Please Explain the Ground Battle on Endor

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-25 01:53am

Why is it in these debates about Endor that everyone always seem to forget is that the Stormtroopers were clearly under orders to capture the rebels alive, thus placing yet another big handicap on the Storm Troopers?

Vader on the landing platform: "Conduct your search and bring his companions to me"

General Velal · Post by **General Velal** » 2003-01-25 12:16pm

Darth Servo wrote:Why is it in these debates about Endor that everyone always seem to forget is that the Stormtroopers were clearly under orders to capture the rebels alive, thus placing yet another big handicap on the Storm Troopers?

Vader on the landing platform: "Conduct your search and bring his companions to me"

Sorry, To get this right, to Quote the Emperor in ROTJ:"Thats why an Entire Legion of my best troops awaits them". So in order to Capture Han, Chewie, C-3PO, R2-D2, a Rebel Squad and Leia-They deploy a Legion: 14,410 Stormtroopers to capture approx 7 humans, 2 Droids and a Wookie. Plus Naval/Army personnel.
The legion figure comes from the Imperial Sourcebook, given the wierd and wacky rules of canon is it EU approved? If not can we take a Legion to mean 5000-6000 Stormtroopers like a Roman Legion for a benchmark.
Yes it sure would place a handicap on the Stormtroopers and the resources and effort to keep a unit of that size for a capture detail seems to fit in with wacky potato king Palpatine tactics brain fart he had that day.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-01-25 12:42pm

Given Palpatine's nature of using more force then needed I'd say him using an entire legion fits well into it, plus they almost did win if not for Chewie and their own incompetnece in making that area more viable for a fire fight.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-01-25 12:59pm

Endor: 1 question, 1000 answers.

I've heard all kinds of stuff, that Jerjood pulled the troops off the ground and put them to work on building the DS (which makes little sense really, only the mechanically trained could be any use and that would not be many of them, pulling people of the SD fleet would make more sense). That the ewoks had been picking off stormies over time, Vietnam style (supported by "Apocolypse Endor", but I'm not certain where that falls in canon), that most of the forces were at the main enterance (possible, but why wouldn't they immediately go to the rear as soon as the batle started? Or set up defenses inside like and E web or something on the off chance the rebs get through), that what we saw is a full legion and that the Imperial SB is wrong (legion being misused like Destroyer I guess), that most of the troops were out scouting for han & Co after Luke was captured (yet why couldn't they make it back in time then), that Stormie helmets wouldn't target ewoks, so they had trouble spotting them (no idea what truth there is to this one), and a number of others.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-26 03:54am

General Velal wrote:Oh, Come on, it was going well, enough with the "foolish" bit,

That's all you wanted to talk about? The fact that I used the word "foolish"? Are you always this thin-skinned? All of my other points need not be directly addressed because I used the word "foolish" in my post? Where did you learn to debate?

The fact is that you have never justified your foolish (yep, there I go using that horrible, horrible word again) idea that the Empire could somehow be defeated by the Federation despite a thousand-to-one advantage in numbers, firepower, AND speed. The Rebels lacked two of these disadvantages, and they still needed a virtual miracle in order to do what they did, not to mention Palpatine's obsession over converting Luke Skywalker and his failure to leave a clear line of succession, without which the Empire would have continued without him.

General Velal · Post by **General Velal** » 2003-01-26 07:55am

Darth Wong wrote:
General Velal wrote:Oh, Come on, it was going well, enough with the "foolish" bit,

That's all you wanted to talk about? The fact that I used the word "foolish"? Are you always this thin-skinned? All of my other points need not be directly addressed because I used the word "foolish" in my post? Where did you learn to debate?

What the hell is going on here Are you AdmiralKanos? IF so"Darth Wong" forgive me this is the first time I have seen someone post to the board under 2 seperate idenities at the same time in the same thread, the reason for which escapes me-It reeks of just plain deception leading again to what I stated, I was wary to come on because of the constant sniping,Flaming, "Invasion" planning, group bashing and paranoia based on various other idiots using such tricks as multiple idenities.

I chose to risk this (Yes Its a risk, taking up internet time and space I pay for having to deal with useless and assaulting replys) because the interesting topics and comments led me to believe this would be a valuable place to discuss it-And So far up until this point I was rewarded-Publius, Master of Ossus and others have been fine people to chat with.

