Moderator: Vympel
So please, keep your armchair-moderating to yourself, especially when it was shown to you that Saxton DOES have an ego problem and has issues with accepting when he's wrong, or that his word is NOT canon.
They name us as well as being "Saxtonian" and imply we're intractable retards.Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Fuck, why are these idiotic assholes such bastards to someone whose site is hosted by the same one they bitch on?
It's horrible that Doctor Saxton is treated as such...
He has an "ego problem" and rejects official accounts where they contradict simple conclusions from movie canon--which they call "making up his own canon" or something.Lord_Xerxes wrote:What exactly is their beef with Saxton anyway?
I think perhaps a rallying of the troops might be in order. Time to Layeth the Imperial Smackdown (TM) on them.
Isn't that kind of stupid of them? If they're going by that, then wouldn't Saxton's work with his books be just as much weighted as what they say it's contradicting?Illuminatus Primus wrote:He has an "ego problem" and rejects official accounts where they contradict simple conclusions from movie canon--which they call "making up his own canon" or something.Lord_Xerxes wrote:What exactly is their beef with Saxton anyway?
I think perhaps a rallying of the troops might be in order. Time to Layeth the Imperial Smackdown (TM) on them.
Simply put--its based on the fact none of them have any sense of logic or scientific thought--and all of them think the end and the beginning of the SW continuity policy is Rostini's "everything is canon" quote.
I see. But wasn't Saxton commisioned to do such things, at a later date than the WEG books? Out of curiosity, Do Saxton's figures correlated with any of the material in the Wizard's source books, which overide the WEG material?Illuminatus Primus wrote:Well they grudgingly accept AOTC ICS. They call it "technobabble" and "overly scientific" etc.
They instead quibble over where Saxton tells WEG and its children to fuck off.
Imperial vs. Imperator
Executor length.
ISD as destroyer/Executor as commandship/etc (roles)
DS II length
You get the idea.
So the Ewoks reall were killed off after the battle of Endor?Ender wrote:Did you point out to them that as of I68 his work is infact canon?
Incidently, yes according to some of the sources, no according to the others. But either way bite me, you know what I meant.Drooling Iguana wrote:So the Ewoks reall were killed off after the battle of Endor?Ender wrote:Did you point out to them that as of I68 his work is infact canon?
Thank you for proving yet again you don't have a clue what is going on and are just actively working to ingratiate yourself into the community.Tribun wrote:FINALLY!So the Ewoks reall were killed off after the battle of Endor?
I hated the Ewoks with a passion, I cann't describe. A idiotic race less in the SW galaxy!
Oh, because of that.The fact that your statement, whatever the actual sentiment, makes you sound like a me-too n00b!3 kiss-ass who only wants to fit in and be one of the boys...
Matthew Trias wrote:The Imperator in TIE Fighter operated under the traitor Grand Admiral Zaarin.
Imperator in the X wing novels didn't seem too prestigious. If I recall correctly, the book says that the two ships guarding Coruscant duidn't have the best crews.
So, an Imperator class is only 400 meters, eh? Anyone ever wonder if perhaps when we see the smaller Star Destroyers next to Executor that they're actually Imperator and not the six Imperial class ships that were in Death Squadron? The ESB novelization mentions smaller support ships in the fleet. RaptorRage, ever think about doing a comparison of an 8 kilometer SSD next to 400 meter Imperator Class Ships?
darthjarjarbinks wrote:well jesus this whole imperator shenanigans is news to me! i thought the two were used interchangably, referring to the same class of vessel.
And I thought I knew the EU.
I KNOW NOTHING!!!!!!
Syntax (the Asshole) wrote:Nope, Imperator and Imperial refer to different vessel classes.
Unless you ask the SWTC website or stardestroyer.net, or the XWA Update project, in which case you'll get shouted down for claiming that Imperator and Imperial are not interchangeable terms. They're not. And the most-common ones in the original trilogy films are definately Imperial-class.
Bib Fortuna, Twi'lek wrote:Yeah, take everything you read in the SWTC with the largest grain of salt you can find. They are wrong in so many ways.
