Imperial Star Destroyer or Imperator class Star Destroyer ?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

One little nit: How did you know that Interdictor Star Destroyer is the Dominator-class. Saxton calls it the Dominator class provisionally for it is the first one of its class that he sees (and we all borrow that nomenclature for our FanFics,) but I never knew it was the official class desingation anywhere.

The nitpick is taken, but I can raise the Kidd, Spruance, and Ticonderoga classes as examples of different classes sharing hullform in the real world. It's completely within precedent when you make changes of the size observed even within the so-called Imperator-I and Imperator-II subtypes (being referred to as-such here due to the existence of so-called Imperial-I and Imperial-II subtypes; because they share the same number designation we do not actually know which ones are Imperial Mk. I, Imperial Mk. II, Imperial Mk.III, and Imperial Mk.IV, or if there was even another mark before them, etc) to designate them as totally different classes within a nation's navy. So while the KDY universal designation is certainly "Imperial", we have no idea of the names of the Imperial-type classes in the Imperial Starfleet at this time.

We may, however, be able to pin down a name for the Imperial-type, or at least one of the marks, in Republican service. Possibly the Emancipator or perhaps the Rebel Dream, though I understand there is some contention that the later ship is not of the Imperial-type at all (it may however just be another mk., leaving us with the possibility of both Emancipator and Rebel Dream classes in Republican service).

[CmdrWilkens]

Here is my general problem:

Naming conventions (especially those used by the world today wherin different nations use different class designations based on the first ship they recieve) do not apply to the SW world. There is absolutely zero evidence that the SW universe utilizes the tendency for navies on our planet to name their ships solely based on the first ship that a paticular nation recieves. In fact the vast differentiation in ship classification would highly indicate that SW naming and classification conventions are no where near analogous to thsoe practiced on Eatrth right now.

Given that every reference to the 1600m long triangular hullform has been as the Imperial-class. Without ANY contradictory evidence we must assume that whatever root word in basic translates to "Imperial" it is the name for the class which the Star Destroyers are in. The only evidence for any different title is pure conjecture based entirely on naming and conventions used on Earth NOT in the SW universe.

[Illuminatus Primus]

*snip*

Each New Class design is named for the first-of-type.

No less than 12 explicit examples.

Concession Accepted.

[CmdrWilkens]

*snip*

Each New Class design is named for the first-of-type.

No less than 12 explicit examples.

Concession Accepted.

There is proof that they are named for first of class, however there is no proof that they follow the convention of different class names for different nations. Any proof of that?

[Illuminatus Primus]

There is proof that they are named for first of class, however there is no proof that they follow the convention of different class names for different nations. Any proof of that?

Given that the closest analogy and understanding of class-designations is from real life that they are given by each navy to the vessel, and your lack of evidence for any suitable alternative, where's your leg to stand on?

Even if you're right, and somehow the SW navies aren't allowed or something to classify their own ships' class-names, than you're de facto claiming that only the manufacturer sets class-names (who else? where is your alternative model for nomenclature?). By virtue of that, you're claiming that Imperial-class is a KDY designation for the 1600 meter hullform and you're agreeing with Duchess.

So what's the beef?

[Publius]

It doesn't matter that there's no requirement- the similarity is nevertheless there.

Dear sir, on Sunday, October 26, 2003, at 0154, you wrote the following:

I never said that all names must be consistent, just class.

To wit, you stated very clearly and in no uncertain terms that "class must be consistent". The word "must" does signify a requirement; in this case, a requirement which does not exist. You have now conceded (on October 26, 2003, at 0154) that there is no requirement that names within a class be consistent, and (id., at 0435) that there is no requirement that names of classes themselves be consistent. The inevitable question that must be asked of you, then, is this: How, precisely, is the dissimilarity of the name "Imperial-class" significant, if you have conceded that there is no requirement of similarity in the first place?

Obligation or no (highly debatable, considering that the constant theme of the prequels is that the Republic *is* the Empire), the pattern is demonstrable.

Regardless of whether there is or is not a pattern, it is insignificant (as you yourself have conceded). The Galactic Empire may be constructed out of the corpse of the Galactic Republic, and may share a certain aesthetic continuity, but this is wholly insignificant in terms of its constitutional identity. Even if it were, and the Empire were under some chimerical obligation to continue to use the nomenclature of the Republic, this would still be insignificant: the Republic is under no obligation to use consistent nomenclature, either.

You yourself have stated that there is no requirement that names within a class be consistent, or that names of classes be consistent. By definition, if there is no such requirement, then the Republic need not do so. Even if we arbitrarily impose upon the Empire the obligation to follow the nomenclature of the Republic, then it inevitably follows that the Empire need not do so, either.

The Republic and Empire are hardly different polities- again, the Republic and Empire are the same entity, with mere aesthetic differences. The military structure of the Empire were established late in the Republic, after all. As to the post-Episode VI 'super' vessels, it's possible that their status as super-laser equipped warships, or the mere fact that there aren't that many names left ending with 'or' (Censor, Superior, and Praetor spring to mind- Dictator is a possibility but I remember a ship of that name being a VSD or ISD perhaps) conveying enough of the required menace to be appropriate (Sovereign shares some similarity, Eclipse seems to have gotten it's name from it's black hull and gargantuan bulk/length) precluded the use of such a name.

Imprimis, the Galactic Empire is a completely different political creature than the Galactic Republic; the Republic had no Galactic Emperor endowed with despotic power, no circle of grand admirals, no Grand Moff Governors ruling whole regions without Senatorial or Ministerial oversight, no standing Army and Navy (until the dictatorial Supreme Chancellor passed the Military Creation Act), and certainly no quasi-official political apparatus like COMPNOR. The difference between the Empire and the Republic is as profound as the difference between the First Republic and the First Empire in France.

In the second place, you appear to be inconsistent in your approach. Why can the later ship names (viz., Sovereign, Eclipse) be rationalised and excused, but not Imperial? The time constraint you have imposed (viz., after Episode VI) is wholly arbitrary, and equally unsubstantiated. Even if one were to insist on consistent nomenclature, then there is no reason whatever that the "Imperial-class" should be ineligible for the exemption applied to the later Super Star Destroyers.

Rothana is canonically a subsidiary of KDY (Ep2ICS)- both the Kuat sectorial fleet ships and the Republic-commissioned have class names common in form and theme- either Kuat does the naming for it's subsidiaries or Rothana does them itself. The burden of proof is also not on me to show that the Imperial Navy does *not* do something (shifting the burden of proof). The similarities are sufficient enough as it is, and cut across the boundaries of non-military sectorial fleet, Republican fleet, and Imperial fleet (though in the latter case I don't see there as being a difference- the Republic IS the Empire).

Yes, Rothana Heavy Engineering is a subsidiary corporation of Kuat Drive Yards; however, the article "Mining Guild to Fine Exarga" in HoloNet News Vol. 531 #52 indicates that it was at least generally believed to be a competitor of KDY, suggesting that the term "dummy corporation" is perhaps more accurate.

On Sunday, October 26, 2003, at 0154, you wrote:

[...] in addition, there is contrary evidence that indicates that the Imperials do not name their own ship classes- Procurator and Mandator are Kuat Drive Yards sectorial fleet ships (note the Republic itself didn't have a military of it's own at this stage)- and Acclamator, which was commissioned for the Republic itself, retained the form and theme.

Now, then, sir, it is you who have made a claim (viz., that the Imperial Navy does not name its own ship classes) and stated that there is evidence to support it. You have not provided this evidence, and failed to satisfy the burden of proof that lay upon you to support your claim. The evidence that you did present is irrelevant and by definition does not support your claim, as none of it has anything to do with the Imperial Navy. You have stated that there is evidence to support your claim; please present it.

Furthermore, you yourself have conceded that there is no requirement of consistency of ships' names within a class or of consistency among class names themselves. The similarity of names that you cite is consequently insignificant, because by your own admission, there simply does not exist any requirement to maintain that similarity. It is no more than a curiosity that some of the known class names end with the Latin suffix -tor; this is hardly more significant than the fact that HMS King George V and USS George Washington were both named for men named George.

If you have already acknowledged that there is no requirement of consistency either within a class or among the classes themselves, then why do you persist in arguing? You are in effect conceding that your position is untenable, and proceeding to defend it nevertheless.

PUBLIUS

[Vympel]

To wit, you stated very clearly and in no uncertain terms that "class must be consistent". The word "must" does signify a requirement; in this case, a requirement which does not exist. You have now conceded (on October 26, 2003, at 0154) that there is no requirement that names within a class be consistent, and (id., at 0435) that there is no requirement that names of classes themselves be consistent. The inevitable question that must be asked of you, then, is this: How, precisely, is the dissimilarity of the name "Imperial-class" significant, if you have conceded that there is no requirement of similarity in the first place?

Because there is a pattern, and Imperial a) does not fit and b) is based on stupidity. In regards to names within a class being consistent, I think there is something to be said for the idea of blocks of construction and names with a common theme within the class on occasion- consider Admiral Daala's original fleet of the Gorgon, Hydra, Basilisk and (whichever the last one was)- the Chimaera may also have been part of this block. The Immortal and Invincible in X-Wing. The Interdictor cruiser names (Grappler, Corvus, Harpax, Red Claw, Whirlwind etc.) maybe as well, though these are not KDY ships.

Regardless of whether there is or is not a pattern, it is insignificant (as you yourself have conceded). The Galactic Empire may be constructed out of the corpse of the Galactic Republic, and may share a certain aesthetic continuity, but this is wholly insignificant in terms of its constitutional identity. Even if it were, and the Empire were under some chimerical obligation to continue to use the nomenclature of the Republic, this would still be insignificant: the Republic is under no obligation to use consistent nomenclature, either.

Obligation or no it is there- there is clear evidence that Kuat engages in it. That, and the dubious origins of 'Imperial-class', is sufficient to express my dissatisfaction with it. There is no need for there to be an obligation. The question is what fits better, not what *must* be so- irrespective of a very strained hair-splitting semantics style attempt to imply 'must' as part of my argument by association with me saying "I never said x must be ..., just"

You yourself have stated that there is no requirement that names within a class be consistent, or that names of classes be consistent. By definition, if there is no such requirement, then the Republic need not do so. Even if we arbitrarily impose upon the Empire the obligation to follow the nomenclature of the Republic, then it inevitably follows that the Empire need not do so, either.

I have not conceded that the Republic or Empire name their own ships in the first place- IMO, KDY does so. You have yet to present evidence that the Empire does so.

Imprimis, the Galactic Empire is a completely different political creature than the Galactic Republic; the Republic had no Galactic Emperor endowed with despotic power, no circle of grand admirals, no Grand Moff Governors ruling whole regions without Senatorial or Ministerial oversight, no standing Army and Navy (until the dictatorial Supreme Chancellor passed the Military Creation Act)

Exactly- the Military Creation Act- which saw a new ship for the Republic commissioned by a company with the same type of class name as a private sectorial fleet. Coincidence? I don't think so.

