StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Are you trying to troll, hatfucker?

Kazeite wrote: Huh? You didn't said that, nor was I implying that. But I assumed that you have read previous post, since you decided to join. If not, then you shouldn't engage in discussion.

Not reading what other people post doesn't seem to ever stop YOU from spouting off your meaningless bullshit.

By presenting example that showed that damage to an engine is not harmful to a starship? Nice try at misrepresentation, Connor.

You are an idiot aren't you? Destroying the ability of a craft to manuver or move IS harmful to it, even in space. Christ, you're dumber than the DBZ fans I've had to deal with.

And I see that you quietly dropped the Luke example and focused exlusively on Red Leader example. Again, nice try at misrepresentation.

How have I dropped the Luke example exactly? I refuted it in fact numerous times. (The fact you equated fighter damage inflicted on a fighter with capital ship damage inflicted on a smaller ship, the red leader example, pointing out the Y-wing example you ignored, etc. Maybe it occured to you that the strike on Luke's X-wing was in fact not from a full-powered shot?)

And again, it was not the engine hit that killed him, but surface crash.

I see, so nothign can be harmful to a ship unless it involves crashing into the Death Star, by your logic.

I watched that. Y-wing was hit in the fuselage, lost one engine and promptly exploded. That proves only that Y-wings hit by Imperial starfighter in the fuselage with maximum firepower can lose engines and explode.

Whee! You're fond of flinging that bullshit around aren't you?

I watched it in slow motion. The engine takes a hit, there is an explosion behind it, and the control vanes and nozzle of the engine start to come off (the engine is still attached at this point, and doesn't fly off until later). In fact, seconds after taking the engine hit. Whether he collides with the ground or explodes (either seems possible, but it looked like the ship exploded before impact, although the secondary canon sources imply otherwise.) Either way, they do mention the engines exploding.

On top of that, the novelization AND script are explicit about it being an engine hit. In short, your speculative bullshit has been countered YET AGAIN.

And as to that last statement, if you're claiming that the Y-wing example is not applicable to the Queen's Yacht, then your "X-wing engine" example is also inapplicable. Thank you for destroying your own argument, asshole.

To put it even shorter, that specific example doesn't prove anything, and (thanks to you) there are two other examples that prove the "disabling engine is possible" theory.

Once shields are down or if an opening is found, you can probably disable the engines. But you have to get THROUGH shields to damage a craft, particularily on larger ones. Even assuming your examples were applicable (which they aren't) the fact the shields were NOT down destroys your claim utterly.

By the way asshole, I like how you're attempting to change the subject. I pointed out the Y-wing and Red Leader example to specifically counter your bullshit about engine hits not being harmful to a starfighter. Your other argument was already refuted by the simple fact you obviously did not watch TPM. To say nothing of the fact you're changing your tune from "disabling an engine is harmless" to "disabling the engines is possible."

Red herring? Funny. I suppose I could call all your examples red herrings too, using the same argumentation as Illuminatus Primus did.

You have some bizarre obsessive fascination with mentioning IP dont you, especially out of the blue like that. OR was that supposed to be an insult rather than an admission of some secret longing?

But, once again, you doesn't seem to understand that Red Leaders X-wing survived the hit and stayed in one piece for almost a minute (as shown in novelisation). It was the collision with Death Star that killed him.
If queens yacht were to suffer similar fate, it needed something to crash into - hence my Death Star absence comment.

I like how you ignore the fact Luke was able to notice he was in trouble (hence his offer of assistance), the fact that the loss of one engine "crippled" the power plant (also stated in the novelization.) The fact he was losing control, and the fact he did not have enough control to prevent collision with the surface. No, no, the only relevant fact that makes the incident "harmful" in your deluded mind is the presence or absence of terrain to collide with.

By the way, nice attempt at attempting to change the issue again. Even if he survived for a full minute, the engine hit STILL proved harmful (it affected the ship's abilities, dumbass, no matter how long it took. The timeframe isn't the issue anyhow, its whether or not an engine hit is harmful to the ship. So stop trying to change the subject YET AGAIN.)