In fact I had at this point belived I was talking to a seperate individual, "Admiral Kanos" Now have I spoken with other individuals or have I been speaking with other "Alias"

Where did you learn to debate, Sir? Admiral Kanos, Admiral_K or Darth Wong which is it? Your "Darth Wong" posts are all about man to man debating-being who you are etc and you use this lowly deception of another alias? There was no need for foolish, I did not in my first closing remark, clarify whai meant in my next post I corrected this-This was not foolish, a simple mistake that I own up to myself with my idenity.

There was no need imply I was foolish. So I addressed it,

The fact is that you have never justified your foolish (yep, there I go using that horrible, horrible word again) idea that the Empire could somehow be defeated by the Federation despite a thousand-to-one advantage in numbers, firepower, AND speed. The Rebels lacked two of these disadvantages, and they still needed a virtual miracle in order to do what they did, not to mention Palpatine's obsession over converting Luke Skywalker and his failure to leave a clear line of succession, without which the Empire would have continued without him.

THERE IS A MASSIVE PROBLEM-I stated quite clearly to Master Of Ossus
I do not disagree at all with the Empire winning, I pointed out that the erratic command of the Emperor and Lord Vaders killing off and promoting officers-had a direct analogy to Hitler and the OKW of the Whermacht from 1942 onwards-It handicapped an excellent miltary machine with at that time well equipped (Barring Winter in Russia due to Hitlers orders) and sufficent numbers. Hitler based strategy on such irrelevant things as occult, bizarre historical misinformation and whim. Officers were replaced and in some cases killed-undoing an otherwise very effective high command.

The Emperors descion to hold back the fleet made no sense-the surprise aspect of the operational Death Star did not result in a defeat of the Rebel Fleet, it destroyed 2 capital ships and highlighted that the station was not as effective in capital ship engagements as blowing up planets. Meanwhile his fleet was combat capable and could fullfill its mission in defeating the Rebel forces in a place of its chosing in a manner it excelled at. Instead they sit idle there on the Emperors erratic orders.

Was Captain Piett a suitable Admiral? Was his command ability superior to Admiral Ozzel? Was Needa a useless officer based on one error? We will never know as Its on Lord Vaders whim they died. This is a handicap, not as I stated the reason for defeat of the Imperial Fleet by the Fedration.

The Federation would lose-If you read my post I felt it was a complicated issue as I feel the two universes operated differently-This does not affect the outcome it just cannot just be said in a simple broad stroke. I was just highlighting one factor that would be a hinderance to its victory however its assured.

I really confused by this deceit of using this other name-am I thinned skin? Well are you as you have to operate under 2 or more different names?

I'm General Velal:AKA Jim Morrissey-Its in my email address as I registered. No one else. I wanted to avoid this crap. I have nothing to do with all this us vs them stuff and I see it has led to hypereactive replys-stand down off the war footing.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-26 08:46am

General Velal wrote:

What the hell is going on here Are you AdmiralKanos? IF so"Darth Wong" forgive me this is the first time I have seen someone post to the board under 2 seperate idenities at the same time in the same thread, the reason for which escapes me-It reeks of just plain deception leading again to what I stated, I was wary to come on because of the constant sniping,Flaming, "Invasion" planning, group bashing and paranoia based on various other idiots using such tricks as multiple idenities.

The fact that Admiral Kanos is Mike's ADMIN account is not a secret on this board.

Where did you learn to debate, Sir? Admiral Kanos, Admiral_K or Darth Wong which is it? Your "Darth Wong" posts are all about man to man debating-being who you are etc and you use this lowly deception of another alias? There was no need for foolish, I did not in my first closing remark, clarify whai meant in my next post I corrected this-This was not foolish, a simple mistake that I own up to myself with my idenity.

There was no need imply I was foolish. So I addressed it,

Admiral K is a different person. Darth Wong is Mike's user account. Admiral Kanos is his Admin account.

THERE IS A MASSIVE PROBLEM-I stated quite clearly to Master Of Ossus
I do not disagree at all with the Empire winning, I pointed out that the erratic command of the Emperor and Lord Vaders killing off and promoting officers-had a direct analogy to Hitler and the OKW of the Whermacht from 1942 onwards-It handicapped an excellent miltary machine with at that time well equipped (Barring Winter in Russia due to Hitlers orders) and sufficent numbers. Hitler based strategy on such irrelevant things as occult, bizarre historical misinformation and whim. Officers were replaced and in some cases killed-undoing an otherwise very effective high command.

