MASSIVE UPDATE!

[CmdrWilkens]

I feel proud to have contributed a grand total of one (1) argument that made it onto Wayne's site.

[Lord Poe]

Suggestion for Worf's marksmanship Wayne. I remember a TNG episode where Worf is practicing target shooting in the holodeck with Guinan and he absolutely SUCKS. Someone see if it can be found.

I remember that, yes! You'd think the security officer would be a better shot!

In "A Matter of Honor", Riker and Picard exhibit MUCH better accuracy that Worf ever showed, when they used the same simulator for target practice.

You can actually try it a home. Have someone use a flashlight against a wall, and see if you can hit a bullseye with a laser pointer! I got that tip from Brian Young!

Then, check out Solo's snapshot in ROTJ when he shoots one of the stormtroopers in the head, who was easily 30 feet away.

Also, for the TDIC argument. In "Pen Pals" they showed a planet with a severly disrupted surface showing that the Trek writers do know how to show such things and they are within the budget. See if anyone has a screen shot from that episode. I don't unfortunately.

I'll look for it!

[Lord Poe]

I feel proud to have contributed a grand total of one (1) argument that made it onto Wayne's site.

Really? I thought I had a few of your thoughts sprinkled around!

[Connor MacLeod]

I feel proud to have contributed a grand total of one (1) argument that made it onto Wayne's site.

Hah! I outnumber you!

[Connor MacLeod]

And you STILL forgot to add my corrections about the concussion grenades (and the volatility of blaster gas) into your "AT-ATs are thin-skinned" page.

Ah, keep your kilt on! Its all up now!

You still didn't credit me for the corrections on "AT-AT's are thin skinned page"

[Connor MacLeod]

I can also recognize the sticky, semantics-whore hand of Edam in that, particularily in the BDZ page

Err... I'm not sure if Edam was present in that particular debate. I think it was all Gothmog and IXJAC commenting on my old BDZ page.

Hmm.. you sure? Alot of that sounded like what Edam spouted off in the BDZ debate with Mike.

[Connor MacLeod]

oh yes, and when you DO credit me.. its "Connor MacLeod."

I'm getting tired of people spelling it "Conner."

[The Silence and I]

Nice, thourough work. I love reading what idiotic trekkies have to say

I liked your AT-ST's are thin skined page, I had always assumed the logs had done it in, any flashes just being a side show. It still seems they are very lightly armored, but not as badly as I thought.

[Isolder74]

Nice, thourough work. I love reading what idiotic trekkies have to say

I liked your AT-ST's are thin skined page, I had always assumed the logs had done it in, any flashes just being a side show. It still seems they are very lightly armored, but not as badly as I thought.

We are also not talking about tiny logs here these are redwoods have you ever seen the size of those things? The Logs that slammed into the AT-ST were 1/4 the size of the walker's "head". That is alot of mass even if it is just wood! It is just extra nice for the Ewoks that it slammed into a volitile part of the vehicle.

[Darth Servo]

I feel proud to have contributed a grand total of one (1) argument that made it onto Wayne's site.

Hah! I outnumber you!

Sniff. I don't even have any credits on the page yet. Hopefully he can find the two visuals I suggested.

[Lord Poe]

You still didn't credit me for the corrections on "AT-AT's are thin skinned page"

Eh? Did you check the "What's New" page?

http://h4h.com/louis/new.html

[Connor MacLeod]

You still didn't credit me for the corrections on "AT-AT's are thin skinned page"

Eh? Did you check the "What's New" page?

http://h4h.com/louis/new.html

Yes, but it doesnt specify that it was for that (And you didnt credit me on the page itself - don't you credit people on the pages themselveS?):D

[Lord Poe]

You still didn't credit me for the corrections on "AT-AT's are thin skinned page"

Eh? Did you check the "What's New" page?

http://h4h.com/louis/new.html

Yes, but it doesnt specify that it was for that (And you didnt credit me on the page itself - don't you credit people on the pages themselveS?):D

Damn, what a pushy bastard!

I usually don't unless its huge enough to be a paragraph. Like the Brian Young stuff. Not to worry, your BDZ stuff will get credit on the PAGE, ok?

Jeeeeez...

[Connor MacLeod]

Eh? Did you check the "What's New" page?

http://h4h.com/louis/new.html

Yes, but it doesnt specify that it was for that (And you didnt credit me on the page itself - don't you credit people on the pages themselveS?):D

Damn, what a pushy bastard!

I usually don't unless its huge enough to be a paragraph. Like the Brian Young stuff. Not to worry, your BDZ stuff will get credit on the PAGE, ok?

Jeeeeez...

Heh. I'd say "bite me" but I'm afraid of your response.

But I see your point. You used to have that huge "Ambush at Corellia" PDD up on your page and credited that Living Holocron chap. HE contributes almost as much as I do.

Which reminds me, how much stuff have I actually contributed? I have lost track

[Lord Poe]

Heh. I'd say "bite me" but I'm afraid of your response.

<stops typing>

But I see your point. You used to have that huge "Ambush at Corellia" PDD up on your page and credited that Living Holocron chap. HE contributes almost as much as I do.

Yup, that guy is long winded sometimes.