Oh yeah, I ignore it by responding to it? What a evil person I am

So certain facts can pierce that dense growth you call a skull from time to time. I'd just about given up hope.

And what am I supposed to do with such silly argument? Don't you understand that Red Leader craft survived the hit and was destroyed only by crashing into Death Star?

And why did he crash into the Death Star? BECAUSE HE HAD NO FUCKING CONTROL OVER HIS SHIP BECAUSE HIS ENGINES WERE DAMAGED! The engine hit CLEARLY harmed the starship (not the pilot, so quit trying to shift the issue) in terms of hampering its mobility, which lead to the consequence of the collision. Had the ship survived or not been harmed by the hit, he would NOT have collided.

Planet? I would call it rather small artificial moon.

Dodging the point I see over a pointless semantic (fine, its a moon, but the fact is that the engine loss lead to the collison with the moon. Hence, it was harmful to the starship. Had a full-powered shot been harmless to Luke, Red LEader would not have ploweds into the station like he did, since they took the exact same hit.)

Once again, without "planet" there was nothing for him to crash into. If there's no "planet", then there would be no plunge into the Death Star, and the hit would be not fatal, despite your inability to understand that.
Or is it you're arguing that the absence of Death Star would still mean that he would crash into it?

Except the "crash" isnt the defining criteria for harm to the starship. The harm to the ship was inflicted by the engine hit, which, as the novelization states, crippled Red Leader's powerplant. Obviously your only definition of "harm" is "collision"

Then why do you even bother to answer it? Besides, it wasyour example, not mine.

You'd start crowing (like the troll you are) that I ignored your point and that you win. Thats what happens when you deal with a fundamentally dishonest opponent like yourself.

Oh fer cryin' out loud, haven't you heard about variable power settings? Hello? You seriously believe that TF ships were shotting with maximum power?

Who said anything about maximum power shots? I simply pointed out that the Trade Federation battleship has MORE firepower than an X-wing, evne per gun. Or is your logic that the Trade Federation warship was flinging bolts equivalent in damage to an X-wing's lasers?

You are claiming that the damage a TIE fighter's laser bolt inflicts on an X-wing is comparable to the damage a Trade Federation battleship would inflict on the Queen's Yacht. This nitpick about "maximum firepower" is completely irrelevant.

Even bigger ships shooting at it. So, your point is?

That your full of shit as usual.

I was answering to the entirety of your claim.

So then why did you snip most of it away in favor of addressing that one segment? You never did address the rest of my point.

Sigh... Once again, it obviously either didn't occured to them that they could knock out shields and shields generator entirely by repetatedly shooting at the exact same place, or they were unable to hit that place again, despite their best efforts.

The point is they *didn't* knock out the shields were STILL up after hitting the generator. The shields didn't drop until much later (and by then R2 had already restored them, anyhow.) Still ignoring that point, I see.

So in short, you're attempting to pretend that you don't understand my rebuttal, or you genuinely don't understand it.

OH sure, thats how it always is. Everyone lacks the comprehension to understand the genius behind your arguments. Like I haven't heard THAT before.

Your habit for showing examples that actually damage your position is most amusing... and familiar. Tell me: You learned it from DarkStar, did you?

Talking to yourself like that isnt a good sign of stability.

Kazeite wrote:

Lord Poe wrote:Maneuvering thrusters have been seen on the Falcon when it lands at Bespin in TESB.

No, they haven't. These were landing thrusters. Can't you see (literally) the difference?

Prove that these landing jets can't also be MANEUVERING THRUSTERS, jackass. When the Falcon is hovering before touching down, its using repulsorlifts, which negate gravity. Sort of like when the ship is in SPACE.

Not only is the Falcon maneuvering into position when landing, but you ignore its original purpose: that of a bulk freighter with front loading arms. You can't jet up to the cargo and snatch it; you have to MANEUVER the ship to pick the cargo up, Darkstar.

Maneuvering thrusters have been seen on the Devastator as it passes ovr the camera at the beginning of ANH.