The difference between the Empire and the Republic is as profound as the difference between the First Republic and the First Empire in France.

Difference in political apparatus (never really that profound until the Imperial Senate was deposed- which was after the ISD entered service) is largely irrelevant to this- it's a question of the military- which was created in the late days of the Republic and bears striking similarity- simply saying that they have a few new ranks is insufficient to discharge your burden of proof to show that the Empire names its own ship classes. There is no logical connection between the two whatsoever- I have already shown the consistent pattern from private to public; which is strong evidence that it was for KDY to decide the ship class names.

In the second place, you appear to be inconsistent in your approach. Why can the later ship names (viz., Sovereign, Eclipse) be rationalised and excused, but not Imperial? The time constraint you have imposed (viz., after Episode VI) is wholly arbitrary, and equally unsubstantiated. Even if one were to insist on consistent nomenclature, then there is no reason whatever that the "Imperial-class" should be ineligible for the exemption applied to the later Super Star Destroyers.

No, it's not wholly arbitrary, because Imperial comes before Executor- it doesn't make sense- put simply, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Yes, Rothana Heavy Engineering is a subsidiary corporation of Kuat Drive Yards; however, the article "Mining Guild to Fine Exarga" in HoloNet News Vol. 531 #52 indicates that it was at least generally believed to be a competitor of KDY, suggesting that the term "dummy corporation" is perhaps more accurate.

Canon states quite plainly that it is a subsidiary- the general belief that it is a competitor does not mean it was a dummy corporation- regardless, even if it was, I have shown that the naming convention cuts across private-to-public, and Republic to Empire lines.

Now, then, sir, it is you who have made a claim (viz., that the Imperial Navy does not name its own ship classes) and stated that there is evidence to support it.

Merely because I presented contrary evidence does not mean I am required to do so. The burden of proof is on the party asserting the *positive* claim, not the party asserting the claim period. It is on you to show that the Empire does a certain thing, not on myself to show that it doesn't. And I *have* presented my evidence to show that KDY named it's own ship classes in the Republican period- the sectorial Procurator, Mandator, and the Acclamator which was commissioned for the Republic military. With that established pattern in mind, the burden of proof remains on you to show that the Empire would have dictated differently.

Furthermore, you yourself have conceded that there is no requirement of consistency of ships' names within a class or of consistency among class names themselves. The similarity of names that you cite is consequently insignificant, because by your own admission, there simply does not exist any requirement to maintain that similarity. It is no more than a curiosity that some of the known class names end with the Latin suffix -tor; this is hardly more significant than the fact that HMS King George V and USS George Washington were both named for men named George.

Incorrect- the similarity is also there in latin names from the Roman Republic/Imperial period denoting various positions of power and authority- not to mention you took two class names from two entirey different countries- as such your George V/ George Washington example is wholly specious.

If you have already acknowledged that there is no requirement of consistency either within a class or among the classes themselves, then why do you persist in arguing? You are in effect conceding that your position is untenable, and proceeding to defend it nevertheless.

Do you know what I'm arguing? I'll summarize. Imperial is canon. Unfortunately. It is *preferable* that Imperator be canon. It is more consistent with the history of canonical KDY warships, and is not based on an idioitic tacking on of 'class' to the matter of fact "Imperial Star Destroyer", and the similar and even more ridiculous "Super Star Destroyer" -class gaffe (obtuse denials by people trying to win a debate by denying such an obvious observation irrespective). Yes, there is no similarity if one looks at other large KDY ships created in the EU- that still doesn't mean Imperial is a good name.

[Publius]

Because there is a pattern, and Imperial a) does not fit and b) is based on stupidity. In regards to names within a class being consistent, I think there is something to be said for the idea of blocks of construction and names with a common theme within the class on occasion- consider Admiral Daala's original fleet of the Gorgon, Hydra, Basilisk and (whichever the last one was)- the Chimaera may also have been part of this block. The Immortal and Invincible in X-Wing. The Interdictor cruiser names (Grappler, Corvus, Harpax, Red Claw, Whirlwind etc.) maybe as well, though these are not KDY ships.

That "Imperial-class" does not fit your pattern is completely insignificant, as you yourself have admitted that there is no obligation of any kind whatever for the name to fit. By your own statements (viz., those made on Sunday, October 26, 2003, at 0154 and 0435, GMT), the name Imperial need neither be consistent with the names of other ships of the same class or with the names of other classes. Therefore, that it is not consistent is insignificant, Q.E.D.

Obligation or no it is there- there is clear evidence that Kuat engages in it, is there not?

There is evidence that the names of four different ships produced in two different eras by two different companies for the fleets of three different polities have similar sounding names. The meanings of the words do not form a pattern, only the forms, and even that pattern is insignificant, by your own admission. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Kuat is responsible for the names "Acclamator-class" and "Executor-class"; that is purely assumption on your part in the former case and factually incorrect in the latter case (as shall be demonstrated).

Furthermore, your claim that KDY employs a consistent pattern of names fails to account for the fact that there are other known Imperial warships produced by KDY which do not fit your proposed pattern: the Nebulon-B frigate (ref. The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels), the Star Galleon frigate (ref. Imperial Sourcebook, Second Edition), the Lancer-class frigate (id.), the Sovereign-class Star Destroyer (ref. Dark Empire Sourcebook, and the Eclipse-class Star Destroyer (id.); for the New Republic, KDY has also produced the Corona-class frigate (ref. Cracken's Threat Dossier).

I have not conceded that the Republic or Empire name their own ships in the first place- IMO, KDY does so.

This claim is contrary both to known naval custom and tradition and to the canonical evidence of the Expanded Universe. In "Escape to Hoth" (Classic Star Wars Vol. 2), Lord Vader personally selected the name Executor for his new flagship. In Cracken's Threat Dossier, Admiral Zsinj renamed his flagship HIMS Brawl as HIMS Iron Fist. In The New Essential Guide to Characters, Jerec is said to have purchased his new ship from Kuat Drive Yards specifically and to have named her Vengeance. In The Bacta War, it was revealed that one Super Star Destroyer named HIMS Executor was subsequently renamed Lusankya. In the Dark Empire Sourcebook it was revealed that HIMS Adjudicator and HIMS Accuser were renamed by the New Republic to NRS Emancipator and NRS Liberator. In The Essential Chronology, it was revealed that the Imperial Star Destroyer captured in Rebel Agent was renamed NRS Crynyd and that HIMS Tyrant was renamed NRS Rebel Dream.

Note especially well that the name Executor was chosen by Lord Vader (not by KDY, Q.E.D.) and proceeded to be given to the class as a whole. If you deny that the Empire has the right to name its own ships, then you cannot at the same time insist on the existence of an Executor-class. Without the Executor-class, you have no basis of any kind to claim that the name "Imperial-class" for an Imperial starship, as it will mean that none of the classes of Imperial Star Destroyers will have a name comparable to the three classes mentioned in the Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections.

Exactly- the Military Creation Act- which saw a new ship for the Republic commissioned by a company with the same type of class name as a private sectorial fleet. Coincidence? I think not.

Whether it is or is not coincidental is both irrelevant and insignificant, Vympel. Even if one allows that there is a consistent pattern of names of classes, this is still insignificant, as you yourself have conceded that there is no obligation of any kind to maintain such a consistent pattern. To wit, whether you are correct on this point or not is completely unimportant. It has no bearing of any kind on the validity of your contention that the name "Imperial-class" ought to be discarded on the basis that it is inconsistent with other known examples of nomenclature.

Difference in political apparatus is largely irrelevant to this- it's a question of the military- which was created in the late days of the Republic and bears striking similarity- simply saying that they don't have the same organizations, or a few new ranks, is insufficient to discharge the burden of proof to show that the Empire names its own ship classes.

A state is a political creature, Vympel, and when a state's political constitution is fundamentally altered, it becomes a different state. You stated on Sunday, October 26, at 0435 (GMT), that "the Republic and the Empire are hardly different polities" and that they are "the same entity, with mere aesthetic differences"; this statement is false. While the Empire dominates the same territory and includes the same member states as did the Republic, they are quite clearly different political entities (e.g., the one is a federative republic, the other a monarchy).

As regards the claim that the Empire does not name its own ships, evidence has already been presented that it does in fact do so (sc., Lord Vader's selection of the name Executor, &c.; see above).

Because Imperial comes before Executor- it doesn't make sense, and it's not arbitrary- put simply, it sticks out like a sore thumb- this is made more painful by it's idiotic origins.

To be frank, Vympel, the name Executor is more inconsistent among Imperial warships than the name Imperial. Nor is the name Imperial nonsensical; it has several appropriate meanings as both an adjective and as a noun. The placement of the change in style after Episode VI is indeed arbitrary, there is no reason to assume that the alleged -tor style would be dropped at that point; in fact, the Empire may well choose to recycle class names (e.g., the Royal Navy had two King George V-classes).

Canon states quite plainly that it is a subsidiary. Irrespective, I have shown that the naming convention cuts across private-to-public, and Republic to Empire lines.

The first line of the paragraph whereto you made this response is "Yes, Rothana Heavy Engineering is a subsidiary corporation of Kuat Drive Yards". That fact is not in dispute. The point is that the Acclamator-class transgalactic military transport ship is not a KDY product (a subsidiary corporation is a different company from its parent corporation, whether owned wholly or in part by the latter). It was manufactured by a different company, whose relationship with KDY does not appear to have been public knowledge.

It bears repeating that whether or not this naming convention "cuts across private-to-public, and Republic to Empire lines" is irrelevant, because by your own admission, there is no obligation to maintain consistency of names within a class or of names of classes themselves. Even if your claim that Kuat Drive Yards names its ships is correct, you have already conceded that there is no obligation of consistency in names.

Merely because I offered contrary evidence does not mean I am required to do so. The burden of proof is on the party asserting the *positive* claim, not the party asserting the claim period. It is on you, not I, to show that the Empire does a certain thing. And I *have* presented my evidence to show that KDY named it's own ship classes in the Republican period- Procurator, Mandator, and the Acclamator which was commissioned for the Republic. With that established, cutting across private-to-government pattern in mind, the burden of proof remains on you to show the Empire has ended this practice.

Did you or did you not assert on Sunday, October 26, 2003, at 0154 (GMT), that there is evidence that the Imperial Navy does not name its own ships? Are you now refusing to present this evidence? Are you now denying that you are obligated to support your claims? The burden of proof is not a mere game of semantics; the specific phraseology used to present the claim is insubstantial; it is the claim itself that determines where the burden of proof lay. In this case, by claiming that the Imperial Navy does not name its own ships, you are making the positive logical statement that some other entity names the Imperial Navy's ships. You are obligated by the rules of logic and of debate to support this claim.