If the Empire will win, pray tell what difference does it make? And no, the events of ESB do not correspond to how the Empire does business in general. The Original Trilogy is about Luke Skywalker- specifically, he's the only one who can destroy the Emperor and Darth Vader (admitted by the Emperor in ESB). More on this next paragraph.

The Emperors descion to hold back the fleet made no sense-the surprise aspect of the operational Death Star did not result in a defeat of the Rebel Fleet, it destroyed 2 capital ships and highlighted that the station was not as effective in capital ship engagements as blowing up planets. Meanwhile his fleet was combat capable and could fullfill its mission in defeating the Rebel forces in a place of its chosing in a manner it excelled at. Instead they sit idle there on the Emperors erratic orders.

It destroyed more ships than the two we see on screen. Regardless, the decision to hold back the fleet was born with turning Luke to the Dark Side in mind. The entire purpose of the Endor trap was to kill two birds with one stone: turn Luke to the Dark Side by destroying the Rebellion and his friends in one stroke.

Was Captain Piett a suitable Admiral? Was his command ability superior to Admiral Ozzel? Was Needa a useless officer based on one error? We will never know as Its on Lord Vaders whim they died. This is a handicap, not as I stated the reason for defeat of the Imperial Fleet by the Fedration.

Needa didn't deserve to get killed. Ozzel did however.

The Federation would lose-If you read my post I felt it was a complicated issue as I feel the two universes operated differently-This does not affect the outcome it just cannot just be said in a simple broad stroke. I was just highlighting one factor that would be a hinderance to its victory however its assured.

No, it wouldn't be a hindrance, because the Emperor and Darth Vader are not hunting for a Luke Skywalker in the Federation and thus orchestrating their efforts to achieve this end. This was what the hunt for the Millenium Falcon and Vader's furious wrath was about.

General Velal · Post by **General Velal** » 2003-01-26 09:37am

The fact that Admiral Kanos is Mike's ADMIN account is not a secret on this board.

Oh, is it known then-I see so because I missed this fact-which is stated where? Its not a secret, because its known by whom Yourself? 4-5 others? The whole Board? Why does He enter the thread under his Admin and then I presume Non Admin Name? What is the pupose? Why respond as Darth Wong when Admiral Kanos would suffice?

So you know it, therefore is known to me? What is going on here? Does anyone see a problem with this? I get a reply from a different user for a reply to another user now becase this fact of two names is known by the "Board" which includes everyone but me-Its fine that this happens?

Are you posting as you? In a couple replys later am I dealing with you under two hats? Is that fair? Gee I wonder if Admiral Kanos agrees with Darth Wong? What was the pupose of replying as Darth Wong?

I would hope you would see why I have doubts about this action. I now wonder who I will be talking with.

I pointed out something as a factor I had not seen mentioned, Yes your right it makes no differance to the outcome. I got it guys the Empire wins, thanks its been told to me-just putting something I felt was missed but I'm going to now get the same Empire wins reply-I get it I agree-Thanks in advance everyone.

My post started out on Endor I asked for an explanation I got a lot of different answers, all valid food for thought.

While reading and replying I put foward the erratic command thing again I began to get valid reasons to why this would make no differance. Fine but then I get told "I'm foolish" for what? The one poster in this thread that decides its no longer talking about the topic, it is I'm -ME is foolish-so I thought-Hey No need for that-I made a mistake not properly my reason--I made a mistake-I admit it and I thought move on-No need to go you are a fool-
No one else did that then I get another poster who gets upset to my reply to another "Poster" But wait! That poster is the other poster who uses two names! Wow! Things get confusing quick.

Your points on The Emperor wanting Luke to turn to the Dark Side are important ones and I was focusing on the military aspect-Yes its an important factor to the Emperors actions but I am not fully convinced justifys the Fleet sitting there.

I feel erratic command in any situation would be a hinderance regardless if its motivation originally. But the Imperial logo would be flying over the ruins of Starfleet HQ just the same.

I hope this does not spiral into name calling now-theres just no need.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-26 10:24am

General Velal wrote:
The fact that Admiral Kanos is Mike's ADMIN account is not a secret on this board.
Oh, is it known then-I see so because I missed this fact-which is stated where? Its not a secret, because its known by whom Yourself? 4-5 others? The whole Board? Why does He enter the thread under his Admin and then I presume Non Admin Name? What is the pupose? Why respond as Darth Wong when Admiral Kanos would suffice?