What? Where? When? What are you talking about?[/quote]

Here's another clue: take a look at at the beginning of the movie! Take a look at Brian Young's Turbolaser Commentaries.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Destroying the ability of a craft to manuver or move IS harmful to it, even in space.

...since Luke's X-wing hit had completely stripped his ship from the ability to maneuver, right?

And besides, you are right. Destroying the ability of a craft to maneuver should be primary objective for anyone that wants to disable that craft.

How have I dropped the Luke example exactly?

Simply by dropping it. You posted it, I responed to it, and you in your next post silently dropped it and replaced with Red Leader example.

I refuted it in fact numerous times.

By posting it and then promptly dropping it?

(The fact you equated fighter damage inflicted on a fighter with capital ship damage inflicted on a smaller ship,

Christ... Connor, read my lips: variable firepower. Rings any bells?
Are you insisting that TF gunners who wanted to disable queens yacht used maximum firepower? Don't be silly.

Maybe it occured to you that the strike on Luke's X-wing was in fact not from a full-powered shot?)

So, you do know what variable firepower is. So why do you keep insisting that TF ships had to absolutely, positively use their maximum capital-scale firepower on queens yacht?

I see, so nothign can be harmful to a ship unless it involves crashing into the Death Star, by your logic.

Not exactly. But by staying "alive" for almost a minute RL X-wing example proves that hit itself was not fatal. Yes, it disabled one of the engines. Yes, it crippled the ability to maneuver, but it was not fatal.

If you have craft thats unable to maneuver, you can target it more accurately, and lock tractor beams on it without any troubles, as opposed to, say, craft that engages in evasive maneuvers to evade fire.

On top of that, the novelization AND script are explicit about it being an engine hit.

Now watch your heart as I say: I concede on this one. So, you proved me wrong for the first time. Must feel great after all those failures

Once shields are down or if an opening is found, you can probably disable the engines.

Like you are all found of saying, "concession accepted".

The fact that TF gunners were unable to fire precise enough to hit shields proves my original point that they lack the neccesary accurancy, which in turn means that they weren't actually shooting at the droids. They just got lucky.

I pointed out the Y-wing and Red Leader example to specifically counter your bullshit about engine hits not being harmful to a starfighter./

You also pointed out the Luke example which proves that getting hit in the engine is not fatal to the craft.
I countered (once again) Red Leader example and conceded Y-wing example.

To say nothing of the fact you're changing your tune from "disabling an engine is harmless" to "disabling the engines is possible."

You're right. You shouldn't say anything about because it simply didn't happen. Like I was saying, disabling an engine is not fatal (see Luke and Red Leader example), and it's certainly possible.

I like how you ignore the fact Luke was able to notice he was in trouble (hence his offer of assistance),

I ignore it because it's irrelevant. What does it prove?

the fact that the loss of one engine "crippled" the power plant (also stated in the novelization.)

So?... Red Leaders X-wing was disabled.

The fact he was losing control, and the fact he did not have enough control to prevent collision with the surface.

Once again - even if we assume that queens yacht were to suffer the same damage, there would be almost no surface for it to crash into.

Even if he survived for a full minute, the engine hit STILL proved harmful (it affected the ship's abilities, dumbass, no matter how long it took.

Yes, I know that it affected ships abilities. But once again (and again), if queens yacht were to suffer the same fate, there would be almost no surfaces for it to crash into.

The engine hit CLEARLY harmed the starship (not the pilot, so quit trying to shift the issue)

Huh? I'm claiming something about pilot? Hm, let's see what I said... "Don't you understand that Red Leader craft survived the hit and was destroyed only by crashing into Death Star?"

"Red Leader craft" - its seems to me that I was talking about Red Leaders craft. So how does it equate to shifting issue to the pilot?
By the way, if I wanted to use your weapons, I could point out the fact that in your post you referred to the Red Leaders X-wing example as "Red Leader example" and claim that it shifts the issue. Fortunetaly for you, I'm not interested in using inferior weapons and I actually provide you with benefit of the doubt.

Had the ship survived or not been harmed by the hit, he would NOT have collided.

Not exactly. The ships survived hit, but collided because it lost maneuvering ability.