You have not proven that KDY named the Procurator-, Mandator-, and Acclamator-class ships, your claim to the contrary notwithstanding. You have presented no evidence of any kind whatever that KDY is responsible for having named these ships; you have failed to account for the fact that the Acclamator-class is not even a KDY product. You have simply assumed that KDY named these vessels, and proceeded to demand proof that the Empire discontinued the practice of allowing KDY to name its products, without ever demonstrating that such a practice existed in the first place. In doing so, it is you have shifted the burden of proof.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that it lay upon you to prove that KDY and not the Empire names Imperial warships, the evidence regarding the selection of Imperial and Neorepublican ships' names by Imperials and Neorepublicans has already been provided (sc., Lord Vader's selection of the name Executor, &c.; see above).

Incorrect- the similarity is also there in latin names from the Roman Republic/Imperial period denoting various positions of power and authority- as such your George V/ George Washington example is specious.

Incorrect, sir; the similarity is that both HM King George V and General and Commander in Chief George Washington were upper class gentlemen of Germanic descent who served as chiefs of state of English-speaking countries. Furthermore, both men have been followed in office by men named George, and both men have had warships named for them. They have more in common than the words acclamator (lit., one who cries out or gives approval), mandator (lit., one who gives a charge or commission), and procurator(lit., one who acts on behalf of, for, or in place of a curator) – none of which refer to a Republican era magistracy (only procurator was an office, viz., a financial agent or subgovernor, and that in the Imperial period).

Now, you might rightly point out that two names are insufficient to establish a pattern. However, this applies as much to the KDY naming pattern that you yourself advocate: the Acclamator-class is not a KDY product, the Executor-class was named by Lord Vader, not by KDY, leaving only the Mandator-class and Procurator-class... only two names.

Do you know what I'm arguing? I'll summarize. Imperial is canon. Unfortunately. It is *preferable* that Imperator be canon. It is more consistent with the history of canonical KDY warships, and is not based on an idioitic tacking on of 'class' to the matter of fact "Imperial Star Destroyer", and the similar and even more ridiculous "Super Star Destroyer" -class gaffe (obtuse denials by people trying to win a debate by denying such an obvious observation irrespective). Yes, there is no similarity if one looks at other large KDY ships created in the EU- that still doesn't mean Imperial is a good name.

You are arguing that the name "Imperial-class" should be made a slang designation for the familiar 1.6-kilometre-long Imperial Star Destroyer of the films because you feel that its name (a.) is inconsistent with other names of KDY warships (which is insignificant) and (b.) is silly (which is subjective). That you acknowledge the name as being canonical does not affect the substance of your argument. By its very nature, the latter point cannot be argued logically, so one's efforts must be confined to the former.

Your point is flawed because there is no obligation of consistency of names of warships, Imperial or otherwise, as you yourself have admitted. Therefore, the inconsistency of the name is not a compelling reason to change the canonical designation of the ship.

Furthermore, as regards this pattern of yours, you have stated twice (on Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 0503, GMT, and on Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 0549, GMT) that this pattern was established in order to render the name "Imperial-class" inconsistent; you have repeated the claim regarding inconsistency itself throughout this debate. This approach is problematic for a number of reasons, sir:

(1.) Dr. Saxton has never indicated that he intended to establish a pattern of names; this is purely an assumption on your part. This is the fallacy of audiatur et altera pars.

(2.) You are arguing that something ought to be changed because it does not match a consistent pattern when it is not a canonical fact that a consistent pattern exists. It is a canonical fact that there exist the Acclamator-, the Mandator-, and the Procurator-classes. If it your interpretation of this fact that there is a consistent pattern of names used by KDY; it is not correct methodology to represent this interpretation as being factual in and of itself (Mr. Wong has commented on this practice). This is the fallacy of petitio principii.

(3.) You are suggesting that the canonical name "Imperial-class" is inconsistent with the names established by the Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections despite the fact that the former was used in the Star Wars: Incredible Cross-Sections in 1998 and the latter were published in 2002; it is the latter names that are inconsistent with the former, not vice versa.

(4.) You are suggesting that the canonical names in the Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections are somehow more authoritative than the name "Imperial-class", and that the latter should be revised to conform with the former, despite the fact that both are equally canonical and despite the fact that there is no reason both cannot coexist as they are. This is the fallacy of bifurcation.

(5.) You have failed to account for the totality of the evidence, much of which predates the publishing of Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections in 2002, and much of which was certainly known to Dr. Saxton long before the publishing of that book; e.g., his catalogue of Imperial warships (last updated February 24, 2000) cites The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, Cracken's Threat Dossier, the Dark Empire Sourcebook, and the Imperial Sourcebook as sources). This is the fallacy of the converse accident.

Your argument rests on the inter-linked concepts that there is a consistent pattern and that the Empire should follow it. As it is, however, this argument is untenable.

PUBLIUS

[Vympel]

That "Imperial-class" does not fit your pattern is completely insignificant, as you yourself have admitted that there is no obligation of any kind whatever for the name to fit. By your own statements (viz., those made on Sunday, October 26, 2003, at 0154 and 0435, GMT), the name Imperial need neither be consistent with the names of other ships of the same class or with the names of other classes. Therefore, that it is not consistent is insignificant, Q.E.D.

No, it is significant- it doesn't fit. Simply because there is no requirement for it to fit with post-canon EU vessels doesn't make it insignificant.

There is evidence that the names of four different ships produced in two different eras by two different companies for the fleets of three different polities have similar sounding names. The meanings of the words do not form a pattern, only the forms, and even that pattern is insignificant, by your own admission. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Kuat is responsible for the names "Acclamator-class" and "Executor-class"; that is purely assumption on your part in the former case and factually incorrect in the latter case (as shall be demonstrated).

We'll see. However, Kuat is responsible for the Acclamator, no question. Purely because a subsidiary built it does not preclude this, and it fits the facts and context of the ICS entry best.

Furthermore, your claim that KDY employs a consistent pattern of names fails to account for the fact that there are other known Imperial warships produced by KDY which do not fit your proposed pattern: the Nebulon-B frigate (ref. The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels), the Star Galleon frigate (ref. Imperial Sourcebook, Second Edition), the Lancer-class frigate (id.), the Sovereign-class Star Destroyer (ref. Dark Empire Sourcebook, and the Eclipse-class Star Destroyer (id.); for the New Republic, KDY has also produced the Corona-class frigate (ref. Cracken's Threat Dossier).

And yet for a certain line of ships (which happen to be canonical) it is there.

This claim is contrary both to known naval custom and tradition and to the canonical evidence of the Expanded Universe. In "Escape to Hoth" (Classic Star Wars Vol. 2), Lord Vader personally selected the name Executor for his new flagship. In Cracken's Threat Dossier, Admiral Zsinj renamed his flagship HIMS Brawl as HIMS Iron Fist. In The New Essential Guide to Characters, Jerec is said to have purchased his new ship from Kuat Drive Yards specifically and to have named her Vengeance. In The Bacta War, it was revealed that one Super Star Destroyer named HIMS Executor was subsequently renamed Lusankya. In the Dark Empire Sourcebook it was revealed that HIMS Adjudicator and HIMS Accuser were renamed by the New Republic to NRS Emancipator and NRS Liberator. In The Essential Chronology, it was revealed that the Imperial Star Destroyer captured in Rebel Agent was renamed NRS Crynyd and that HIMS Tyrant was renamed NRS Rebel Dream.

Note especially well that the name Executor was chosen by Lord Vader (not by KDY, Q.E.D.) and proceeded to be given to the class as a whole. If you deny that the Empire has the right to name its own ships, then you cannot at the same time insist on the existence of an Executor-class. Without the Executor-class, you have no basis of any kind to claim that the name "Imperial-class" for an Imperial starship, as it will mean that none of the classes of Imperial Star Destroyers will have a name comparable to the three classes mentioned in the Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections.

Most of those are utterly irrelevant, being the naming/renaming of individual ships for various reasons, not class names. In regards to the Executor, which is the only relevant one:

1. The Lusankya being originally named the Executor neatly cancels out Darth Vader choosing Executor for his vessel. Who originally named the Lusankya? It is not necessary for the argument to deny that the executive authority taking control of a vessel to rename it as they wish.

Whether it is or is not coincidental is both irrelevant and insignificant, Vympel. Even if one allows that there is a consistent pattern of names of classes, this is still insignificant, as you yourself have conceded that there is no obligation of any kind to maintain such a consistent pattern. To wit, whether you are correct on this point or not is completely unimportant. It has no bearing of any kind on the validity of your contention that the name "Imperial-class" ought to be discarded on the basis that it is inconsistent with other known examples of nomenclature.

Lack of obligation does not mean that it is a well advised name.

A state is a political creature, Vympel, and when a state's political constitution is fundamentally altered, it becomes a different state. You stated on Sunday, October 26, at 0435 (GMT), that "the Republic and the Empire are hardly different polities" and that they are "the same entity, with mere aesthetic differences"; this statement is false. While the Empire dominates the same territory and includes the same member states as did the Republic, they are quite clearly different political entities (e.g., the one is a federative republic, the other a monarchy).

It has no logical connection to the Empire's naming practices, if they extend beyond anything but the convenient renaming of certain individual ships.

As to your claims regarding polities as being 'fundamentally different' states, explain then why the USSR, when it became the Russian Federation, retained the the practices of the USSR in classifiying it's new generation vessels? There is no reason why changes in the political system must require a fundamental change of the practices of it's predecessor. For one who draws points from Western naval nomenclature conventions (which are not particularly relevant), you'd do well to remember this.

As regards the claim that the Empire does not name its own ships, evidence has already been presented that it does in fact do so (sc., Lord Vader's selection of the name Executor, &c.; see above).

More evidence required before this point will be conceded. In particular, when exactly Darth Vader supposedly chose the name, and the precise relevance of the Lusankya.

To be frank, Vympel, the name Executor is more inconsistent among Imperial warships than the name Imperial. Nor is the name Imperial nonsensical; it has several appropriate meanings as both an adjective and as a noun. The placement of the change in style after Episode VI is indeed arbitrary, there is no reason to assume that the alleged -tor style would be dropped at that point; in fact, the Empire may well choose to recycle class names (e.g., the Royal Navy had two King George V-classes).

There is no reason why the standard of consistency must be "Imperial warships" in totality.

The first line of the paragraph whereto you made this response is "Yes, Rothana Heavy Engineering is a subsidiary corporation of Kuat Drive Yards". That fact is not in dispute. The point is that the Acclamator-class transgalactic military transport ship is not a KDY product (a subsidiary corporation is a different company from its parent corporation, whether owned wholly or in part by the latter). It was manufactured by a different company, whose relationship with KDY does not appear to have been public knowledge.