Don't you read the announcements section?

"Sith Lord : This rank is reserved for Darth Wong (me). There can be only one.

Lex Animata : This rank (which means "living law", or "law incarnate") is reserved for the site admin, AdmiralKanos (also me). Once again, there can be only one."

Maybe you should READ THE ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE YOU RUN YOUR MOUTH OFF.

So you know it, therefore is known to me? What is going on here? Does anyone see a problem with this? I get a reply from a different user for a reply to another user now becase this fact of two names is known by the "Board" which includes everyone but me-Its fine that this happens?

Yes, considering that you didn't read the announcement section which tells you everything you should know.

Are you posting as you? In a couple replys later am I dealing with you under two hats? Is that fair? Gee I wonder if Admiral Kanos agrees with Darth Wong? What was the pupose of replying as Darth Wong?

Ummm ... WHO CARES. Mike was performing admin duties, etc, what difference does it make, considering EVERYONE KNOWS THEY'RE THE SAME PERSON.

I would hope you would see why I have doubts about this action. I now wonder who I will be talking with.

You're being a drama queen.

I pointed out something as a factor I had not seen mentioned, Yes your right it makes no differance to the outcome. I got it guys the Empire wins, thanks its been told to me-just putting something I felt was missed but I'm going to now get the same Empire wins reply-I get it I agree-Thanks in advance everyone.

My post started out on Endor I asked for an explanation I got a lot of different answers, all valid food for thought.

While reading and replying I put foward the erratic command thing again I began to get valid reasons to why this would make no differance. Fine but then I get told "I'm foolish" for what? The one poster in this thread that decides its no longer talking about the topic, it is I'm -ME is foolish-so I thought-Hey No need for that-I made a mistake not properly my reason--I made a mistake-I admit it and I thought move on-No need to go you are a fool-
No one else did that then I get another poster who gets upset to my reply to another "Poster" But wait! That poster is the other poster who uses two names! Wow! Things get confusing quick.

What you said was extremely foolish. That's the way this board is.

Your points on The Emperor wanting Luke to turn to the Dark Side are important ones and I was focusing on the military aspect-Yes its an important factor to the Emperors actions but I am not fully convinced justifys the Fleet sitting there.

It doesn't 'justify' it, but it's a reason for it. Everyone on this board thinks the fleet should've attacked, but it doesn't really matter. The shield going down on the planet was what did it.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-01-26 10:54am

Apparently DarkStar isn't alone in his inability to put 2 and 2 together. Amazing how SCNers are the only ones who have difficulty figuring out that Wong and the guy named after the main character in his FanFic are one and the same. I mean, he even said "MY canon database" and linked to the main page. And it's in the announcements section.

General Velal · Post by **General Velal** » 2003-01-26 11:29am

Ender wrote:Apparently DarkStar isn't alone in his inability to put 2 and 2 together. Amazing how SCNers are the only ones who have difficulty figuring out that Wong and the guy named after the main character in his FanFic are one and the same. I mean, he even said "MY canon database" and linked to the main page. And it's in the announcements section.

Why write this? What is a SCNer? What Fanfic? How much is presumed here? Now I cannot put 2 and 2 together?-how much baggage is needed before you can post on a board? Now I have some link to Darkstar? Where is all is this superimposed crap coming from-hes a SCNer? Now I'm labeled-identifed with a group?person and insulted from someone I have not spoken with?

I'm on dozens of boards-and have not visited their annoucements sections-I never got this-Whatever-

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-01-26 11:46am

General Velal wrote: Why write this?

"and the mockery of stupid people"

What is a SCNer?

You don't even know the name of your other forum? SCN=Subspace Comms Network

What Fanfic?

I don't know, how about you click the forum labled "FanFic" and find out.

How much is presumed here?

Just that you have operational higher brain functions.

Now I cannot put 2 and 2 together?

Apparently

-how much baggage is needed before you can post on a board?

None, you just need to havesome semblence of intellegence

Now I have some link to Darkstar?

Yes, you share the dubious distinction of being the only two people to not figure out that the admin if the site is the same person who owns the site. Bravo Zulu son.

Where is all is this superimposed crap coming from-hes a SCNer?

You said so in your first post

Now I'm labeled-identifed with a group?

A label you chose

person and insulted from someone I have not spoken with?

I haven't even begun to get insulting yet. You'll see that when the word fuck occurs twice in the same sentance.