Dodging the point I see over a pointless semantic

Yeah, I'm dodging the point by responding to it just after I had a little fun with your little mistake? Wow, what an evil person I am.

the fact is that the engine loss lead to the collison with the moon. Hence, it was harmful to the starship.

And again, there was almost no 'surface' in the orbit of Naboo for queens yacht to crash into.

Except the "crash" isnt the defining criteria for harm to the starship. The harm to the ship was inflicted by the engine hit, which, as the novelization states, crippled Red Leader's powerplant. Obviously your only definition of "harm" is "collision"

OK, so since you're obviously confused by my choice of words, then I will say this differently: Red Leaders craft was disabled by engine hit. And it crashed, because there was small artificial moon nearby.
But on the orbit of Naboo there was almost no crashable surfaces. Do you believe that if TF managed to disable queens yacht in a manner similiar to Red Leader example they would simply watch it colliding with something?

You'd start crowing (like the troll you are) that I ignored your point and that you win.

Guess what - I will claim victory only if I manage to convince you about validity of my claim. Not because you claim that something is red herring but respond to it anyway.

Who said anything about maximum power shots? I simply pointed out that the Trade Federation battleship has MORE firepower than an X-wing, evne per gun. Or is your logic that the Trade Federation warship was flinging bolts equivalent in damage to an X-wing's lasers?

Why the hell not? Were they trying to blow up queens yacht? No, they were trying to disable it.

You are claiming that the damage a TIE fighter's laser bolt inflicts on an X-wing is comparable to the damage a Trade Federation battleship would inflict on the Queen's Yacht.

No, I claiming that TF's ships firepower was dialed down when shooting at queens yacht.

In case I'm not mistaken, the common claim around here is that capital ships are vastly more powerful than fighters. So, lowering firepower to disable starfighter-scaled ship would be something obvious, don't you think? In order to minimise risk of blowing up the whole ship with one shot?

That your full of shit as usual.

So, you didn't had any point. Thought so.

So then why did you snip most of it away in favor of addressing that one segment?

Gee, maybe I was trying to save space?

The point is they *didn't* knock out the shields were STILL up after hitting the generator.

So, I see that you start to agree with me.
If they didn't knock out the shields, then they were obviously unable to do it. The most logical cause is the lack of accurancy.

Lord Poe wrote:Prove that these landing jets can't also be MANEUVERING THRUSTERS

Ater you. Prove that they ARE maneuvering thrusters.

Kazeite wrote:

Lord Poe wrote:Prove that these landing jets can't also be MANEUVERING THRUSTERS

Ater you. Prove that they ARE maneuvering thrusters.

I did, Polish Darkstar. You ignored it. The jets are used to maneuver the ship into place for a proper landing. The ship is effectively weightless while the antigravs are on, just like it is in space. The YT-1300 uses maneuvering jets to position itself correctly to load cargo onto the front loading arms. And:

Jedi Search

pg.11: The ship fired surgical strikes of turbolasers at the Falcon's
maneuvering jets, disabling them further.

Now I know you polish guys are famous for losing the recipe for ice, and trying to walk around the world and drowning, but even you should see that I've provided enough proof.

Lord Poe wrote:Now I know you polish guys are famous for losing the recipe for ice, and trying to walk around the world and drowning, but even you should see that I've provided enough proof.

Watch it, Poe.

YT300000 wrote:

Lord Poe wrote:Now I know you polish guys are famous for losing the recipe for ice, and trying to walk around the world and drowning, but even you should see that I've provided enough proof.

Watch it, Poe.

Admit it, you chuckled.

Kazeite, in order for the thrusters seen at Bespin to have actually been levitating the Falcon as it touched down, they would have had to have:

1. Been powerful enough to actually hold up the bulk of the Falcon, which is highly questionable at best given their tiny size.

2. Been continuously active, and they shut off at various times while maneuvering the Falcon towards the platform.

Both of these lead me to believe that they were maneuvering thrusters.

Lord Poe wrote:Admit it, you chuckled.

I usually don't chuckle when my heritage is insulted.