Episode II ICS:

"Meanwhile, the pace of clandestine construction accelerates at Kuat's cordoned shipyards and factories on Rothana"

"Manufacturer: Rothana Heavy Engineeering (subsidiary of KDY)"

"The vessels that ensured victory ... are sure to be copied by other shipbuilders loyal to the Republic. Already the Arch-Provost of Rendili and the Commissars of Grizmallt have ordered countless industrial spies and starship designer to reduce Kuat's competetive lead for the Galactic Republic's new contracts"

It is clear that Rothana built the ship, however, there is no evidence that they designed it, and the context of the passages I just provided definitely do not lend force to that contention. As to the official data about whether it was public knowledge or not, it doesn't matter at all.

It bears repeating that whether or not this naming convention "cuts across private-to-public, and Republic to Empire lines" is irrelevant, because by your own admission, there is no obligation to maintain consistency of names within a class or of names of classes themselves. Even if your claim that Kuat Drive Yards names its ships is correct, you have already conceded that there is no obligation of consistency in names.

And again, it is worth repeating that the lack of an obligation does not preclude the stupidity of Imperial and the appropriatness of Imperator, irrespective of obscure dictionary definitions.

Did you or did you not assert on Sunday, October 26, 2003, at 0154 (GMT), that there is evidence that the Imperial Navy does not name its own ships? Are you now refusing to present this evidence?

To clarify- the contrary evidence was evidence of what KDY was doing.

Are you now denying that you are obligated to support your claims? The burden of proof is not a mere game of semantics; the specific phraseology used to present the claim is insubstantial; it is the claim itself that determines where the burden of proof lay. In this case, by claiming that the Imperial Navy does not name its own ships, you are making the positive logical statement that some other entity names the Imperial Navy's ships. You are obligated by the rules of logic and of debate to support this claim.

And I have.

You have not proven that KDY named the Procurator-, Mandator-, and Acclamator-class ships, your claim to the contrary notwithstanding.

Yes I have. There is no other explanation for how the *private* sectorial ships of Kuat and the Republic commissioned Acclamator have the exact same types of names. QED.

You have presented no evidence of any kind whatever that KDY is responsible for having named these ships; you have failed to account for the fact that the Acclamator-class is not even a KDY product.

The manufacturer may be Rothana, but the designer is quite clearly Kuat, as the ICS makes plain.

You have simply assumed that KDY named these vessels

Who else named the Procurator and Mandator? Is there a law that says the Republic must intervene to name private ships? Come now.

and proceeded to demand proof that the Empire discontinued the practice of allowing KDY to name its products, without ever demonstrating that such a practice existed in the first place. In doing so, it is you have shifted the burden of proof.

No, you deny the obvious pattern by an erroneous analysis of Rothana's relationship to KDY.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that it lay upon you to prove that KDY and not the Empire names Imperial warships, the evidence regarding the selection of Imperial and Neorepublican ships' names by Imperials and Neorepublicans has already been provided (sc., Lord Vader's selection of the name Executor, &c.; see above).

See above.

Incorrect, sir; the similarity is that both HM King George V and General and Commander in Chief George Washington were upper class gentlemen of Germanic descent who served as chiefs of state of English-speaking countries. Furthermore, both men have been followed in office by men named George, and both men have had warships named for them. They have more in common than the words acclamator (lit., one who cries out or gives approval), mandator (lit., one who gives a charge or commission), and procurator(lit., one who acts on behalf of, for, or in place of a curator) ? none of which refer to a Republican era magistracy (only procurator was an office, viz., a financial agent or subgovernor, and that in the Imperial period).

Now, you might rightly point out that two names are insufficient to establish a pattern. However, this applies as much to the KDY naming pattern that you yourself advocate: the Acclamator-class is not a KDY product, the Executor-class was named by Lord Vader, not by KDY, leaving only the Mandator-class and Procurator-class... only two names.

See above.

You are arguing that the name "Imperial-class" should be made a slang designation for the familiar 1.6-kilometre-long Imperial Star Destroyer of the films because you feel that its name (a.) is inconsistent with other names of KDY warships (which is insignificant) and (b.) is silly (which is subjective). That you acknowledge the name as being canonical does not affect the substance of your argument. By its very nature, the latter point cannot be argued logically, so one's efforts must be confined to the former.

Your point is flawed because there is no obligation of consistency of names of warships, Imperial or otherwise, as you yourself have admitted. Therefore, the inconsistency of the name is not a compelling reason to change the canonical designation of the ship.

Lack of obligation does not mean that the Imperial name was ever a good idea.

Furthermore, as regards this pattern of yours, you have stated twice (on Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 0503, GMT, and on Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 0549, GMT) that this pattern was established in order to render the name "Imperial-class" inconsistent; you have repeated the claim regarding inconsistency itself throughout this debate. This approach is problematic for a number of reasons, sir:

(1.) Dr. Saxton has never indicated that he intended to establish a pattern of names; this is purely an assumption on your part. This is the fallacy of audiatur et altera pars.

Saxton's intent to establish a pattern (which is quite a reasonable assumption, obtuse denials to the contrary) is not particularly relevant.

(2.) You are arguing that something ought to be changed because it does not match a consistent pattern when it is not a canonical fact that a consistent pattern exists. It is a canonical fact that there exist the Acclamator-, the Mandator-, and the Procurator-classes. If it your interpretation of this fact that there is a consistent pattern of names used by KDY; it is not correct methodology to represent this interpretation as being factual in and of itself (Mr. Wong has commented on this practice). This is the fallacy of petitio principii.

Actually, it is a canonical fact that Acclamator, Mandator, and Procurator represent a consistent pattern. Your argument that Acclamator is not a KDY ship is totally unconvincing in light of the evidence.

(3.) You are suggesting that the canonical name "Imperial-class" is inconsistent with the names established by the Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections despite the fact that the former was used in the Star Wars: Incredible Cross-Sections in 1998 and the latter were published in 2002; it is the latter names that are inconsistent with the former, not vice versa.

Order of time is not relevant to any debates about canonicity, regardless, the canon status of Imperial is not a mtter for dispute.

(4.) You are suggesting that the canonical names in the Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections are somehow more authoritative than the name "Imperial-class", and that the latter should be revised to conform with the former, despite the fact that both are equally canonical and despite the fact that there is no reason both cannot coexist as they are. This is the fallacy of bifurcation.

It would be a black/white fallacy if I said the two cannot co-exist- I have already shown how they can.

(5.) You have failed to account for the totality of the evidence, much of which predates the publishing of Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections in 2002, and much of which was certainly known to Dr. Saxton long before the publishing of that book; e.g., his catalogue of Imperial warships (last updated February 24, 2000) cites The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, Cracken's Threat Dossier, the Dark Empire Sourcebook, and the Imperial Sourcebook as sources). This is the fallacy of the converse accident.

Your argument rests on the inter-linked concepts that there is a consistent pattern and that the Empire should follow it. As it is, however, this argument is untenable.

PUBLIUS

By simply referring to the existence of other types of KDY names does not refute the existence of a pattern that is *preferably* followed, no matter how large or small that pattern is.

[Cal Wright]

< snip >

The quotes are less than irrelevant as the class was never defined there in relation to the word Imperial.

The quotes are canon. That's how they are identified 'canon' wise. Therefore, they are relevant.

[Cal Wright]

*snip*

Each New Class design is named for the first-of-type.

No less than 12 explicit examples.

Concession Accepted.

Each New Class design is named for the first-of-type. Design "twins" are listed together.

TYPE ROLE KEEL EXAMPLES
Agave-class Picket 190m Kauri, Pran, Nagwa
Warrior-class Gunship 190m Marauder
Sacheen-class Light escort 375m Trenchant, Kettemoor, Stendaff
Hajen-class Fleet tender 375m Ahazi
Majestic-class Heavy Cruiser 700m Resolve, Gallant, Illustrious, Indomitable, Liberty, Phalanx, Stalwart, Vigilant
Defender-class Assault carrier 700m Repulse, Shield
Nebula-class Star destroyer 1040m Brilliant
Endurance-class Fleet carrier 1040m Endurance, Intrepid, Venture


Which obviously purtains to his list of ships. Also, this is some lacky web page by a subpar author of a trilogy that most people groan about.

[The Dark]

Question: If the Mandel blueprints giving a 486.5 meter length for Imperator means we need a different class for it, what does it mean that there are blueprints for a ~67km Death Star I published in The Technical Book of Science Fiction Films? (note that the difference in scale between this DS and the movie DSI is roughly the same as the difference between Imperator and Imperial).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The quotes are less than irrelevant as the class was never defined there in relation to the word Imperial.

The quotes are canon. That's how they are identified 'canon' wise. Therefore, they are relevant.

No, they are not. I was referring to the class of ship. This entire discussion is over the class of the ship. Not a single one of those quotes ever has the word "class" in it. They refer to Star Destroyers by the word "Imperial", yes, but they give no context, thus leaving their canon status totally irrelevant. You might as well be quoting some of Anakin's love poetry for Amidala. Concession Accepted.

[CmdrWilkens]

There is proof that they are named for first of class, however there is no proof that they follow the convention of different class names for different nations. Any proof of that?

Given that the closest analogy and understanding of class-designations is from real life that they are given by each navy to the vessel, and your lack of evidence for any suitable alternative, where's your leg to stand on?

That the only reason such a naming convention would be used is to create a completely unprecedented and unheard of class of ship. There is absolutely zero reference to a 1600m long "Imeprator"-class vessel in the SW Unvierse. As ships classified as "Imperial"-class are visible in both Republic and Imperial navies (oh yes and the Errant VGenture is reffered to as one as well despite being a privately owned version of the same hullform). I think it rather clear that the exercise that the Duchess put forth is an entirely unneccessaary wrokaround designed to allow for the existence of a class of ships whose names some people prefer over "Imperial." My leg to stand on is the consistent identificaiton of vessels as "Imperial"-class despite service in multiple navies which indicates that the practice of naming a vessel after the first in class in service to a given nation is NOT in use within the SW universe.

Even if you're right, and somehow the SW navies aren't allowed or something to classify their own ships' class-names, than you're de facto claiming that only the manufacturer sets class-names (who else? where is your alternative model for nomenclature?). By virtue of that, you're claiming that Imperial-class is a KDY designation for the 1600 meter hullform and you're agreeing with Duchess.

So what's the beef?

Compeltely incorrect. I'm stating that since we lack any evidence of SW navies classifying a vessel based on the first in class given to a paticular nation then the idea that an Imperator class could exist is ludicrous. EVERY example of the 16000m hullform is referenced as Imperial-class or Imperial II-class (though we know there must be an adidtional variant or two).

Continuing onwards the fact that vessels such as Errant Venture are reffered to as "Heavily Modified Kuat Drive Yards Imperial II Star Destroyer" 9ref New Jedi Order Sourcebook pg 117) as oppossed to some new class indicates that teh class name sticks with the hullform. Marina is applying a convention, for which no proof exists, to generate a class-name, which there has been absolutely zero reference to.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Which obviously purtains to his list of ships. Also, this is some lacky web page by a subpar author of a trilogy that most people groan about.