Note: FTeik is one of the sole defenders of logic and reason and science on the Lit. Board. He's a great guy and I'll post a PM we had once in my next post.FTeik wrote:In what way are the TC wrong? (Lets for one moment forget, that they don´t agree with some naming-conventions or have different ideas of scale).
Mandell´s early IMPERATOR-blueprints show the ship, that was supposed to be in ANH. It was later scaled up from 486 meters to one mile. Despite that, the name Imperator can be kept.
And if you want to take the ships from the movies as a yardstick, those can´t be "Imperial"-Class-vessels, since the one mile long destroyers from the movies have very different numbers and sizes of weapons than those discribed by WEG and other sources.
Bib Fortuna, Twi'lek wrote:He is wrong in the following areas:
Designation of Imperial-class Star Destroyers.
Function of Star Destroyer bridge domes.
TIE fighter solar panels.
Endor holocaust.
And many, many more.
RaptorRage wrote:Mandel likely based his Imperator blueprints on the early size comparison sketch by Joe Johnson that had the Blockade Runner just a bit larger than the Millenium Falcon, since the Bloackade Runner design was originally going to be Han's ship. But it was later scaled up to ~150 meters as the Corellian Corvette, and for the Corvette to fit in the ISD hangar the ISD likewise got scaled up in its final form.
Valiento wrote:I don't buy a separate Imperator-class of mini-Destroyers. That's entirely based on early ANH concepts, which isn't really applicable to the onscreen and EU scheme of things. If you want to pick and choose from all of the early sketches for stuff to add to the continuity, you've also got a Chewbacca that looks like a zombie/werewolf cross and a green-skinned Han Solo.
Every canon source has referred to the scaled-up movie version of the design as the Imperial-class. There's no basis for calling it the Imperator-class
Valiento wrote:Well, actually mandel blue prints aren't concept art, they were actually an EU product you could buy at the time. It came out a year after the release of the first film in 1978, IIRC.
It's of a ship that wasn't used in the movie though.
I would like proof that it was the same ship seen in the movie too, , considering it wasn't concept art, and it was released a year after the movie was already out. It was released after the size of the film's ship had already been established in the film itself. If it was the same ship, there was no reason for Mandel to make it smaller than it was on screen.
Syntax (the Asshole) wrote:Mandell´s early IMPERATOR-blueprints show the ship, that was supposed to be in ANH. It was later scaled up from 486 meters to one mile. Despite that, the name Imperator can be kept.
However, they weren't in ANH. A totally different ship (which looked totally different and was a different size) was shown in ANH. That's the point.
Every canon source has referred to the scaled-up movie version of the design as the Imperial-class. There's no basis for calling it the Imperator-class.
Bingo, exactly. It is that fact which SWTC (and stardestroyer.net... and the XWA Update project...) has problems coming to grips with.
Endor holocaust.
I was laughing oh so very hard when I read the "Apocalypse Endor" story in one of the more recent issues of Star Wars Tales. Partly because of the blatant 'Aliens' reference ("Maybe they don't show up on infrared at all..."), and partly because of the indirect way it debunks SWTC's "Endor holocaust" theory.
Valiento wrote:How, can the first movie have a "later scaled-up version" of the Imperator, if the Imperator originated 1 year after the release of first movie?
Matthew Trias wrote:There 's also no good reason that a ship can't be named Imperial.
FTeik wrote:And a nuclear air-craft-carrier like the "Nimitz" is an "America"-Class-Carrier. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
And while some EU-sources claim, that for example the paneels of a TIE collect Solar-Energy, we have paneels at Mauls Infiltrator, that are described as heat-radiator (SW:TPM-ICS). Not to mention, that the supposed "solar-paneels" wouldn´t be able to collect enough energy for a space-ship like a TIE. There is only so much energy you can get from a suns radiation of heat and light per square-meter and you can´t get more energy out, than you get in.
As for the Endor-holocaust, there are a lot of explenations, why the ecosystem of the moon survived, but every offered explenation causes problems of its own. If a moon-sized object in a low orbit of perhaps 2,000 kilometers explodes a holocaust is what you get.