Well, it depends what your heritage is. I'm French, for example, so I'm fair game.

YT300000 wrote:I usually don't chuckle when my heritage is insulted.

Don't be so sensitive.

Lord Poe wrote:

YT300000 wrote:I usually don't chuckle when my heritage is insulted.

Don't be so sensitive.

Don't mind the newbie. Few of us pay attention to him anyhow

...since Luke's X-wing hit had completely stripped his ship from the ability to maneuver, right?

Fallacy of the excluded middle. You're not paying attention to your opponent's arguments... they're saying that the TF battleship didn't target the yacht's engines because they MIGHT accidently cause too much damage and be killed, not that they DEFINITELY WILL.

The example of Luke's ship taking damage simply shows that a shot to the engine will not always cause catastrophic damage. It does NOT prove - or even HINT - that damage to the engines will NEVER cause catastrophic damage.

SPOOFE wrote:

...since Luke's X-wing hit had completely stripped his ship from the ability to maneuver, right?

Fallacy of the excluded middle. You're not paying attention to your opponent's arguments... they're saying that the TF battleship didn't target the yacht's engines because they MIGHT accidently cause too much damage and be killed, not that they DEFINITELY WILL.

The example of Luke's ship taking damage simply shows that a shot to the engine will not always cause catastrophic damage. It does NOT prove - or even HINT - that damage to the engines will NEVER cause catastrophic damage.

It's pretty bad that SPOOFE has to repeat what I basically said for the idiot troll.

SPOOFE wrote:The example of Luke's ship taking damage simply shows that a shot to the engine will not always cause catastrophic damage. It does NOT prove - or even HINT - that damage to the engines will NEVER cause catastrophic damage.

The TF battleship even INDIRECTLY damaged the engines from where they were firing; the hyperdrive ruptured. And again, Wedge's X-wing was hit in a vital area that damaged his ability to stay with Luke and Biggs.

YT300000 wrote:

Lord Poe wrote:Admit it, you chuckled.

I usually don't chuckle when my heritage is insulted.

Likewise. I'm not horribly horribly offended, but I don't really appreciate it either.

Lord Poe wrote:

SPOOFE wrote:The example of Luke's ship taking damage simply shows that a shot to the engine will not always cause catastrophic damage. It does NOT prove - or even HINT - that damage to the engines will NEVER cause catastrophic damage.

The TF battleship even INDIRECTLY damaged the engines from where they were firing; the hyperdrive ruptured. And again, Wedge's X-wing was hit in a vital area that damaged his ability to stay with Luke and Biggs.

Lets also not forget the fact that an active engine is pumping ALOT of energy through it (enough energy to accelerate a substantial amount of reaction mass to near-lightspeed velocities to propel vessels as massive as Star Wars craft at thousands of gravities.) Hitting an engine can conceivably cause an explosion because that energy has to go SOMEWHERE. And we know the novelization and script do in fact suggest that Red Leader and Gold Five's engines DID explode (and we in fact saw Gold Five's)

To say nothing of the hyperdrive. Did you notice, Wayne, that it was stated in TPM they didn't have enough "power" to get to Coruscant because their hyperdrive is leaking...

Kazeite wrote: ...since Luke's X-wing hit had completely stripped his ship from the ability to maneuver, right?

No, that proves that the damage to Luke's engine was minor, probably from a reduced-power bolt (you do remember that X-wings have shields, right?) You don't th ink that the fact Red Leader lost control and Luke didn't suggests something?

And besides, you are right. Destroying the ability of a craft to maneuver should be primary objective for anyone that wants to disable that craft.

Who said anything about disabling a craft in this particular instance? Can't keep away from those Red Herrings I guess.

Simply by dropping it. You posted it, I responed to it, and you in your next post silently dropped it and replaced with Red Leader example.

Ah I see. You take "rebutting your claim that disabling engines does not harm starfighters" as "ignoring your point". What's the color of the sky in your world?

By posting it and then promptly dropping it?

I see as well that "proving how you're wrong" also translates into "dropping a point" in your world.