He said there was no proof that that's the pattern to which SW ships adhere. I pointed out the entire New Class of vessels, as well as the Executor-class, exhibit this quality. And post proof that this pattern is limited to the New Class, despite evidence to the contrary and that not being stated in the page.

Regardless of where it is said, EC confirms that the vessels were named after first-of-class (lists an example), and your other comment is a pure bullshit ad hominem attack. The fact that he says this in his website doesn't change that its a statement of official fact.

Come back when you have an argument.

[Vympel]

Question: If the Mandel blueprints giving a 486.5 meter length for Imperator means we need a different class for it, what does it mean that there are blueprints for a ~67km Death Star I published in The Technical Book of Science Fiction Films? (note that the difference in scale between this DS and the movie DSI is roughly the same as the difference between Imperator and Imperial).

You just recognised the problem I have with that entire line of reasoning (see 8km 'Super-class' debate earlier). Such a methodology ensures that you can't ever correct an obvious scaling error; so you simply invent a new ship everytime there is one, no matter what the obvious context behind the error is.

[Publius]

No, it is significant- it doesn't fit. Simply because there is no requirement for it to fit with post-canon EU vessels doesn't make it insignificant.

Au contraire, sir, it is quite insignificant. If there is no requirement for a thing to fit and that thing does not fit, the fact that it does not fit is lacking in importance or significance; this is the textbook definition of "insignificance".

We'll see. However, Kuat is responsible for the Acclamator, no question. Purely because a subsidiary built it does not preclude this, and it fits the facts and context of the ICS entry best.

Very well, sir, if you believe that there is "no question" that Kuat is responsible for the name "Acclamator-class", then please provide the evidence that Kuat is responsible for the name "Acclamator-class".

Furthermore, if you insist on including the products of RHE, then you must also include the products of Kuat Systems Engineering, another KDY subsidiary corporation, whose products include the Firespray-class patrol and attack ship, which also does not conform to your proposed pattern.

And yet for a certain line of ships (which happen to be canonical) it is there.

All of the ships listed are canonical, sir. You may wish to consult Miss Rostoni's remarks on canon quoted from Star Wars Gamer #6. Furthermore, this statement utterly fails to account for the fact that those ships do not conform to your proposed pattern; rather, you are simply disregarding the question. You are disregarding inconvenient evidence and making a sweeping generalisation based on too small a sample; this is the fallacy of the converse accident. That is not proper methodology.

Most of those are utterly irrelevant, being the naming/renaming of individual ships for various reasons, not class names.

Did you or did you not write on Monday, October 27, 2003, at 0218 (GMT) that "I have not conceded that the Republic or Empire name their own ships in the first place- IMO, KDY does so"? This is a clear statement that KDY selects the ship names of the Republic and the Empire, not that KDY selects the class names of the Republic and the Empire. In that respect, none of the listed examples are irrelevant, as they demonstrate both the Empire and the New Republic selecting or changing the names of ships in their navies.

You might rightly object that most of the examples in question are irrelevant with respect to the designation of class names, but that is not the point in question. By your own words, the point in question is whether or not "the Republic or Empire name their own ships in the first place" and whether or not "KDY does so"; the examples in question demonstrate that the former is incorrect, and there is no evidence of any kind whatever that the latter is correct.

In regards to the Executor, which is the only relevant one:

1. The Lusankya being originally named the Executor neatly cancels out Darth Vader choosing Executor for his vessel. Who originally named the Lusankya? It is not necessary for the argument to deny that the executive authority taking control of a vessel to rename it as they wish.

The name Executor was personally selected by Lord Vader after the unnamed Super Star Destroyer destroyed the rebel Alliance's Laakteen Dépôt in "Escape to Hoth"; later in that same source, Lord Vader explicitly says that it was he who named his flagship "Executor".

This evidence is quite explicit that the name Executor was selected by Lord Vader, not by KDY. If you feel that this evidence should be disregarded, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate both that it is completely incompatible with the evidence of The Bacta War and that the evidence of The Bacta War should take precedence.

There is no reason that HIMS Lusankya's original name Executor is incompatible with the name being chosen by Lord Vader. Given that the ship was apparently given the same name as a measure to conceal the existence of a second Super Star Destroyer, and that the name Executor was not chosen until after Lord Vader's flagship constructed at Fondor was operational, it is quite possible (and even likely) that the name Executor was administratively appended to the unnamed Super Star Destroyer constructed at Kuat, which Mme Director Isard subsequently renamed HIMS Lusankya.

While this is an interpretation of the evidence, and not to be confused for evidence in and of itself, it is infinitely preferable to your solution, which simply disregards evidence out of hand, a highly unscientific approach to explanation of evidence.

Lack of obligation does not mean that it is a well advised name.

Whether or not the name is well-advised or tasteful is an inherently subjective characteristic, and by its very nature cannot be logically or rationally disputed. Do you mean to say that your claim is supported by the fact that you think the name "Imperial-class" is silly?

Hitherto, you have been basing your argument that the name "Imperial-class" ought to be revised to a slang designation on the fact that it does not fit a consistent pattern of names. However, you have admitted that there is no obligation of any kind whatever for the name to fit such a pattern, even were it to exist. Do you mean to say that even though you acknowledge that the name need not fit, that it does not should be taken as evidence against it?

It has no logical connection to the Empire's naming practices, if they extend beyond anything but the convenient renaming of certain individual ships.

It has direct relevance to your claim that "the Republic and the Empire are hardly different polities". The remark is not directed toward establishing anything specific regarding the Empire's standards of nomenclature, merely that it is a different polity from the Republic, as indicated by the entire context of the remarks in question.

As to your claims regarding polities as being 'fundamentally different' states, explain then why the USSR, when it became the Russian Federation, retained the the practices of the USSR in classifiying it's new generation vessels? There is no reason why changes in the political system must require a fundamental change of the practices of it's predecessor. For one who draws points from Western naval nomenclature conventions (which are not particularly relevant), you'd do well to remember this.

You do not appear to have understood the nature of the remarks in question, sir; therefore, it will be repeated: If you wish to establish the inconsistency of the name "Imperial-class", you must do so within a meaningful context. The naming practices of Kuat's sectorial fleet and the Galactic Republic do not form a meaningful context for the names of Imperial ships, because neither entity is the Galactic Empire, nor is there any evidence that the Empire follows their naming practices. Therefore, they are irrelevant.

As regards your specific example: imprimis, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did not become the Russian Federation; it was dissolved in 1991 and succeeded in a loose fashion by the Commonwealth of Independent States. As you are no doubt aware, it is the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic that became the Russian Federation. As to why the Russian Federation has retained broadly Soviet naming practices, the explanation for that fact is quite simple: it chose to do so. As a sovereign state, it is free to name its ships however it likes; that it chose to do so in the Soviet fashion does not undermine the fact that it is just as free to name them in any other fashion it likes.

More evidence required before this point will be conceded. In particular, when exactly Darth Vader supposedly chose the name, and the precise relevance of the Lusankya.

It is not a matter of supposition; Lord Vader explicitly chose the name after the ship destroyed the rebel-held Laakteen Dépôt near Fondor, approximately six months after the Battle of Yavin in "Escape to Hoth". As regards the name of the HIMS Lusankya, as has been mentioned above, it is probably an administrative change intended to conceal the construction of a second Super Star Destroyer.

There is no reason why the standard of consistency must be "Imperial warships" in totality.

And what standard of consistency would you propose, sir? The "KDY warships in general" standard? More KDY-manufactured warships do not conform to the pattern than do. The "Republican and Kuati warships" standard? Neither is particularly relevant to the consistency of names of classes of Imperial warships. The "Imperial warships manufactured by KDY" standard? This standard produces the same result as the "KDY warships in general" standard.

Episode II ICS:

"Meanwhile, the pace of clandestine construction accelerates at Kuat's cordoned shipyards and factories on Rothana"

"Manufacturer: Rothana Heavy Engineeering (subsidiary of KDY)"

"The vessels that ensured victory ... are sure to be copied by other shipbuilders loyal to the Republic. Already the Arch-Provost of Rendili and the Commissars of Grizmallt have ordered countless industrial spies and starship designer to reduce Kuat's competetive lead for the Galactic Republic's new contracts"

It is clear that Rothana built the ship, however, there is no evidence that they designed it, and the context of the passages I just provided definitely do not lend force to that contention. As to the official data about whether it was public knowledge or not, it doesn't matter at all.

A subsidiary corporation is simply a corporation that is owned in whole or in part by another corporation. If RHE is a wholly-owned subsidiary of KDY (albeit a secretly owned one), then yes, it may be said that the shipyards and manufactures of Rothana belong to Kuat. That does not change the fact that RHE is a different company from KDY, and that it is RHE, not KDY, that manufactured the Acclamator-class transgalactic military transport ship.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that RHE did not design the Acclamator-class; as a matter of fact, there is no evidence of who designed the ship at all. It is purely an assumption on your part that the design is attributable to KDY, and an unsubstantiated one, at that.

And again, it is worth repeating that the lack of an obligation does not preclude the stupidity of Imperial and the appropriatness of Imperator, irrespective of obscure dictionary definitions.

A conclusion which is both subjective and fallacious, sir. Whether or not the name "Imperial-class" is stupid has no logical connexion with whether or not it is inconsistent with a pattern of names, and is consequently ignoratio elenchi. Furthermore, if relative obscurity of meaning is sufficient to disqualify a name, then you must also disqualify the words acclamator and imperator.

To clarify- the contrary evidence was evidence of what KDY was doing.

The evidence of KDY's practices with respect to the Grand Army of the Republic and to Kuat's sectorial fleet has no logical connexion with the claim that the Imperial Navy does not name its own ships. This is a red herring.

And I have.

Most certainly you have not, sir. You have presented no evidence of any kind whatever that the Imperial Navy does not name its own ships. You have presented evidence that the name of an RHE product purchased by the Galactic Republic for the GAR and the names of two KDY products (note that this is an assumption – it is never stated that the Mandator- and Procurator-classes are KDY products) purchased by Kuat for its sectorial fleet share the same Latin suffix. This has no logical connexion to do with the claim you made; you have failed to satisfy the burden of proof and your claim remains wholly unsubstantiated. Please provide evidence that the Imperial Navy does not name its own ships.

Yes I have. There is no other explanation for how the *private* sectorial ships of Kuat and the Republic commissioned Acclamator have the exact same types of names. QED.

Most certainly you have not, sir. You have not cited one iota of evidence that supports the claim that KDY named the Procurator-, Mandator-, and Acclamator-classes. You have not proven anything of the sort, and the use of "Q.E.D." is therefore quite incorrect in this context. The evidence on the matter is quite clear: that the Acclamator-class is a product of RHE, an apparently secret subsidiary of KDY, and that Mandator-classes and Procurator-classes are used by the Kuati sectorial fleet. Nowhere is there any evidence regarding who selected these names.