I'm on dozens of boards-and have not visited their annoucements sections-I never got this-Whatever-[/quote]

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-01-26 11:47am

General Velal wrote: I'm on dozens of boards-and have not visited their annoucements sections-I never got this-Whatever-

Then perhaps you should, it is there for a reason

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-26 12:28pm

Velal, you should not throw houses from glass stones. We have interacted precisely twice. The first time, you ignored all of my points in favour of an attack upon the fact that I used the word "foolish". The second time, you spent fully half of your post accusing me of dishonesty for having two accounts: my admin account and my regular account. You tried to paint this as proof of habitual dishonesty despite the fact that I made no effort whatsoever to hide it, hence your ability to figure it out even though you hadn't read the Announcements page. Your habit of dismissing arguments based on ad-hominem attacks is fallacious and unreasonable.

As for your claim that I am engaging in a strawman attack, your last post to MoO finished by stating flatly that despite every other advantage, if you have poor leadership "you can lose." This is true when those advantages are small, but to say that in the context of an ant fighting a tank is ridiculous.

You also ignored my points about transporters, again thanks to your fallacious method of ignoring the point in favour of harping on style, perceived personality flaws, etc.

I sense that you have been waiting for me to post so that you could pounce on my perceived personality flaws rather than debating the points I make. Perhaps this is the effect of the "poisoning of the well" done by certain individuals who shall remain unnamed. Perhaps this is simply the way you debate. Either way, it is fallacious and you will not profit by it. On this board, bullshit of that nature is immediately identified and set upon by all concerned.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-01-26 12:45pm

General Velal wrote:
The fact that Admiral Kanos is Mike's ADMIN account is not a secret on this board.
Oh, is it known then-I see so because I missed this fact-which is stated where? Its not a secret, because its known by whom Yourself? 4-5 others? The whole Board? Why does He enter the thread under his Admin and then I presume Non Admin Name? What is the pupose? Why respond as Darth Wong when Admiral Kanos would suffice?

So you know it, therefore is known to me? What is going on here? Does anyone see a problem with this? I get a reply from a different user for a reply to another user now becase this fact of two names is known by the "Board" which includes everyone but me-Its fine that this happens?

Read the announcments idiot...they are called announcments for a reason...they exist announce thing you should know....

Are you posting as you? In a couple replys later am I dealing with you under two hats? Is that fair? Gee I wonder if Admiral Kanos agrees with Darth Wong? What was the pupose of replying as Darth Wong?

I would hope you would see why I have doubts about this action. I now wonder who I will be talking with.

I pointed out something as a factor I had not seen mentioned, Yes your right it makes no differance to the outcome. I got it guys the Empire wins, thanks its been told to me-just putting something I felt was missed but I'm going to now get the same Empire wins reply-I get it I agree-Thanks in advance everyone.

General policy here, act like a moron get treated like one....try to keep up or return to the kiddies table...

My post started out on Endor I asked for an explanation I got a lot of different answers, all valid food for thought.

While reading and replying I put foward the erratic command thing again I began to get valid reasons to why this would make no differance. Fine but then I get told "I'm foolish" for what? The one poster in this thread that decides its no longer talking about the topic, it is I'm -ME is foolish-so I thought-Hey No need for that-I made a mistake not properly my reason--I made a mistake-I admit it and I thought move on-No need to go you are a fool-
No one else did that then I get another poster who gets upset to my reply to another "Poster" But wait! That poster is the other poster who uses two names! Wow! Things get confusing quick.

Gee see above about ANNOUNCEMENTS
Plus if you know anything of good ettiqutte on boards and lists, its customary to lurk for a little while before jumping in and looking like a total tit.

Your points on The Emperor wanting Luke to turn to the Dark Side are important ones and I was focusing on the military aspect-Yes its an important factor to the Emperors actions but I am not fully convinced justifys the Fleet sitting there.

He did make a big deal of using the death star to blow ships up to try and arouse lukes anger and turn him to the dark side...that does seem like it was a factor (marginally insane, but that's just good 'ol palpy...) in his orders doesnt it?

I feel erratic command in any situation would be a hinderance regardless if its motivation originally. But the Imperial logo would be flying over the ruins of Starfleet HQ just the same.

I hope this does not spiral into name calling now-theres just no need.

Alrighty, just please for the love of all that pointy....try and debate the substance not the style.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-01-26 01:09pm

Let's see if we can work this great mystery out.