Christ... Connor, read my lips: variable firepower. Rings any bells?
Are you insisting that TF gunners who wanted to disable queens yacht used maximum firepower? Don't be silly.

Red Herring. Variable settings have nothing to do with the engine hit to Luke's X-wing you repeatedly bring up. The point is that Luke example (or, for that matter the Red Leader or Gold leader) examples aren't relevant to disabling the Queen's Yacht, aside from disabling engines (although you can also disable craft by targeting the powerplant, as with ANH and the Tantive IV.) However, I never recall actually saying disabling the engines was impossible, so this is simply another *unrelated* fact you bring up in an effort to divert attention from your original points.

So, you do know what variable firepower is. So why do you keep insisting that TF ships had to absolutely, positively use their maximum capital-scale firepower on queens yacht?

ROFLMAO. Strawmen now, is it? You're the one who keeps inserting the "maximum firepower" claim into my argument, asshole. What I'm doing is refuting your claim that the damage/destruction/disabling of starfighters is relevant to the damage/destruction of capital ships or even transports, freighters, or yachts. Variable firepower has nothing to do with it (and I would like to see some proof from you that the TIE pilot in ANH was firing reduced-power shots at Luke's X-wing, btw. Maybe he was trying to disable him too? )

I suppose by your logic we could argue that because fighters are easy to disable, capital ships should be easily disabled in a single shot from other ships too, huh?

Not exactly. But by staying "alive" for almost a minute RL X-wing example proves that hit itself was not fatal. Yes, it disabled one of the engines. Yes, it crippled the ability to maneuver, but it was not fatal.

I love how you keep attempting to turn "not fatal to the pilot unless he crashes into the death star" into "disabling the engines is harmless to a starship."

By the way, the disabling of the engine WAS in fact fatal for RL, because it DID lead to his death. I suggest you look up the definition of "fatal" if you can't understand that, shitwad.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/ ... arch=fatal

Encarta wrote: 1. leading to death: causing death, or capable of causing death

If you have craft thats unable to maneuver, you can target it more accurately, and lock tractor beams on it without any troubles, as opposed to, say, craft that engages in evasive maneuvers to evade fire.

Which is irrelevant to the Naboo or ANH scenes completely. I love how you constantly bring this up as if it were.

Now watch your heart as I say: I concede on this one. So, you proved me wrong for the first time. Must feel great after all those failures

No, it just proves just how disproportionate an amount of effort is required to get any sort of tangible results against your colossal idiocy.

Once shields are down or if an opening is found, you can probably disable the engines.

Like you are all found of saying, "concession accepted".
[/quote]

Its not a concession when you repeatedly ignore your opponents arguments like you are.

The fact that TF gunners were unable to fire precise enough to hit shields proves my original point that they lack the neccesary accurancy, which in turn means that they weren't actually shooting at the droids. They just got lucky.

So lucky that they didn't once hit the Yacht while targeting the droids? Riiiight.

You also pointed out the Luke example which proves that getting hit in the engine is not fatal to the craft.

Getting scraped in the arm isn't fatal either. Losing your leg can be fatal under the right circumstances. Besides that, you clearly have no conception of the word "fatal". Get a dictionary, fuckwit.

I countered (once again) Red Leader example and conceded Y-wing example.

You countered nothing, and conceded not once.

You're right. You shouldn't say anything about because it simply didn't happen. Like I was saying, disabling an engine is not fatal (see Luke and Red Leader example), and it's certainly possible.

Oh really? On page one when rebutting Patrick Ogaard you in fact said:

Kazeite wrote: Again, ANH battle (and other battles) show that sudden deactivation of one engine is not harmful for starfighter sized starship.

So you are in fact lying and you *did* make the claim.

I ignore it because it's irrelevant. What does it prove?

It proves just how desperate you are to avoid concession.

So?... Red Leaders X-wing was disabled.

Crippled power plant = harm to the ship. Incidentally it might also suggest that the engines are tied to the reactor system, so that may make damaging engines risky.
(risky because we're discussing systems that store or handle rather large quantities of energy, energy that has to go somewhere when released.)