Hmmm, nobody has made a comment to the different weapons of "Imperial"-class and the ships shown in the movies
RaptorRage wrote:Forgot to add that, but the WEG stats for the ISD weapons don't match up at all to the visible weapon turrets and emplacements on the movie model, or from the on screen evidence of at least three types or power outputs for the turbolasers, based on the size of the beams. Same for the weapon stats of Executor.
The main problem that I have with the Imperator name for the 1.6km ISD , apart from it representing a different smaller design, is there is no evidence AFIAK that name was used by ILM in creating the ISD, and it would seem to have originated with Mandel. If it even showed up in some concept sketches like those presented in the Art of Star Wars books no doubt it would have been adopted instead of Imperial-class. Or perhaps if Mandel's work was considered source material by WEG it may have been more officially adopted into the continuity.
Lord_Darth_Bob (aka, me) wrote:I kindly and strongly recommend you keep the not-so-subtle mocking of other message forums and an esteemed Star Wars fan and EU author such as Curtis Saxton to yourself.Syntax (the Asshole) wrote:Unless you ask the SWTC website or stardestroyer.net, or the XWA Update project, in which case you'll get shouted down for claiming that Imperator and Imperial are not interchangeable terms. They're not. And the most-common ones in the original trilogy films are definately Imperial-class.
Bingo, exactly. It is that fact which SWTC (and stardestroyer.net... and the XWA Update project...) has problems coming to grips with.
I was laughing oh so very hard when I read the "Apocalypse Endor" story in one of the more recent issues of Star Wars Tales. Partly because of the blatant 'Aliens' reference ("Maybe they don't show up on infrared at all..."), and partly because of the indirect way it debunks SWTC's "Endor holocaust" theory.
Saxton's holocaust theory NEVER claims to be canon--it simply takes scientific facts and in-movie evidence and extrapolates thereof. Where the massive inferiority complex that causes many of this board's denizens to get all bent out of shape over it and insult Saxton comes from, I don't know
Valiento wrote:"Saxton's holocaust theory NEVER claims to be canon"
Actually that is incorrect, as he does infact claim that the endor holocaust is canon in the article on his site.
"The mass-extinction event at Endor is an inevitable physical consequence of the circumstances at the end of Return of the Jedi. As such, it indirectly enjoys canonical status, even though it was not clearly portrayed in the film."
Saxton continues;
A small number of official but unfilmed pieces of STAR WARS fiction have offered brief glimpses of post-Imperial Endor, and at first glance some of these references seem difficult to reconcile with the necessary reality of the cataclysm. There are two possible responses to this problem, and a spectrum of compromises between them:
1. Reject the offending scenes in the novels and comics, or perhaps those works in their entirety. These pieces of fiction are official but non-canonical and therefore wherever there is a conflict they must yield to the facts and direct consequences of Return of the Jedi.
2. Reinterpret the Endor scenes in the secondary works in an attempt to salvage them. Attribute new meaning to the circumstances so that they do not conflict with Return of the Jedi. Regard the aberrations as merely "a certain point of view" disguising parts of the objective reality.
Harmonisation of the continuity is preferable to rejection, since it leaves us with a broader and more detailed view of the STAR WARS universe. Of course, some compromises are unreasonable or impossible to make, and there will be many fans who personally prefer excision of the aberrant fiction for the sake of consistency or out of personal taste. The particular works which are affected by the Endor holocaust are examined below.
-Tech. Comm.
Bib Fortuna, Twi'lek wrote:FTeik, can I ask you an honest question, and get an honest answer from you?
Why do you believe so strongly in what Saxton says on his website, despite what he says not being canon in even the slightest? What he says is no different from any piece of fan fiction
JoruusCbaoth wrote:I take Saxton with a large helping of salt, but his ship analysis is right on. I don't necessarily buy into the Endor Holocaust or a lot of the conclusions he draws about fighter craft, but he does have a degree in astrophysics, which I don't, and that gives him a lot more credibility than I have.
Bib Fortuna, Twi'lek wrote:Actually, he has zero credibility in the Star Wars universe, since nothing he says is a part of that universe.
Valiento wrote:So bib, are you saying that one should be careful that they are not misusing authority [link to logic fallacy website on "Appeal to Authority]?
Bib Fortuna, Twi'lek wrote:Well, that article is too long to really read, but from what I gathered from the skimming I did, it would appear that Saxton is guilty of that crime. He is not an authority on Star Wars, despite his claims, so what he says cannot possibly be true.