-The webmaster and owner of SD.net is Mike Wong. This earth-shattering revelation is made, among other places, on the main index page of the site, under the heading "About the Author".

-Admiral Kanos is the administrator of the SD.net webboard, which would logically also be owned by Mike Wong. One assumes the owner of the board would have administrator powers.

-There's a poster named Darth Wong, who combines the Sith-lord title with the website and webboard owner's last name. He also has moderator powers, and his custom title is "Sith Lord", which is not shared by anyone else on the board.

-Finally, both Admiral Kanos and Darth Wong share identical writing styles, and make the exact same points. Often, it seems as if they post interchangeably in the same thread.

Let's see if we can't figure out the possible solutions to this mystery:

1. Admiral Kanos and Darth Wong are different people who agree with each other a whole lot.

2. Admiral Kanos and Darth Wong are actually the same person (Mike Wong), but he likes to post under two different screen names in an attempt to make it seem like more people agree with him. That dirty scoundrel. Please remember to adjust your tinfoil hat.*

3. Admiral Kanos and Darth Wong are actually the same person (Mike Wong), and he sometimes posts under his admin account because he's logged in to handle admin duties and decides to answer some posts, and doesn't bother to switch accounts because only biggest cement-head on the continent would think it's some kind of dishonest trick.

So what's the solution to this puzzle? Tune in next week kids for the answer, and another exciting episode of "Obvious Theatre"!

*Thanks to the Yosemite Bear for the inspiration for this line.

General Velal · Post by **General Velal** » 2003-01-26 01:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:Velal, you should not throw houses from glass stones. We have interacted precisely twice. The first time, you ignored all of my points in favour of an attack upon the fact that I used the word "foolish". The second time, you spent fully half of your post accusing me of dishonesty for having two accounts: my admin account and my regular account. You tried to paint this as proof of habitual dishonesty despite the fact that I made no effort whatsoever to hide it, hence your ability to figure it out even though you hadn't read the Announcements page. Your habit of dismissing arguments based on ad-hominem attacks is fallacious and unreasonable.

As for your claim that I am engaging in a strawman attack, your last post to MoO finished by stating flatly that despite every other advantage, if you have poor leadership "you can lose." This is true when those advantages are small, but to say that in the context of an ant fighting a tank is ridiculous.

You also ignored my points about transporters, again thanks to your fallacious method of ignoring the point in favour of harping on style, perceived personality flaws, etc.

I sense that you have been waiting for me to post so that you could pounce on my perceived personality flaws rather than debating the points I make. Perhaps this is the effect of the "poisoning of the well" done by certain individuals who shall remain unnamed. Perhaps this is simply the way you debate. Either way, it is fallacious and you will not profit by it. On this board, bullshit of that nature is immediately identified and set upon by all concerned.

Ok First off I was thrown off as I fully believed that you had as "Darth Wong" came out of the blue and revealed that you were also AdmiralKanos-I overreacted-but thats what I belived. I said before that I am wary of the way this board operates in terms of hyperreactive attacks and premptive attacks, yes this is the way of things here-I took my chances and I thought the reward was worth what I'm getting now from others.

I'm stumped on the Transporter thing-I went on a tangent about I did not like the way they were used in the conversation to MoO, I recalled AdmiralKanos posted a mesage stating another problem with them-So I went fine thats another reason, I did not know that I was ignoring you on that-I missed that one-no intention on my part to ignore you.

The last paragraph is the example of what it is I was concerned with. Your "sense" is very way off the mark-I do not wait to "pounce" on anyone, let alone personalty flaws when I have not met you-there is no way in this faceless medium that I would ever do that anywhere-Its text-I can perceive only from the text content and indicators like smiley faces etc. Tone can be taken but its at risk of error.

I see there is a perception that this the way I "Debate" No once again, I have asked a question "Explain the Ground Battle on Endor" got replys and continued from there-up until the reaction of mine to the "foolish" comment. I thought was discussion if its "Debate" fine-I have now since read the annoucements section It indeed has cleared some aspects up.
There is this us vs them metality based on past events that I sought to avoid-I took SCNers to be something to do with Star Trek people initially.

I'm not attempting to profit by anything,except getting food for thought replys like from Publius and MoO-No harm there?