As regards your claim that there are no other explanations, were you aware that at the Battle of Trafalgar, there were the British and French fleets each had a ship named Achille and a ship named Neptune (there was also a Spanish Neptuno)? That there was a Spanish Argonauta and a French Argonaute? Shall we inductively conclude that they were all named by the same people? Or shall we inductively conclude that to name ships for figures of Greek and Roman mythology was a popular style at the time?

The manufacturer may be Rothana, but the designer is quite clearly Kuat, as the ICS makes plain.

Even if the Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections did make clear that the Acclamator-class was designed by KDY – and it does not – , it still would not affect by one iota the fact that it is a product of RHE and not of KDY.

Who else named the Procurator and Mandator? Is there a law that says the Republic must intervene to name private ships? Come now.

In light of the fact that the Procurator- and Mandator-classes are used by the Kuati sectorial fleet, and in keeping with naval custom and tradition, the Kuati sectorial fleet (or the chief executive of Kuat's naval administration) is most probably the party responsible for the selection of those names. Note that this is Kuat as a state and member of the Galactic Republic, not Kuat Drive Yards.

No, you deny the obvious pattern by an erroneous analysis of Rothana's relationship to KDY.

RHE is a subsidiary corporation of KDY, according to the Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections. That means that it is not a part of KDY; either more than half the voting shares of RHE's stock is owned by KDY, or KDY is a shareholder of RHE with the right to appoint or remove a majority of members of RHE's board of directors. It is a separate and distinct company, albeit one controlled by KDY.

If you will include RHE's products with KDY's, then you must also include KSE's, as it too is a subsidiary corporation of KDY. And if you will include all the names of KDY's, RHE's, and KSE's products, you will see that there are more names which do not conform to this "obvious pattern" than there are names that do.

Your proposed pattern of KDY names is based on the similar termination of the words Acclamator, Mandator, Procurator, and Executor. However, the name Acclamator belongs to a RHE product, not a KDY product, and the name Executor was chosen by Lord Vader, not by KDY. This leaves only the names Mandator and Procurator, and there is no evidence that KDY chose those names, either. Furthermore, two names is insufficient to establish such a pattern as you allege.

Saxton's intent to establish a pattern (which is quite a reasonable assumption, obtuse denials to the contrary) is not particularly relevant.

Then why did you mention it twice as support of your claim?

Actually, it is a canonical fact that Acclamator, Mandator, and Procurator represent a consistent pattern. Your argument that Acclamator is not a KDY ship is totally unconvincing in light of the evidence.

A pattern which is meaningless in light of the fact that it is based solely on the fact that those three words terminate in the Latin suffix -tor and that it ignores the fact that the three are manufactured by two different companies and belong to two different fleets. It is not a canonical fact that these names represent a consistent pattern of names by KDY; that is your interpretation of the evidence.

Order of time is not relevant to any debates about canonicity, regardless, the canon status of Imperial is not a mtter for dispute.

It is relevant in that you are wrong to fault "Imperial-class" as being inconsistent when it is the latter names which are inconsistent with it, not vice versa.

By simply referring to the existence of other types of KDY names does not refute the existence of a pattern that is *preferably* followed, no matter how large or small that pattern is.

How is this pattern "preferable"? In that it consists of a minority of known KDY products? In that there are only three KDY products that conform to it? In that those three that do conform are separated by twenty years or more?

PUBLIUS

[Vympel]

Au contraire, sir, it is quite insignificant. If there is no requirement for a thing to fit and that thing does not fit, the fact that it does not fit is lacking in importance or significance; this is the textbook definition of "insignificance".

The Seawolf abandoned the designation system used by the USN for it's SSNs up to that point, starting with 'SSN-21'. When the Seawolf program was cancelled, and the Virginia was started, the Virginia returend to SSN-774, as it 'should' have been. There was no requirement for it to do so, and hence 'insignificant', but someone must've thought it important, no?

Furthermore, if you insist on including the products of RHE, then you must also include the products of Kuat Systems Engineering, another KDY subsidiary corporation, whose products include the Firespray-class patrol and attack ship, which also does not conform to your proposed pattern.

You continue to operate on the false assumption that RHE designed the Acclamator. They manufactured it, nothing more.

All of the ships listed are canonical, sir. You may wish to consult Miss Rostoni's remarks on canon quoted from Star Wars Gamer #6. Furthermore, this statement utterly fails to account for the fact that those ships do not conform to your proposed pattern; rather, you are simply disregarding the question. You are disregarding inconvenient evidence and making a sweeping generalisation based on too small a sample; this is the fallacy of the converse accident. That is not proper methodology.

That quote is to be taken in context with others by Lucasfilm, not on it's own. The totality of evidence indicates there is a clear canon heirarchy, that is not up for debate.

Did you or did you not write on Monday, October 27, 2003, at 0218 (GMT) that "I have not conceded that the Republic or Empire name their own ships in the first place- IMO, KDY does so"? This is a clear statement that KDY selects the ship names of the Republic and the Empire, not that KDY selects the class names of the Republic and the Empire. In that respect, none of the listed examples are irrelevant, as they demonstrate both the Empire and the New Republic selecting or changing the names of ships in their navies.

You might rightly object that most of the examples in question are irrelevant with respect to the designation of class names, but that is not the point in question. By your own words, the point in question is whether or not "the Republic or Empire name their own ships in the first place" and whether or not "KDY does so"; the examples in question demonstrate that the former is incorrect, and there is no evidence of any kind whatever that the latter is correct.

Stop nitpicking. It's quite obvious I was referring to -class names, which is what this entire thing is about.

The name Executor was personally selected by Lord Vader after the unnamed Super Star Destroyer destroyed the rebel Alliance's Laakteen Dépôt in "Escape to Hoth"; later in that same source, Lord Vader explicitly says that it was he who named his flagship "Executor".

This evidence is quite explicit that the name Executor was selected by Lord Vader, not by KDY. If you feel that this evidence should be disregarded, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate both that it is completely incompatible with the evidence of The Bacta War and that the evidence of The Bacta War should take precedence.

There is no reason that HIMS Lusankya's original name Executor is incompatible with the name being chosen by Lord Vader. Given that the ship was apparently given the same name as a measure to conceal the existence of a second Super Star Destroyer, and that the name Executor was not chosen until after Lord Vader's flagship constructed at Fondor was operational, it is quite possible (and even likely) that the name Executor was administratively appended to the unnamed Super Star Destroyer constructed at Kuat, which Mme Director Isard subsequently renamed HIMS Lusankya.

While this is an interpretation of the evidence, and not to be confused for evidence in and of itself, it is infinitely preferable to your solution, which simply disregards evidence out of hand, a highly unscientific approach to explanation of evidence.

What evidence is being disregarded out of hand? Your interpretation is not the only one- I can just as easily argue that the Lusankya, being originally named Executor, was named as such by KDY and Vader ordered the name changed to a ship that had already been triumphant in action.

Whether or not the name is well-advised or tasteful is an inherently subjective characteristic, and by its very nature cannot be logically or rationally disputed. Do you mean to say that your claim is supported by the fact that you think the name "Imperial-class" is silly?

What is my claim? Do you remember?

Hitherto, you have been basing your argument that the name "Imperial-class" ought to be revised to a slang designation on the fact that it does not fit a consistent pattern of names. However, you have admitted that there is no obligation of any kind whatever for the name to fit such a pattern, even were it to exist. Do you mean to say that even though you acknowledge that the name need not fit, that it does not should be taken as evidence against it?

You continue to beat on the drum that because it's not necessary then it doesn't matter at all.

It has direct relevance to your claim that "the Republic and the Empire are hardly different polities". The remark is not directed toward establishing anything specific regarding the Empire's standards of nomenclature, merely that it is a different polity from the Republic, as indicated by the entire context of the remarks in question.

You do not appear to have understood the nature of the remarks in question, sir; therefore, it will be repeated: If you wish to establish the inconsistency of the name "Imperial-class", you must do so within a meaningful context. The naming practices of Kuat's sectorial fleet and the Galactic Republic do not form a meaningful context for the names of Imperial ships, because neither entity is the Galactic Empire, nor is there any evidence that the Empire follows their naming practices. Therefore, they are irrelevant.

As regards your specific example: imprimis, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did not become the Russian Federation; it was dissolved in 1991 and succeeded in a loose fashion by the Commonwealth of Independent States. As you are no doubt aware, it is the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic that became the Russian Federation. As to why the Russian Federation has retained broadly Soviet naming practices, the explanation for that fact is quite simple: it chose to do so. As a sovereign state, it is free to name its ships however it likes; that it chose to do so in the Soviet fashion does not undermine the fact that it is just as free to name them in any other fashion it likes.

It was you who referred to the Old Republic and Empire being "totally different polities" as evidence of why a practice shouldn't continue. The USSR and Russian Federation certainly come under the category of ' different polities' in all sorts of ways. A very long spiel, but you didn't actually rebut the point that in this case class naming practices were retained. Clearly, there *is* a meaningful context between two polities, despite your claims.

And what standard of consistency would you propose, sir? The "KDY warships in general" standard? More KDY-manufactured warships do not conform to the pattern than do. The "Republican and Kuati warships" standard? Neither is particularly relevant to the consistency of names of classes of Imperial warships. The "Imperial warships manufactured by KDY" standard? This standard produces the same result as the "KDY warships in general" standard.

A subsidiary corporation is simply a corporation that is owned in whole or in part by another corporation. If RHE is a wholly-owned subsidiary of KDY (albeit a secretly owned one), then yes, it may be said that the shipyards and manufactures of Rothana belong to Kuat. That does not change the fact that RHE is a different company from KDY, and that it is RHE, not KDY, that manufactured the Acclamator-class transgalactic military transport ship.

Key word: *manufactured*. The passages I provided show that it was Kuat's design, not RHEs, by virtue of the facilities on Rothana being referred to as Kuat's, and by virtue of the emphasis on *Kuat's* lead on design and the efforts to reduce this lead.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that RHE did not design the Acclamator-class; as a matter of fact, there is no evidence of who designed the ship at all. It is purely an assumption on your part that the design is attributable to KDY, and an unsubstantiated one, at that.

The quotes are there for all to see.

A conclusion which is both subjective and fallacious, sir. Whether or not the name "Imperial-class" is stupid has no logical connexion with whether or not it is inconsistent with a pattern of names, and is consequently ignoratio elenchi. Furthermore, if relative obscurity of meaning is sufficient to disqualify a name, then you must also disqualify the words acclamator and imperator.

Strawman. The dictionary meanings of 'Imperial' are varied, but it is quite obvious what meaning was contemplated when it was put to paper- the appeals to the more obscure definitions of the same word to try and rescue it from the stupidity that it shares with 'Super-class' are nothing but obtuse escape attempts.

The evidence of KDY's practices with respect to the Grand Army of the Republic and to Kuat's sectorial fleet has no logical connexion with the claim that the Imperial Navy does not name its own ships. This is a red herring.