Syntax (the Asshole) wrote:Lord_Darth_Bob wrote:I kindly and strongly recommend you keep the not-so-subtle mocking of other message forums and an esteemed Star Wars fan and EU author such as Curtis Saxton to yourself.
I will state my opinions of Saxton (and the other websites I mentioned) wherever and whenever I please. Last I checked, you are not a Moderator here, nor do you speak for the forum or for all of its users. My post has not been edited, nor have I received any sort of message or warning from anyone of authority on this forum. Hence, I have done nothing wrong. So please, keep your armchair-moderating to yourself, especially when it was shown to you that Saxton DOES have an ego problem and has issues with accepting when he's wrong, or that his word is NOT canon.
But if you really feel the need to jump down my throat, you might as well do the same with the other people who didn't support Saxton wholeheartedly.
Amen to that, Bib. I was actually going to post something very similar to that, but you beat me to it.Bib Fortuna, Twi'lek wrote:FTeik, can I ask you an honest question, and get an honest answer from you?
Why do you believe so strongly in what Saxton says on his website, despite what he says not being canon in even the slightest? What he says is no different from any piece of fan fiction
FTeik wrote:To answer the question of Bib and Sytax:
Because, what Saxtons says in many cases (not everyone) makes a lot more sense to me, than what is told in the EU.
To give you an example:
We have already discussed the issue of the domes on a Stardestroyers bridge. In Mandels blueprints they are sensor-domes. In the rest of the EU they are shieldgenerators. It doesn´t matter how many EU-Sources we quote, since they are all copying each other in one way or the other (to keep continuity). We have no canon-source, that the domes are sensors, or that they are shield-generators.
So Stardestroyers are the only ships, that have them. In that case we have to ask ourself the following questions:
1) If the domes are shieldgenerators, are Stardestroyers the only ships with shields, since they are the only ships, that have them?
2) If not, do other ships have shieldgenerators, and if so where are they and why are they not like the domes. Are they inside the main body of the ship or integrated into the hull?
3) If so, why isn´t this the case for the Stardestroyers? Why are the shield-generators in such a vulnerable position?
4) Does a Stardestroyer have only bridge-deflectorshields? What about hangars or the bow of the ship? Why are no domes there?
5) How was this X-Wing able to reach the dome atop Executor, if it is a shieldgenerator and the shield is still supposed to be up?
As you can see a lot of logic and common sense speaks AGAINST those domes being shields.
Another thing are for example the Solar-Panels of a TIE. The surface of the panels is simply to small and the energy-output from solar-energie is simply to small for a vessel with the performance-characteristics of a TIE. Especially for a culture, that has access to technologies and energy-sources, that can contain the equal of a small star (10^26 Watt) in a reactor with ninty meters diameter or destroy entire planets on a whim.
Valiento wrote:"1) If the domes are shieldgenerators, are Stardestroyers the only ships with shields, since they are the only ships, that have them?"
Yes, other ships have them but they have shield generators of varying designs.
"2) If not, do other ships have shieldgenerators, and if so where are they and why are they not like the domes. Are they inside the main body of the ship or integrated into the hull?"
According to EG to VV, they come in all shapes and sizes, some are large boxes, some are domes, some are are large external ovoid domes, some are internal.
"3) If so, why isn´t this the case for the Stardestroyers? Why are the shield-generators in such a vulnerable position?"
The best and largest shield systems, come at a price. According to one of the sourcebooks(which one escapes my mind at the moment) it mentions that the larger the generators the more it effects internal systems of the ship, so to avoid the disturbances they put them on top of the ship farthest away from the internal components(which is why if you look in EGtoVV the generators are located externally on most large capships, in varying different shapes).
"4) Does a Stardestroyer have only bridge-deflectorshields? What about hangars or the bow of the ship? Why are no domes there?"
The domes are just the deflector shield generators, they create the power, for the deflector projectors and relays that are located all over the ship. See guides to Weapons and technology.
"5) How was this X-Wing able to reach the dome atop Executor, if it is a shieldgenerator and the shield is still supposed to be up?"