Can we move on from this? I accept I'm going to get the type of posts from others basically glorified sandbox activity-fine text is text, but If I'm to hopefully get back to discussing the topics-lets just live and let learn.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-26 01:53pm

If you sincerely want to discuss the points, perhaps you could refrain from your continued style over substance fallacies. Even in your last message, ostensibly calling to return to the topic at hand, you did not discuss the topic at hand. Instead, you made generalizations about the conduct of people on this webboard and said "yes, that is the way of things here."

For the THIRD time, I will point out that your statement "you can lose" given sufficiently unstable leadership is ludicrous in light of the sheer advantage enjoyed by the Empire in this scenario.

For the SECOND time, I will point out that transporters are far too easy to defeat via simple countermeasures, and can even become a serious impediment because of A) their slow deployment rate and B) the fact that you can use tractor beams to arbitrarily REDIRECT them to a place of your choosing (imagine transporting down to a planet only to discover that the people on the planet redirected your transporter beam into space; you would have roughly 3 seconds to think about it before the end).

If you sincerely want to discuss the topic, then shut the fuck up with your style over substance fallacies and just do it.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-01-26 03:46pm

Can Admin give that muppet a VI already.

General Velal · Post by **General Velal** » 2003-01-26 04:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:If you sincerely want to discuss the points, perhaps you could refrain from your continued style over substance fallacies. Even in your last message, ostensibly calling to return to the topic at hand, you did not discuss the topic at hand. Instead, you made generalizations about the conduct of people on this webboard and said "yes, that is the way of things here."

For the THIRD time, I will point out that your statement "you can lose" given sufficiently unstable leadership is ludicrous in light of the sheer advantage enjoyed by the Empire in this scenario.

No I will concede that I'm wrong with the statement, I did not explain that the way I meant it. I stand corrected.

For the SECOND time, I will point out that transporters are far too easy to defeat via simple countermeasures, and can even become a serious impediment because of A) their slow deployment rate and B) the fact that you can use tractor beams to arbitrarily REDIRECT them to a place of your choosing (imagine transporting down to a planet only to discover that the people on the planet redirected your transporter beam into space; you would have roughly 3 seconds to think about it before the end).

Well for the second time again, when did I debate this?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Star Trek adds one factor that has never been explained and that is how Transporter Technology would rewrite standard military movement rules. They attempted to say in one DS9 Episode (The Same one where we see the Feds version of a flak jacket and references to some sort of Ground Combat Vehicle called a Hopper-too little to late IMHO) that the Enemy in this case Klingons placed Scramblers (Transpot Disrupting devices) which I assume limits where your enemy can beam to.

This means that you would you use combat craft to get to the surface-thus meaning more conventional warfare so the UFP should have all of the required aspects of that Armour/Camoflage/Dedicated Ground vehicles-Yuck, Its never been addressed properly and even then it would not make sense."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How are we arguing about a shared viewpoint? You add that tractor beams are another reason to my example of Scramblers why teleporting does not make sense to use to deploy troops! WHAT IS IT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND-How after reading that are we debating if Teleporting was a viable method to deploy troops and to defeat- I say why it would not work in my ONLY comment on that subject on page 1 of this topic in a reply to MoO. I do not argue for it-ITS THERE READ IT. I'm clearly against it, I say Yuck! I do not not like the concept or its ramfications.

If you sincerely want to discuss the topic, then shut the fuck up with your style over substance fallacies and just do it.

I see this Style over substance term is used everywhere-how does my clumsy writing ever have the style to suppress the content which I place my empasis on to the point where I miss letters etc? That is the Substance you mean -the actual "Meaning of the text"? Please clarify this for me.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-01-26 04:30pm

General Velal wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:If you sincerely want to discuss the points, perhaps you could refrain from your continued style over substance fallacies. Even in your last message, ostensibly calling to return to the topic at hand, you did not discuss the topic at hand. Instead, you made generalizations about the conduct of people on this webboard and said "yes, that is the way of things here."

For the THIRD time, I will point out that your statement "you can lose" given sufficiently unstable leadership is ludicrous in light of the sheer advantage enjoyed by the Empire in this scenario.
No I will concede that I'm wrong with the statement, I did not explain that the way I meant it. I stand corrected.

