the magnitude-10 earthquake bit.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-10-26 04:07am

A little birdie told me Saxton isn't writing for the re-release as of this point in production.

A little birdie? That's funny, I could've sworn the article on starwars.com credits both original authors- Dr. D.W. Reynolds and Dr. C Saxton, while noting new text for the new entries will be written by Kerrie Dougherty

Master spy network these dumbassses have.

Perhaps Lucas Licensing has indeed decided that it has had enough of Star Wars being made a mockery of.

Yeah, I'm sure Lucas Licensing will excise all the text Dr. Saxton wrote and yet still credit him as an author. I wonder if this stupid tool would say the same thing about Dr. D.W. Reynolds because he stopped working on the ICS after the TPM volume.

It's amazing how ignorant these dumbshits are, really. It's amusing watching non-fans pontificate and speculate like ignoramuses about how "SW authors petitioned for a change" and similar, stupid-ass shit. You've also got to love the refernece to Poe v Traviss, as if Traviss has jack shit to do with DK Publishing

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-10-26 04:09am

Connor MacLeod wrote:But they'll try to spin the "exclusion" of the stats as proof they've been removed (IE the earlier editions are invalid.)

I'm sure Leland Chee would answer that sort of assertion in the negatory with no hesitation whatsoever on the Holocron thread within two seconds of him reading it.

Of course, even if they delete the stats, there are also quite a few "non-numerical" tidbits in the ICSes (especially the ROTS:ICS) that are quantifiable. Like the magnitude-10 earthquake bit.

Accelerations would most likely stay, and it's highly unlikely they'd remove the amount of fuel the reactors annihilate as detailed in the RotS:ICS to boot. It's amusing, actually- let's just say the firepower figures for the Acclamator are removed and we assume like these fucktards will that they're non-canon. Congratulations, they're now considerably worse off- the only figure that gets thrown in their faces becomes the Venator HTL almost-all reactor power figure, combined with the 40,000t of fuel per second.

Kane Starkiller · Post by **Kane Starkiller** » 2006-10-26 06:24am

Enterprise E wrote:They probably allowed Saxton a bit of leeway with regards to what he wanted to add in about the technical specifications. I wouldn't be surprised if they had no idea about the numbers that were put in and were shocked with the yields placed in the book. Don't forget that Saxton didn't have any yields in the E3ICS, only an absurd weapons range (10 lightminutes for a Venator Turbolaser) that is contradicted by everything movie-verse, EU, Infinities, etc. They may have told Saxton that he couldn't add in weapons yields due to the reaction of SF fans to the E2ICS. I wouldn't be surprised if this final book either removes all weapons references, or places more feasible weapons yields and ranges for such vehicles. Wouldn't it be interesting if there was no entry for the Acclamator's weapons yields, but they had an ISD's turbolasers be about 60 or so megatons (I think that was the Warsie yield, pre-ICS), per HTL cannon. I'd love to see the considerate fellow fans of Star Wars try to reconcile that since technically, the 200 gigaton turbolaser battery yield would still be out there. It would be interesting to see what would happen with that.

Yeah they were utterly SHOCKED by the numbers but they kept them anyway. And it's absolutely astounding how delusional these people are. Do they really think Lucas gives a shit about a few dozen "fans" whining about ICS?
And then at the end when he states how he hopes Acclamator stats get deleated and ISD HTL will be about 60 megatons. Oh wouldn't that be great! Oh please God let it be so! I bet he fantasies about that all day long. How he would gloat at the "warsies", how he will get to say "I told you so!".
How incredibly pathetic these people are.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-10-26 06:52am

They may have told Saxton that he couldn't add in weapons yields due to the reaction of SF fans to the E2ICS.

There was a "reaction of SF fans"?

Funny, I thought the reaction came from an obscure subset of a subset of a single sci-fi franchise that noone at LFL would or should give a fuck about.

God, those're some delusional people.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-10-26 08:33am

I wouldn't be surprised if they had no idea about the numbers that were put in and were shocked with the yields placed in the book.

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The concept of an "editor" must be foreign to Trekkies.

God, those're some delusional people.

Doesn't the Trekkie stereotype include a lack of knowledge of sci-fi beyond ST and SW? In that case, they would logically assume that "SF fans" consisted only of themselves and people bottled up on WEG.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-10-26 08:51am

VT-16 wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if they had no idea about the numbers that were put in and were shocked with the yields placed in the book.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The concept of an "editor" must be foreign to Trekkies.

God, those're some delusional people.
Doesn't the Trekkie stereotype include a lack of knowledge of sci-fi beyond ST and SW? In that case, they would logically assume that "SF fans" consisted only of themselves and people bottled up on WEG.

I wouldn't insult them with the moniker Trekkies, personally. What do Trekkies care about Star Wars canon? They're trektards.

You've also got to wonder at why these professed "purists" who scream "movies only" care about the ICS- it's obviously because they're full of shit and know their position is untenable.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-10-26 09:10am

I only refer to "Trekkies" when it's about people who deserve the derogatory phrase. Otherwise, I'd be half-Trekkie myself, since I love the TOS. :P

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2006-10-26 11:34am

Enterprise E wrote:They probably allowed Saxton a bit of leeway with regards to what he wanted to add in about the technical specifications. I wouldn't be surprised if they had no idea about the numbers that were put in and were shocked with the yields placed in the book. Don't forget that Saxton didn't have any yields in the E3ICS, only an absurd weapons range (10 lightminutes for a Venator Turbolaser) that is contradicted by everything movie-verse, EU, Infinities, etc. They may have told Saxton that he couldn't add in weapons yields due to the reaction of SF fans to the E2ICS. I wouldn't be surprised if this final book either removes all weapons references, or places more feasible weapons yields and ranges for such vehicles. Wouldn't it be interesting if there was no entry for the Acclamator's weapons yields, but they had an ISD's turbolasers be about 60 or so megatons (I think that was the Warsie yield, pre-ICS), per HTL cannon. I'd love to see the considerate fellow fans of Star Wars try to reconcile that since technically, the 200 gigaton turbolaser battery yield would still be out there. It would be interesting to see what would happen with that.