Which reminds me, how much stuff have I actually contributed? I have lost track

A lot. But most of it is still sitting on my hard drive! I've got a lot of things going at once right now, and only mess with the updates when I get a chance. Right now I'm working on arguments from "The Bacta War" and "Wedge's Gamble"

You contribute just about as much as Living Holocron, though! Was it you or he that sent those picture of SW ships seeming to hyp THROUGH a planet for the Tactics page? (That's still on my HD too!)

[Lord Poe]

BTW, the "Bacta War" arguments are up!

http://h4h.com/louis/pdd/tbw.html

[Lord Poe]

[quote="Lord Poe"]BTW, the "Bacta War" arguments are up!

EDIT!:
http://h4h.com/louis/pdd1/tbw.html

[Durandal]

The BDZ debates were classics.

[Connor MacLeod]

BTW, the "Bacta War" arguments are up!

EDIT!:
http://h4h.com/louis/pdd1/tbw.html

Some points:

1.) You neglected to mention Wizards of the Coast, which CLEARLY define different size and classes of torpedoes. Perhaps Wilkens can provide you the relevant source data.

2.) In regard s to the Corruptor, you forgot to notice that Wedge never thought it was a certainty that his squadron could bring down the torpedoes (suggesting that while its possible for X-wings to do it with a single squadron, its maybe at most bare minimum)

3.) Shadows of the Empire indicated 13 x-wings could nto be harmed substantially by "fighter wattage" lasers and proton torpedoes.

[Connor MacLeod]

Yup, that guy is long winded sometimes.

Could be worse. Could be darkstar

A lot. But most of it is still sitting on my hard drive! I've got a lot of things going at once right now, and only mess with the updates when I get a chance. Right now I'm working on arguments from "The Bacta War" and "Wedge's Gamble"

I saw bActa war.. whats with Wedge's Gamble?

You contribute just about as much as Living Holocron, though! Was it you or he that sent those picture of SW ships seeming to hyp THROUGH a planet for the Tactics page? (That's still on my HD too!)

Probably me. Jedi Council, acts of War.

We saw something similar I think in Hutt Gambit (the "less than one light second" hyperspace jump) Not like there isnt tons of evidence already for course changes in hyperspace

[Lord Poe]

I saw bActa war.. whats with Wedge's Gamble?

That has to deal with Trekkies trying to prove that a fully shielded Golan Defense Platform was taken out by a sun mirror. Of course, when one actually reads the book, we see that isn't the case. I'll have it up (hopefully) by the end of the week.

[Connor MacLeod]

I saw bActa war.. whats with Wedge's Gamble?

That has to deal with Trekkies trying to prove that a fully shielded Golan Defense Platform was taken out by a sun mirror. Of course, when one actually reads the book, we see that isn't the case. I'll have it up (hopefully) by the end of the week.

Have you pointed out that ray shields are required to block interstellar radiation (pointed out a few times - SWE I think, I know it was stated in Tyrant's Test.) - which would sort of infer that ray shields do in fact block sunlight (which is just a form of EM radiation)

[Connor MacLeod]

I saw bActa war.. whats with Wedge's Gamble?

That has to deal with Trekkies trying to prove that a fully shielded Golan Defense Platform was taken out by a sun mirror. Of course, when one actually reads the book, we see that isn't the case. I'll have it up (hopefully) by the end of the week.

That reminds me of an argument I had with Edam over one of the range-calcs I did based on Wedge's gamble. (He tried nitpicking the definition of geostationary orbit) - which of course simply would kick him in the ass later on when it came to Krytos trap

[Lord Edam]

That reminds me of an argument I had with Edam over one of the range-calcs I did based on Wedge's gamble. (He tried nitpicking the definition of geostationary orbit)

[url=http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... genumber=7]No[/quote]

Unless you go by other names that's the only time I remember we discussed geostrationary orbit. It was to do with SirNitram's claims - and you agreed with most of what I said.

We never disagreed on the defition of geostationary

Why must you insist on lying about past discussions? Surely there's enough of my stuff you can use without having to make more crap up?

[Connor MacLeod]

Unless you go by other names that's the only time I remember we discussed geostrationary orbit. It was to do with SirNitram's claims - and you agreed with most of what I said.

I made some agreements, but you pointedly ignored the fact they were irrelevant to the point at hand, nor did you ever address the points I ever made. You misrepresented both the passage in question, ignored my argument, and claimed victory based on agreement with some of your (irrelevant) nitpicks. In short, your usual dishonest debating method.

Ironically, that's also the one where you ran away without ever conceding. Much like how any debate where you get your ass kicked ends.

We never disagreed on the defition of geostationary

Actually you tried claiming it was an artificially generated orbit. I claimed it was as stated (the standard definition of geostationary.) you never proved that it was an artificial orbit. You also tried to claim it wasn't a "standard Imperial procedure" and attach additional unsupported statements to the quote.

Why must you insist on lying about past discussions? Surely there's enough of my stuff you can use without having to make more crap up?

Who's making anything up? Its all there for everyone to see - much like every single BS argument you have made that you have gotten your ass kicked on by me, Wayne, or others. The only one engaged in any dishonesty is, as usual, you. You ignored my points, latched onto the irrelevant nitpicks to claim your victory, and attempted (yet again) to reinterpret canon. When it failed, you ran away like the testicle-less coward you are - just like you always do.