For the SECOND time, I will point out that transporters are far too easy to defeat via simple countermeasures, and can even become a serious impediment because of A) their slow deployment rate and B) the fact that you can use tractor beams to arbitrarily REDIRECT them to a place of your choosing (imagine transporting down to a planet only to discover that the people on the planet redirected your transporter beam into space; you would have roughly 3 seconds to think about it before the end).
Well for the second time again, when did I debate this?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Star Trek adds one factor that has never been explained and that is how Transporter Technology would rewrite standard military movement rules. They attempted to say in one DS9 Episode (The Same one where we see the Feds version of a flak jacket and references to some sort of Ground Combat Vehicle called a Hopper-too little to late IMHO) that the Enemy in this case Klingons placed Scramblers (Transpot Disrupting devices) which I assume limits where your enemy can beam to.

This means that you would you use combat craft to get to the surface-thus meaning more conventional warfare so the UFP should have all of the required aspects of that Armour/Camoflage/Dedicated Ground vehicles-Yuck, Its never been addressed properly and even then it would not make sense."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How are we arguing about a shared viewpoint? You add that tractor beams are another reason to my example of Scramblers why teleporting does not make sense to use to deploy troops! WHAT IS IT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND-How after reading that are we debating if Teleporting was a viable method to deploy troops and to defeat- I say why it would not work in my ONLY comment on that subject on page 1 of this topic in a reply to MoO. I do not argue for it-ITS THERE READ IT. I'm clearly against it, I say Yuck! I do not not like the concept or its ramfications.

If you sincerely want to discuss the topic, then shut the fuck up with your style over substance fallacies and just do it.

I see this Style over substance term is used everywhere-how does my clumsy writing ever have the style to suppress the content which I place my empasis on to the point where I miss letters etc? That is the Substance you mean -the actual "Meaning of the text"? Please clarify this for me.

Style over Substance -
Where you nitpick and complain over how the information is presented to you rather than the what it is.....

i.e. All your AK/DW stuff earlier.....

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2003-01-26 06:39pm

Perhaps, but an Imperial loss would be almost inexplicable,

Imperial loss against the rebels was inexplicable. The rebels might have been orders of magnitude greater than the Federation, but they were still like a wasp to an elephant on the Empire.

The Empire is a classic despotic state, it's only as stable politically as it's leader. And the emperor, well, wasn't very.

The Empire is not a good long term bet, as it would inevitably tear itself apart, as it was already starting to do near the end (rogue admirals in the partly legitemised game stories, etc), We can see, from the Emperor's progression through from TPM, that his schemes are getting closer and closer to himself, and more and more needlessly elaborate. He turned from someone who was quite happy to stir shit up fifty thousand light years away, to someone who had to Be There, and he turned from someone who planned absolute win-win situations (any outcome in TPM pointed to him getting what he wanted) to someone who planned a silly game so he could show off his new toy. Had the Emperor been marginally sane by the time of Endor, he would have been sitting on a beach somewhere whilst a more-than-capable warfleet minced the rebels within seconds of their arrival.

It might have been stunning bad luck that eventually did for him, but if his plans were getting that outlandish, it wouldn't have been long before something went wrong, some new upstart rebellion, ambitious warlord, or other dissatisfied faction got the better of him, and then the Empire tears itself apart..

In the Vs. context, you probably wouldn't have too long to wait until something close to the Federation re-established itself. They might be the arch communist state with the best PR men in the universe, but they're less prone to instability that the psyche of one fucked up individual.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-26 07:51pm

General Velal wrote:Well for the second time again, when did I debate this?

You did not address it at all. You said transporters would rewrite the rules unless the enemy has transport scrambling tech, I pointed out that they don't NEED transport scrambling tech, and there are many countermeasures which would not require any technical knowledge of how transporters work. If you didn't mean that the way it came out, then I guess we have no issue.

I see this Style over substance term is used everywhere-how does my clumsy writing ever have the style to suppress the content which I place my empasis on to the point where I miss letters etc? That is the Substance you mean -the actual "Meaning of the text"? Please clarify this for me.

The term "style over substance" refers to the common practice of attacking an argument by focusing on the manner in which it is presented, rather than its content. For example:

JIM: "If evolution is true, then why don't we see lizards turning into birds today?"

BOB: "That's the dumbest fucking question I've ever heard. Evolution does not describe one animal transforming into another! Do you even understand how it works?"

JIM: "I see you can't deal with my argument so you resort to harsh language."

Do you see the problem with Jim's "reasoning"? That's called the "style over substance" fallacy. he attacks Bob's argument by attacking its style rather than its substance.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Please Explain the Ground Battle on Endor

oopsie, missed a bit