This fucktard obviously hasn't read "SlaveShip" (gigaton-firepower) or RebelDream (turbolaser-shots from outside a star-system).

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2006-10-26 12:27pm

Please don't assume a few people on a message board are representative of all Trekkies. Many of us enjoy a wide variety of SF and don't spend our entire lives trying to prove our campy SF series is better than the other guy's campy SF series.

Here endeth the sermon

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-10-26 12:30pm

Bounty wrote:Please don't assume a few people on a message board are representative of all Trekkies. Many of us enjoy a wide variety of SF and don't spend our entire lives trying to prove our campy SF series is better than the other guy's campy SF series.

Here endeth the sermon

Don't preach because like it's been said many times, people here aren't fucking rabid warsies.

Literally Poe's whole post was an eyeful of the most rabid trektards debating morons...unless you fall under that category then what the fuck are you adding this useless post here?

SCVN 2812 · Post by **SCVN 2812** » 2006-10-26 12:31pm

Why is this in pure Star Wars? I would think a thread dedicated solely to ripping on the segment of the fan base rational Trek fans prefer just to not acknolwedge would be more appropriate in the vs. forum but to each is own...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-26 12:46pm

SCVN 2812 wrote:Why is this in pure Star Wars? I would think a thread dedicated solely to ripping on the segment of the fan base rational Trek fans prefer just to not acknolwedge would be more appropriate in the vs. forum but to each is own...

The subject matter is pure Star Wars. The fact that the idiots attacking it happen to be Trekkies doesn't change that. If a bunch of Republitards were attacking Star Wars for being unChristian (which has actually happened in the past BTW), that would either go here or N&P, but it would be perfectly legitimate in either locale.

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-10-26 02:34pm

Well, that was just... special, as were the few other threads I looked at before the sheer bull threatened to overwhelm me. They're pretty much all just the same bunch of scrubheads that follow Scooter around like some sort of Trekky Messiah over there, aren't they? In addition to all the similar names (a dead giveaway), a lot of the new ones seem to use the exact same style of thinking I used to chuckle at when the old board/s still existed.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-26 02:39pm

The funny thing about them is that none of them ever stop to ask why none of them are doctors, scientists, engineers ... they're all a bunch of kids, they know they're a bunch of kids, and they think they represent some kind of expert panel. They never stop to ask why none of the smart well-educated people fall in with their crowd.

It reminds me of "creation science journals" where people who lack any kind of credentials strut around as if they're experts.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2006-10-26 03:36pm

Isn't it obvious? "Real" doctors, scientists and engineers don't waste their time on geeky science-fiction-shows. Only the small elite of hardcore -and therefor expert - fans, they think they're a part of.

apocolypse · Post by **apocolypse** » 2006-10-26 04:08pm

What a bunch of crying bitches. I recognize a couple from SB, so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2006-10-26 05:01pm

apocolypse wrote:What a bunch of crying bitches. I recognize a couple from SB, so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised.

Oh, they're ready to "spread the word" to sb.com, because it's a "warsie-haven". See, they're forum is a happy, friendly place!

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-10-26 05:30pm

Why do these guys think the ICS numbers aren't 'plausible'? Ignoring for the moment the retarded idea of 60MT HTLs (the same yield these tards probably apply to photon torpedoes), I'm not seeing how extremely powerful weapons are inconcievable in a world with planet destroying battlestations and individual ships that can glass a world. Is all their rationale just a smokescreen to cover their tiny, narrow preconceptions?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-10-26 05:34pm

Stark wrote:Why do these guys think the ICS numbers aren't 'plausible'? Ignoring for the moment the retarded idea of 60MT HTLs (the same yield these tards probably apply to photon torpedoes), I'm not seeing how extremely powerful weapons are inconcievable in a world with planet destroying battlestations and individual ships that can glass a world. Is all their rationale just a smokescreen to cover their tiny, narrow preconceptions?

Lack of any real education combined with pseudoscience easily colors one's outlook. Add with a dash of heavy fanboy lust, and you can make pronouce anything as impossible unless their personal universe is doing it daily.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-10-26 05:59pm

Darth Wong wrote:The funny thing about them is that none of them ever stop to ask why none of them are doctors, scientists, engineers ... they're all a bunch of kids, they know they're a bunch of kids, and they think they represent some kind of expert panel. They never stop to ask why none of the smart well-educated people fall in with their crowd.

It reminds me of "creation science journals" where people who lack any kind of credentials strut around as if they're experts.

Because they delude themselves into thinking the experts like Saxton and yourself are all frauds...just like the creationists do.

apocolypse · Post by **apocolypse** » 2006-10-26 06:58pm

Lord Poe wrote:
apocolypse wrote:What a bunch of crying bitches. I recognize a couple from SB, so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised.
Oh, they're ready to "spread the word" to sb.com, because it's a "warsie-haven". See, they're forum is a happy, friendly place!

Of course it is. They don't suffer the taint of heretical Warsies sullying such harmony.

Really, wtf is wrong with these people. There's no clue as to what shape this revised ICS is going to take. Even if hypothetically speaking the weapons yields and such were omitted, how the hell is that supposed to invalidate the stand-alone copies?

And while I'm at it, what the fuck is it with this continuing underlying belief that Saxton somehow snuck info into the ICS without approval or some such? How would such a feat even be possible?