Your evidence that the Imperial Navy names it's own classes is based on interpretation of one piece of evidence rather than evidence itself.

Most certainly you have not, sir. You have presented no evidence of any kind whatever that the Imperial Navy does not name its own ships. You have presented evidence that the name of an RHE product purchased by the Galactic Republic for the GAR and the names of two KDY products (note that this is an assumption ? it is never stated that the Mandator- and Procurator-classes are KDY products)

Now you're just being stubborn. The context is plain as day. And again, your claim that the Acclamator is a RHE product despite the clear context of the ICS passages and repeated references to Kuat and the limited references to Rothana's involvement is wrong.

purchased by Kuat for its sectorial fleet share the same Latin suffix. This has no logical connexion to do with the claim you made; you have failed to satisfy the burden of proof and your claim remains wholly unsubstantiated. Please provide evidence that the Imperial Navy does not name its own ships.

Not my burden of proof. It is upon you to show the Empire names it's own classes, not me to show that they don't. The only evidence you have presented is based on your own interpretation of the facts.

Most certainly you have not, sir. You have not cited one iota of evidence that supports the claim that KDY named the Procurator-, Mandator-, and Acclamator-classes. You have not proven anything of the sort, and the use of "Q.E.D." is therefore quite incorrect in this context. The evidence on the matter is quite clear: that the Acclamator-class is a product of RHE, an apparently secret subsidiary of KDY, and that Mandator-classes and Procurator-classes are used by the Kuati sectorial fleet. Nowhere is there any evidence regarding who selected these names.

If you wish to argue that it's all coincidental, by all means go ahead, but noone will be very convinced.

As regards your claim that there are no other explanations, were you aware that at the Battle of Trafalgar, there were the British and French fleets each had a ship named Achille and a ship named Neptune (there was also a Spanish Neptuno)? That there was a Spanish Argonauta and a French Argonaute? Shall we inductively conclude that they were all named by the same people? Or shall we inductively conclude that to name ships for figures of Greek and Roman mythology was a popular style at the time?

And what class were they? Stay on topic.

Even if the Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections did make clear that the Acclamator-class was designed by KDY ? and it does not ? , it still would not affect by one iota the fact that it is a product of RHE and not of KDY.

RHE is the manufacturer only- there is no evidence that they designed it and contrary evidence to show that KDY did so. If your interpretation of the evidence was cogent, there would be no need to mention KDY at all in the entire Acclamator-class entry. Just because you manufactured something doesn't mean you designed it.

In light of the fact that the Procurator- and Mandator-classes are used by the Kuati sectorial fleet, and in keeping with naval custom and tradition, the Kuati sectorial fleet (or the chief executive of Kuat's naval administration) is most probably the party responsible for the selection of those names. Note that this is Kuat as a state and member of the Galactic Republic, not Kuat Drive Yards.

And the Republic just happened to choose the same sort of name, of course.

RHE is a subsidiary corporation of KDY, according to the Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections. That means that it is not a part of KDY; either more than half the voting shares of RHE's stock is owned by KDY, or KDY is a shareholder of RHE with the right to appoint or remove a majority of members of RHE's board of directors. It is a separate and distinct company, albeit one controlled by KDY.

And one purely involved with the manufacturing of the vessel in question, as the ICS makes clear.

If you will include RHE's products with KDY's, then you must also include KSE's, as it too is a subsidiary corporation of KDY. And if you will include all the names of KDY's, RHE's, and KSE's products, you will see that there are more names which do not conform to this "obvious pattern" than there are names that do.

And again, the pattern need not cover every warship ever produced by KDY or it's subsidiaries.

Your proposed pattern of KDY names is based on the similar termination of the words Acclamator, Mandator, Procurator, and Executor. However, the name Acclamator belongs to a RHE product, not a KDY product, and the name Executor was chosen by Lord Vader, not by KDY. This leaves only the names Mandator and Procurator, and there is no evidence that KDY chose those names, either. Furthermore, two names is insufficient to establish such a pattern as you allege.

No need to repeat yourself.

Then why did you mention it twice as support of your claim?

Just mentioning that it was Dr. Saxton who did it must mean I am getting 'support' from it?

A pattern which is meaningless in light of the fact that it is based solely on the fact that those three words terminate in the Latin suffix -tor and that it ignores the fact that the three are manufactured by two different companies and belong to two different fleets. It is not a canonical fact that these names represent a consistent pattern of names by KDY; that is your interpretation of the evidence.

It is far more convincing than your interpretation, which requires that we ignore the Incredible Cross Sections repeated references to Kuat's involvement in the Acclamator, and dismisses the similarity as mere 'coincidence' based on an erroneous appeal to ships in different fleets having the same names (nothing to do with class), as well as appealing to "two different fleets" when I have already shown by example that the mere change in government doesn't mean that class naming conventions should change.

It is relevant in that you are wrong to fault "Imperial-class" as being inconsistent when it is the latter names which are inconsistent with it, not vice versa.

The Episode II ICS deals with ships that came long before the ISD, and that is the only relevant consideration, not the real order of publication.

How is this pattern "preferable"? In that it consists of a minority of known KDY products? In that there are only three KDY products that conform to it? In that those three that do conform are separated by twenty years or more?

PUBLIUS

It's a subjective matter- however, in the heirarchy of KDY warships in time from Procrurator-Executor, Imperial does not fit and Imperator does.'Imperial' class is based on childish analysis of the films whereby the casual utterances of the characters are converted to a formal class designation, just like 'Super' class. Obscure dictionary definitions to save it from this stigma notwithstanding.

[Publius]

Under the usual rules of order, this would perhaps be an appropriate time to move the previous question.

PUBLIUS

[Connor MacLeod]

Under the usual rules of order, this would perhaps be an appropriate time to move the previous question.

PUBLIUS

I take it you got tired of beating against his ironclad ignorance too, huh?

[Connor MacLeod]

How does correcting a scaling error violate continuity in any way?

Not so much correcting the error, but in dealing with the material. Your method basically nsists that all "corrected" material can be assumed flawed and need not be reconciled. My method says that the material should be utilized when possible, and dismissed only when no other alternative allows.

By this logic, we should not make any effort whatsoever at harmonization, even though the EU has factually demonstrated such (EG, the fate of General Veers and Hobbie at Hoth has been reconciled, even though it was implied Hobbie died in the novelization. Using your "logic" we would not bother to reconcile this, but simply ignore all EU references to Hobbie, no matter how pervasive they are.)

No, corrected as necessary by canon, not dismissed.

Yet again, *correction* of evidence occurs with both theories, and is irrelevant to the actual handling of the overriden material.

I'd say my approach was far closer to that than yours- of course you'll keep telling yourself that I'm 'throwing out' material rather than correcting it as necessary with reference to canon.

Yet again (because you appear to have some sort of selective vision impairment) CORRECTING EVIDENEC IS NOT THE SAME AS DEALING WITH THE OVERIDDEN MATERIAL. I am talking about the latter, whether it is harmonized with the existing framework where possible or dismissed out of hand whether it can be reconciled or not.

You're big on broad rhetoric about analysis but you won't actually get down to the nitty gritty, because your position can't survive it. Again: no distinction is drawn between the 8km/12.8km and 17.6km ships in official or canon material. It is clear that the entire EU has gotten the size of the Executor wrong. There is no explicit evidence of a 8/12.8km vessel, and repeated evidence of errors regarding the Executor's and its sisters true size. Therefore, references to an 8km/12.8km ship are quite simply incorrect. Your approach requires the automatic insertion of extra terms whenever there's an error of a canon item/vessel whatever- including shorter AT-ATs, smaller Death Star IIs, and SSDs, never mind the complete lack of evidence for their existence, and the shifting of the burden of proof to the other party to somehow prove that they're *not* different. It's totally unconvincing, and contributes *nothing* to continuity. In the case of the smaller SSD, it also flies in the face of the interchangeable manner with which the Executor and it's companions are described as 5 miles long.

Lets see:

1.) The canon vessel's size is 11 miles. The official vessel lists 8 or 5 miles. A difference.

2.) The "inferred" name for the canon 11-mile vessel is Executor class (either officially or otherwise.), named after the first vessel of the class. The 5/8 mile vessel is labeled "Super"-class.

3.) The number of engines on the canon and official vessels differ.

4.) Checking of various dimensions and ratios of sections of the two ships notes further differences.

5.) Fighter complements differ. The canon model carries thousands of TIEs (EG the Knight HAmmer in Darksaber.), wheras the "Super" class carries only 144 TIEs.

And this is just off the top of my head, but it is enough under analytical rules to suggest it IS IN FACT possible to treat it as a separate vessel, despite what you may want to pretend. The fact is, it works, it utilizes the material canonically overriden, and explains just how the mistake occurs.

This methodology is no different than what is used to identify different subclasses or classes of vessels (all the different identified vessel types in Dark Empire, or other comics, unused artists sketches, or other such.) I don't expect you to grasp this, though.

Not my position at all. You have a very nice way of inventing things that aren't there and ignoring the actual points of the argument to score cheap points regarding broad terms which have never been discussed though.

Its not that difficult to grasp the notion that you don't even think its important to attempt to rationalize materials, that you badly want to hold onto your irrational little biases and that you won't let any measure of logic dislodge you from your delusions. The fact that several SEPARATE people other than myself have been debating some of the same points I have and not made any dent in that vast field of ignorance you display reinforces my belief in this, no matter what you say or how badly you attempt to portray it as a mess of fallacies (as if I haven't seen others try THOSE tactics with me.)

It is pointless toa rgue with this further becaue the only counter you can bring forth is to put your fingers in your ears and scream "I CAN'T HEAR YOU YOU HAVEN'T COUNTERED MY ARGUMENTS LA LA LA!" with a mindless repetition of the same inane logic. Its quite obvious that further debate is a waste of my time (a point I am sure others have grasped as well.) And my point has been made and I am certain others have understood it, even if your iron skull does not permit understanding. So all I have left to say is "Concession accepted" and do not waste my time further, troll.

[Connor MacLeod]

The eight on either side, combined with the two notch guns, combined with the spine guns can fall under the category of dozens- regardless, you will be hardpressed to find WEG's weapons stats corresponding to the canon ship whatsoever.

I see your good at semantics games as well. 13-15 guns are not "dozens". WEG's stats can be reconciled as being "part" of dozens, and even if we assume they can't there is evidence to treat it as a Star Destroyer subclass (there are variations on the STar Destroyer design, your irrational whining notwithstanding.)

And you deny that?

Its irrelevant to an attempt at objective analysis. Hence, your referral to the accuracy of WEG is totally irrelevant to the discussion (Aside from the fact it represents yet another indication of the irrational bias you have repeatedly demonstrated in this discussion both with myself and others.)

Your lack of reading comprehension isn't my problem- this is about methodology and how things can be changed should someone want to, not the canon status of Imperial, which is indisputable.