]
Once again - even if we assume that queens yacht were to suffer the same damage, there would be almost no surface for it to crash into.

When is it going to occur to yo u that the crashing aspect is completely irrelevant to the issue of "Harm to the ship?"

Yes, I know that it affected ships abilities. But once again (and again), if queens yacht were to suffer the same fate, there would be almost no surfaces for it to crash into.

Yet another attempt to equate the only way to harm a craft is making it crash into something. I believe you are what Wayne calls a "semantics whore". Although in your case a "semantics Brothel" might be more appropriate.

Huh? I'm claiming something about pilot? Hm, let's see what I said... "Don't you understand that Red Leader craft survived the hit and was destroyed only by crashing into Death Star?"

"Red Leader craft" - its seems to me that I was talking about Red Leaders craft. So how does it equate to shifting issue to the pilot?
By the way, if I wanted to use your weapons, I could point out the fact that in your post you referred to the Red Leaders X-wing example as "Red Leader example" and claim that it shifts the issue. Fortunetaly for you, I'm not interested in using inferior weapons and I actually provide you with benefit of the doubt.

What does surviving the hit have to do with the fact that it took DAMAGE indicates that disabling the engine isn't harmless to the ship? You do recall tha tyour claim that "disabling an engine is harmless ot the ship" has been the point I was refuting all along, right?

Not exactly. The ships survived hit, but collided because it lost maneuvering ability.

Nice how you completely ignored the word "harm" yet again. That selective amnesia of yours is getting habitual, asshole.

And again, there was almost no 'surface' in the orbit of Naboo for queens yacht to crash into.

Yet again we see your attempt to base the entire criteria of "harm to a ship" on whether or not it crashes into something

OK, so since you're obviously confused by my choice of words, then I will say this differently: Red Leaders craft was disabled by engine hit. And it crashed, because there was small artificial moon nearby.

But on the orbit of Naboo there was almost no crashable surfaces. Do you believe that if TF managed to disable queens yacht in a manner similiar to Red Leader example they would simply watch it colliding with something?

And I repeat because you seem to be suffering from some irreversible degree of brain damage: The CRASH is irrelevant to the definition of HARM TO THE SHIP (in this instance, Red Leader and/oir Gold Leader's fighters.) Stop attempting to shift the subject just because you know you can't refute me directly (I reiterate that your claim was that disabling an engine is not harmful to the ship. Damage of any kind can be harmful to the ship without actually destroying it or killing the pilot, so your repeated reference to a collision surface is a complete red herring.)

As for the Queen's Yacht, it could very well have crashed into the Trade Federation ship. But I'm sure thats irrelevant to your argument because ytou can't deal with it.

Why the hell not? Were they trying to blow up queens yacht? No, they were trying to disable it.

And how the hell do you propose they get through the shields, asshole? Low-powered fighter bolts? By the way, prove that Trade Federation quadlasers are equivalent to X-wing laser cannons, since you seem to be arguing precisely that.

No, I claiming that TF's ships firepower was dialed down when shooting at queens yacht.

In case I'm not mistaken, the common claim around here is that capital ships are vastly more powerful than fighters. So, lowering firepower to disable starfighter-scaled ship would be something obvious, don't you think? In order to minimise risk of blowing up the whole ship with one shot?

By the way, the Queen's yacht is FAR larger than a starfighter, asshole. Its more on par with a Corvette or the Falcon (its actually larger than the Falcon by a significant margin.) And for that matter, what makes you think that a single full-power hit from the TF ship would blow the Queen's Yacht up?

So, I see that you start to agree with me.
If they didn't knock out the shields, then they were obviously unable to do it. The most logical cause is the lack of accurancy.

Still trying to prove that point are we? So if they had such poor accuracy, how could they destroy droids without hitting the ship in the process if their accuracy sucked? Besides which, did it occur to you that the misses were deliberate to "box" the target in by forcing them to deliberately dodge (or that they may *have* been attempting to concentrate fire to punch through the shields or set up disabling shots once they breached the shields, which would be more difficult than simply trying to blast the craft.) Its something called a "limited barrage pattern" and a standard Imperial Tactic (ref: Hutt Gambit).