It's possible to puncture holes in sections of shields by weakening the energy around the section, and overloading the projectors("a projector will burn out rather than overloading the entire shield system"-EGTWAT). As long as a small hole is open it is possible to shoot through to the generators themselves.
On another note sometimes the domes on a star destroyer can be a Sensor Package, such as in the case of the Victory Star Destroyer(EGVV), it has a smaller dome in the aft of the ship, that does aft sensor readings. While the much larger domes are deflector shield generators. The smaller dome is about the size of the domes on the small Imperator-class star destroyer.
As for the solar collectors on TIEs, they aren't just your normal every day solar collectors, as Dr. Reynolds put it, at least on Darth Vader's tie, they are "High Performance Solar Cells", the tie also contain a solar ionization reactor with main fuel tank, as well as auxiliary fuel tanks, to be used in conjunction with the solar energy.
On regular ties that have the older generation "Solar Energy Collectors", Dr. Reynolds also shows that they have Fuel tank to be used in conjunction with the solar energy collectors as well.
Not only that but Dr. Reynolds shows that they not only collect solar energy but they also function as a radiator as well apparently. "Heat exchange matrix"? How efficient.
Lord_Darth_Bob wrote:He's a canon purist. He feels that conclusions reached from the movies via the scientific method/empirical analysis are inherently superior to anything else. If the EU backs it up in his eyes, all the better.
Why is this a problem? He is not a completist, so what?
And the fact that this forum's FAQ has always used the Rostini quote nigh-exclusively as justification for the forum canon policy has personally disturbed me.
He's basically a canon purist. We're completists, so why waste time preaching to the choir and attempting to justify some personal sense of right and wrong? According to Saxton's method and perspective, he is technically correct.
From the holistic/completist perspective, he is unequivically wrong.
Without total denial of disbelief, the idea that they are solar cells is unbelievably stupid. Particularly in interstellar space, but also in intra-system space, there is simply not enough radiant energy to power a craft with the firepower and acceleration characteristics observed from the movies. Even with solar cells capable of absorbing 100% of the energy emitted onto the wings, there just wouldn't be enough power. The best theory compromise I've heard is that they are primarily radiators for the uniquely compact TIE power source in porportion to its power, with a secondary solar cell function that can make cold-starts of the TIE core much easier.Valiento wrote:As for the solar collectors on TIEs, they aren't just your normal every day solar collectors, as Dr. Reynolds put it, at least on Darth Vader's tie, they are "High Performance Solar Cells", the tie also contain a solar ionization reactor with main fuel tank, as well as auxiliary fuel tanks, to be used in conjunction with the solar energy.
On regular ties that have the older generation "Solar Energy Collectors", Dr. Reynolds also shows that they have Fuel tank to be used in conjunction with the solar energy collectors as well.
Not only that but Dr. Reynolds shows that they not only collect solar energy but they also function as a radiator as well apparently. "Heat exchange matrix"? How efficient.
EDIT:
My exception with you Syntax, is you've directly commented on Saxton's integrity and character before. The know-nothing B.S. you spewed about other boards is just icing on the cake. I know for a fact that the Saxton Endor theory is not fully endorsed on stardestroyer.net. It is generally agreed that based on science and ROTJ, it is what should have happened, but evidently did not.
Valiento wrote:"The hexagonal solar panels supply power to a unique propulsion system. Microparticle accelerators propel Ionized gasses at a substantial fraction of lightspeed. These gasses are then expelled from rear vents to generate thrust. The ion streams can be directed along amost any vector, allowing for the TIE's incredible velocity and maneuverability. The twin ion engines have few moving parts and require comparably less maintenance to the starfighters of the Alliance."-starwars.com
That is fairly close to how Dr. Reynolds describes it for the basic tie fighters.
The components of a shield dome are as follows according to EGWT;
External componets;
Armored Shell
Shield Projector Relays
Stabilizer beams
Power Feeds.
Internal components(cross-section);
Shield Generator Banks.
Shield Matrix
Power Coupling.
Other important parts of the deflector shield system located all over the ship;
Shield Relays
Deflector Screen Projector.