Yes, its about your inability to understand how analysis goes. I *know* the soundness of my methods - its based much on what the people whom I know and respect have taught me directly or indirectly. As I repeated before (and you have repeatedly ignored) its not about whether or not something can be changed or not - changing occurs by either my method or yours regardless. Its about how overidden evidence is dealt with and the importance of harmonization and reconciliation of conflicting material.

Your strawmen of my methodology and what my methodology actually is clearly don't coincide.

Unfortunately for you, its not a strawman.

Then explain why my interpretation is flawed.

I have. I've noticed that this is not the first time you have refused to acknowledge the fact that someone debating you actually *has* made their point in this discussion alone (EG, Publius.)

And where did I say that something can't be a KDY design?

Since Publius is kicking your ass on the "Imperial" designation, I see no need to repeat this, since he is saying basically what I was far better.

Rubbish. WEG *is* unreliable when it can be demonstrated to be so, one mistake does not destroy the entire source. Where we differ is that you will go to all sorts of lengths to prevent obvious nonsense being corrected by canon (re: 8km Super Star Destroyer)- and you seem to think correcting bullshit= "throwing out". It was never *there* to be thrown out in the first place.

YEt again, you demonstrate an inability to distinguish between "correction" of material, and what is done with the material that is overidden (dismissal or harmonization.) Yet again, I also point out that my methods allow for the "correction" of incorrect evidence (IE, in the case of the Executor, my method fully acknowledges the known canon attributes of the Executor, and even allows for the official "Executor-class" designation. The only difference, and the one you can do nothign but bitch about as being "stupid", is that the overidden "vessel" - EG the 12.8/8 km "Super" class ship, which officially has demonstrated traits and characteristics both visually and textually distinct from the canon Executor - is treated as a different ship entirely.

Harmonization has reasonable limits. It is not reasoanble to create new ship classes everytime there's a scaling error due to lack of research, especially in the case of the 5 mile long fallacy- the entire EU has drawn no such distinctions and clearly treated the ships as one and the same. Misidentification is an absurd explanation- no person who wasn't completely blind could mistake a ship half/twice it's size for another. It is an easily corrected error, nothing more.

So you clearly do not believe that harmonization and consistency must be maintained at all costs? One can just simply "ignore" something just because you don't like it? I remind you, even though you will no doubt ignore this, that "correction" is different from what I am arguing for. Stop sticking your head in the sand and pay attention for once, spanky.

Whether it's possible and whether it's convincing are two unrelated things.

Wrong. If its possible, it is quite acceptable to do so if it fits the circumstances. Your appeals to the "obvious", "stupidity" or other similarily subjective rationale notwithstanding. As I said before, further debate with oyu is pointless and since my main points have been made, I do not need to waste my time further. Do whatever posturing you might need to further salve your fragile ego, since I don't really care.

[Cal Wright]

Which obviously purtains to his list of ships. Also, this is some lacky web page by a subpar author of a trilogy that most people groan about.

He said there was no proof that that's the pattern to which SW ships adhere. I pointed out the entire New Class of vessels, as well as the Executor-class, exhibit this quality. And post proof that this pattern is limited to the New Class, despite evidence to the contrary and that not being stated in the page.

Regardless of where it is said, EC confirms that the vessels were named after first-of-class (lists an example), and your other comment is a pure bullshit ad hominem attack. The fact that he says this in his website doesn't change that its a statement of official fact.

Come back when you have an argument.

I do have an argument. It's called Canon vs. NON Canon.

Concession...accepted.

[Vympel]

Oh, and Publius:

"Bridge tower module is standard on KDY's smaller naval designs"

Now ... why would the ICS refer to KDY's designs when pointing out the same feature on the Acclamator if KDY didn't design it, exactly?

Not so much correcting the error, but in dealing with the material. Your method basically nsists that all "corrected" material can be assumed flawed and need not be reconciled. My method says that the material should be utilized when possible, and dismissed only when no other alternative allows.

There is no alternative for creating a new 8km/12.8km ship where the primary material treats them as one and the same. You have not presneted an single piece of evidence to show that they were ever meant to be two different ships, or ever treated that way by the material.

By this logic, we should not make any effort whatsoever at harmonization, even though the EU has factually demonstrated such (EG, the fate of General Veers and Hobbie at Hoth has been reconciled, even though it was implied Hobbie died in the novelization. Using your "logic" we would not bother to reconcile this, but simply ignore all EU references to Hobbie, no matter how pervasive they are.)

Hardly. The fate of a character who was never explicitly stated to have died (IIRC) is not as objective as the length of a starship. Nice false analogy though.

Yet again, *correction* of evidence occurs with both theories, and is irrelevant to the actual handling of the overriden material.

And you think simply allowing in whatever error of the week we draw out of WEG today is "correction"?

*snip*

And this is just off the top of my head, but it is enough under analytical rules to suggest it IS IN FACT possible to treat it as a separate vessel, despite what you may want to pretend. The fact is, it works, it utilizes the material canonically overriden, and explains just how the mistake occurs.

This methodology is no different than what is used to identify different subclasses or classes of vessels (all the different identified vessel types in Dark Empire, or other comics, unused artists sketches, or other such.) I don't expect you to grasp this, though.

Nice way to totally miss the point. For the last time: there is no distinction drawn in the EU material between an 8 or 5 mile ship and the 11 mile canon vessel. You are ignoring the way the ships are treated in the material to whore your methodology. The Executor, and other ships, are referred to as such INTERCHANGEABLY. Get this through your skull.

Its not that difficult to grasp the notion that you don't even think its important to attempt to rationalize materials, that you badly want to hold onto your irrational little biases

Yes, the canon length of the Super Star Destroyer is an 'irrational little bias'. Far more rational to just invent new ships whenever some schmuck ignores the film eh? Oh look, it's a 160km DS2. I can't prove they're not different, after all, can I? Oh wait ... I smell a fallacy.

It is pointless toa rgue with this further becaue the only counter you can bring forth is to put your fingers in your ears and scream "I CAN'T HEAR YOU YOU HAVEN'T COUNTERED MY ARGUMENTS LA LA LA!" with a mindless repetition of the same inane logic. Its quite obvious that further debate is a waste of my time (a point I am sure others have grasped as well.) And my point has been made and I am certain others have understood it, even if your iron skull does not permit understanding. So all I have left to say is "Concession accepted" and do not waste my time further, troll.

Ah, the obligatory "call anyone who disagrees with my biblical inerrantist dogma a troll". Bite me you sanctimonious hatfucker.

I see your good at semantics games as well. 13-15 guns are not "dozens". WEG's stats can be reconciled as being "part" of dozens, and even if we assume they can't there is evidence to treat it as a Star Destroyer subclass (there are variations on the STar Destroyer design, your irrational whining notwithstanding.)

So if the WEG ship is Imperial, what is the actual canon ship, hmmm?

Its irrelevant to an attempt at objective analysis.

Riiiightttt. Pointing out obvious errors in material dealing with known canon ships is irrelevant to objective analysis of it. Whatever.

Yes, its about your inability to understand how analysis goes. I *know* the soundness of my methods - its based much on what the people whom I know and respect have taught me directly or indirectly.

*claps* My fucken hero. Good for you, I don't give a fuck, just get on with the argument, you holier-than-thou prick.

As I repeated before (and you have repeatedly ignored) its not about whether or not something can be changed or not - changing occurs by either my method or yours regardless.

And that 'change' would be inventing new vessels for which there is no evidence except scaling errors in regards to a canon ship treated interchangeably as such with your fantasy ships huh? I'm really convinced.

I have. I've noticed that this is not the first time you have refused to acknowledge the fact that someone debating you actually *has* made their point in this discussion alone (EG, Publius.)

I would stick to your own pathetic attempts to justify your non-existent fantasy ships rather than cheerleading.

YEt again, you demonstrate an inability to distinguish between "correction" of material, and what is done with the material that is overidden (dismissal or harmonization.) Yet again, I also point out that my methods allow for the "correction" of incorrect evidence (IE, in the case of the Executor, my method fully acknowledges the known canon attributes of the Executor, and even allows for the official "Executor-class" designation. The only difference, and the one you can do nothign but bitch about as being "stupid", is that the overidden "vessel" - EG the 12.8/8 km "Super" class ship, which officially has demonstrated traits and characteristics both visually and textually distinct from the canon Executor - is treated as a different ship entirely.

Never mind the inconvenient fact that the official material in ALL forms makes no such distinction. Are you EVER going to respond to that, or are you just going to repeat your dogma ad infinitum?

o you clearly do not believe that harmonization and consistency must be maintained at all costs?

Explain how correcting size errors destroys consistency. I fail to see how inventing ships that aren't there is 'consistent'.

Wrong. If its possible, it is quite acceptable to do so if it fits the circumstances.

Ah, a Biblical Inerrantist. How droll. Or didn't you know your moron logic is the same as that employed by those dullards?

[vakundok]

The 'Imperial stardestroyer' (or 'Imperial Stardestroyer') appears in the second draft of 'The Star Wars'. At that time they were giants. But not too large, since the rebel 'spacefighter' was able to destroy one of the four before being disabled. They had no docking bays (large enough to hold the small rebel ship), so Vader's destroyer hovered (less than twenty feet) above the rebel ship and stormtroopers dropped onto the rebel craft from a small hatch.
In the fourth draft (the base for Star Wars (later ANH)), the name became 'Imperial Star Destroyer' and the vessel suggested to become larger.
'Imperial' suggests a proper noun, however the word imperial is ALLWAYS written as 'Imperial' or 'IMPERIAL' in the scripts (eg.: 'Imperial stormtroopers' or 'Imperial snow walkers'). The side reference of the rebels is not that constant, they are referred as 'Rebel' or as 'rebel' (from TESB) as well ...
It seems that this mistake made its way to the novelisations (at least to the original language) too. Since likely it is the base for the 'Imperial class Star Destroyer' it remains questionable since Leia's ship is not a 'Rebel class Blockade Runner' and the probe droid is not an 'Imperial class probe robot'.
So, the Imperial class is questionable. However. Do we need to doubt it? No. Simply because we do not have an unquestionable base to do so.
I dislike the sound of 'Imperial class imperial star destroyer' but it is only personal and as such irrelevant. (I also have to admit that 'Imperial' class is not that stupid since a new, imperial era had just started.)
Sadly, Dr. Curtis Saxton had the oppurtunity to make his personal opinion semi- official suggesting class naming conventions the 'Imperial' does not fit to. The problems are:
1, 'Delta-7 Aethersprite' class starfighter or the LAAT class gunship. At least one of them is named by the same group which named the Acclamator class. (Whether this was KDY or Rothana (or even the Republic) is insignificant.)
2, The class name of the Executor is questionable. Apart from the 'Super- class' resources, if it was named by Vader it is unsure that he followed any naming conventions.
3, The standing of the Mandel blueprints is unsure.

Sorry if I was boring.