TalonCard (anti-science moron) wrote:Oh my gosh! Those solar panels couldn't possibly provide enough energy to power a spacecraft! Sheesh! What were those silly EU writers thinking? It's really a wonder that more people don't realize that it's so important to analyze a science-fiction/fantasy film with real-world science. I really wish people would quit spouting that "suspension of disbelief" nonsense. Really, who suspends their disbelief, anyway?
No, in a galaxy with a mystical energy field, a moon-sized space station capable of vaporizing an entire planet, aliens who look like actors wearing bad masks/and or Muppets/and or CGI creations, and sound and music in space, we have got to examine these films with real-world science (which has never and will not change in the future) in mind. Hail to Dr. Saxton!
TC
Valiento wrote:Excuse me, could you make out a transcript of the events of Ram's Head that you refer to. Because I'm not quite sure what your talking about.
Because they certainly didn't move them in Super-star destroyers, ISDs, ISDIIs, Vics, and all previous ships to have external shield domes in any of the books.
Though it is true that many of the newer class star destroyers such as eclipse, had a master shield generator shaped up on the command tower that was shaped like a large box(EGVV), and more individual smaller box-shaped generators located in various portions all over the ship.
Cradok wrote:Except for the Executor, apparently.Later classes and builds of SDs did not have shield domes.
Operation Red Hand was in the Imperial Pursuit add-on for X-Wing. The Rebels captured a specially shielded Corvette and used it to ram and destroy - or at least cripple - sevearl ISDs at a shipyard. I don't remember anything about ISD shield generators, though.
Syntax (the Asshole) wrote:Hm, I actually received a pornographic private message from some user "StarWarsGeek001", and looking through my latest posts I'm figuring it was due to my earlier post to Lord_Darth_Bob in this thread.
Lord_Darth_Bob:
My exception with you Syntax, is you've directly commented on Saxton's integrity and character before.
Who cares? It's not your place to comment on my opinions. Talk to me about it again when you're a Moderator.
I know for a fact that the Saxton Endor theory is not fully endorsed on stardestroyer.net.
I never said they did. I said they support the "Imperator-class" stuff, which is wrong, as was shown earlier.
FTeik:
Because, what Saxtons says in many cases (not everyone) makes a lot more sense to me, than what is told in the EU.
Clarify for me, does that somehow change the fact that the EU is canon and Saxton's fan website is not?
TalonCard:
It's really a wonder that more people don't realize that it's so important to analyze a science-fiction/fantasy film with real-world science.
Have you ever read 'The Science of Star Wars'? It's actually a very interesting book.
Lord_Darth_Bob wrote:Evidently you didn't read or understand the whole point.Valiento wrote:He claims that it is indirectly canonical(which means he calls it canonical),and he goes even further to say that one has to either, 1. ignore eu sources(that mention endor after events of ROTJ), or 2. change EU events(that mention endor after ROTJ) so that it fits with canon of the films(or indirect canon as he calls the endor holocaust), which is essentially saying the same thing that his idea is more canonical than EU sources.
Saxton's comments are the direct physical and realistic consequence of absolute canon events shown in Return of the Jedi.
It is the consequence of taking the premises laid in ROTJ and observing what logically would've happened afterward.
Saxton views the movies as having absolute canon status with everything implied and concluded thereof being an ultimate consequence of absolute canon and thus as good as reality. He views the EU as a secondary but non-canon source. Thus extrapolating from in-movie events is more canonical in his perspective of canon policy than EU sources to the contrary. Like I said, he is (in comparison to this board) a canon purist.
I have yet to find a flaw with Saxton's methods? What's your point? Is this just an Appeal to Authority?Syntax wrote:Have you ever read 'The Science of Star Wars'? It's actually a very interesting book.
Valiento wrote:I'm sure that most "purists" don't think about devastation of Endor, when they watch the movies. Actually I'm pretty sure that plenty of purists would say that's fanfic and ignore it because it isn't shown in the movie itself(they tend to only listen to what Lucas himself has said in interviews, and in other places).
Actually it seems that you are the one that doesn't understand, the point is saxton is wrong. I'm not at all insulting Saxton's character, when I say that, but stating a hard cold fact. I find it insulting that you think I'm insulting his character by pointing out the facts...
The fact is Lucas never wrote in his story that Endor died, since it doesn't exist in the movie, even if it is the outcome that would occur had it not been in a fictional univers such as on earth, it doesn't necesserily have to occur in his story of his universe.
Even Lucas when developing the story for star tours thought of Endor as still being around fine and well. So to lucas himself it's not destroyed.
For saxton to say it is canon, is putting words into lucas mouth, that he never said in his story. Again, that's not insulting his character, but stating a fact. Saxton has the right to ignore Lucas viewpoint if he wants to. Does that make his idea canon as he believes, according to lucas and LFL? No. That is just a fact.
Also, IIRC, there was once an interview where someone asked Lucas if the ewoks died in some kind of Endorian holocaust due to the destruction of the death star. Lucas replied and I parphrase from memory, no, the Ewoks on endor are alive and well, my universe doesn't follow normal physics. Now if anyone knows where the interview I mentioned is located, could you kindly point to the source?
Saxton can believe that's what happened, does that make him a bad person for doing it? No. But does it make him correct in the slightest? Not at all. What he declares as being canon, can't be canon in the slightest, as it's not even endorsed by lucas himself.
Anything we can do to get this guy on-board?FTeik wrote:@Lord Darth Bob aka Illuminatus Primus.
Thank you for your kind words and your invitation. Its refreshing to see, that TF.net isn´t only populated by morons and fan(atical)s of the worst kind, but people of ratio and logic. To be noticed in that way is a reward in itself.
To answer your offer:
Actually i knew about Michael Wong´s site long before i knew about TF.net. At that time i didn´t spent my time with forums at the internet and even today i limit myself to a handful of those. I also used the internet in a totally different (more business-orientated) way, while my passion for SW had to be satisfied with the publications on paper (novels and comics), what was sometimes a very hard and unsatisfying time, especially during the Bantham-era and with novels from KJA or Barbara Hambley (this woman wrote some of the most intersting StarTrek-novels i´ve read, but with StarWars her talent was gone). The release of TPM however made me wonder, whats on the net about StarWars and so i put the term „stardestroyer“ into a search-engine and so i landed at Stardestroyer.net. I looked, i read and i didn´t trust my eyes. I always knew, that ST didn´t stand a chance against SW, but i never thought the situation to be THAT bad. So i took my pocket-calculator, my books about physics and chemistry, watched some of the episodes and ..., well, you probabely know, how those things go.
From stardestroyer.net i made the jump to the TechnicalCommentries and the ASVS-newsgroup. Finally i had discovered stories, that dealt with the technical as well as the aspects of tactics and strategies of the SW-Universe and not those low-temperatured stories you can find everywhere and after some time i was encouraged to write my own stories (you can find the links to them in my signature, if you are interested, they are all close or above megabyte-size and still not finished. If you ignore the mistakes in spelling and grammer of those early days (i´m german so english isn´t my first language) you should be able to enjoy them (i also had bad luck with beta-readers, so i quit that some time ago, i plan to make a complete and corrected redo when i´m finished).
From one of those sides i finally came to TF.net and ... here i am.
To get back to your invitation, when the forum was added to stardestroyer.net i made an application for membership, got a password and made one or two posts. One day i tried to log in and it didn´t work. Things stayed that way and since i was busy with other things during that time, i didn´t put to much effort into changing it.
So while i still read whats going on, i simply don´t add my thoughts to your discussions, but maybe its time to give it a second try and come back (i totally agree with your ideas about the rebels at Endor, while i have other ideas about the Chiss for example).
Even if i don´t make it to the forum of stardestroyer.net i would like to talk to you again to share thoughts and to exchange ideas. Maybe at the boards, maybe per personal messages or per e-mail.
My adress is:
fteik@aol.com
Yours
FTeik
Some one help me defeat this shit.Syntax wrote:"Saxton's conclusion is based on NOTHING greater that the evidence presented in the absolute canon film of ROTJ."
The flaw with that statement is, his CONCLUSION is not canon. His evidence may be, but his conclusion is nothing but fan-fiction, unless it is endorsed by LucasFilm Ltd itself. And frankly, it has not been. That is the bottom line.
). How would they look at it if Saxton's site was hosted at StarWars.com?