Besides, did it occur to you that if they ARE attempting to cripple the transport, that would be far more difficult than disabling it, requiring FAR more precise fire to do so (made all the more difficult by the need to penetrate the Yacht's shields.) So either way, you STILL lose out fuckwit.

(BTW, you're still wrong. They actually DID force the shields to go down. But by the time they did so, R2 had repaired the generator and shields were fully operational. Had they destroyed all the droids, the shields would have failed, and as Panaka said, they would be 'sitting ducks.' Just how many times does this have to be told to you before it occurs to you, moron? )

By the way, since its obvious that Kazeite's argument has fallen apart and noone is buying his bullshit, I think we can agree that its a "concession accepted, can't we?"

Connor MacLeod wrote:By the way, since its obvious that Kazeite's argument has fallen apart and noone is buying his bullshit, I think we can agree that its a "concession accepted, can't we?"

Kazeite had an argument? All I saw was a moronic treatment of movie lower limits as if they were upper limits. I didn't see an actual argument of any kind ... unless he actually believed that was an argument

Darth Wong wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:By the way, since its obvious that Kazeite's argument has fallen apart and noone is buying his bullshit, I think we can agree that its a "concession accepted, can't we?"

Kazeite had an argument? All I saw was a moronic treatment of movie lower limits as if they were upper limits. I didn't see an actual argument of any kind ... unless he actually believed that was an argument

Considering the degree of dedication he is devoting to his idiocy (discounting all the dodging and misrepresesentation, that is.), he apparently does. And he's growing in volume, too.

And just to put the final nail in the coffin:

It should be noted there ARE precedents of ships blowing or suffering severe damage from damage to the engines (or powerplants, w hich often seem tied to the engines) - one example is the Dreadnaught testbed EX-F, which had its engines targeted, which resulted in the ship blowing up. ("New Essential Guide to Characters"). I believe there are fighter examples of this also happening in the X-wing novelizations as well.

And if one checks the TPM ICS, one will note that there are fuel lines connecting to the engines - and that the Naboo cruiser's fuel tank is almost right next to the engines.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Who said anything about disabling a craft in this particular instance?

I did.

Ah I see. You take "rebutting your claim that disabling engines does not harm starfighters" as "ignoring your point".

No, I take dropping the Lukes X-wing example as "ignoring the point".

I see as well that "proving how you're wrong" also translates into "dropping a point" in your world.

You haven't proved anything. You used Lukes example, I responded to it, and you quietly dropped it and replaced with Red Leaders example.

Red Herring. Variable settings have nothing to do with the engine hit to Luke's X-wing you repeatedly bring up.

Concession accepted, then.
The fact that queens yacht is heavier than X-wing and that TF cruisers are heavier than TIE Fighters is simply irrelevant, as I have pointed out.

You're the one who keeps inserting the "maximum firepower" claim into my argument.

Then why do you even bring the size difference? If they have variable firepower, then size differences are irrelevant.

What I'm doing is refuting your claim that the damage/destruction/disabling of starfighters is relevant to the damage/destruction of capital ships or even transports, freighters, or yachts.

It is relevant by showing us it is possible.

Variable firepower has nothing to do with it (and I would like to see some proof from you that the TIE pilot in ANH was firing reduced-power shots at Luke's X-wing, btw.

Connor MacLeod wrote:(...) that proves that the damage to Luke's engine was minor, probably from a reduced-power bolt

I suppose by your logic we could argue that because fighters are easy to disable, capital ships should be easily disabled in a single shot from other ships too, huh?

Even thought I never claimed that capital ships could be easily disabled "in single shot", ANH shows us explictly that disabling capital ships is possible as well.

I love how you keep attempting to turn "not fatal to the pilot unless he crashes into the death star" into "disabling the engines is harmless to a starship."

No, I keep attempting to point out that shot itself was not fatal to the X-wing. Yes, it disabled it, it eventually caused it to crash into Death Star, yes, it was harmful, but it didn't destroy it.

Which is irrelevant to the Naboo or ANH scenes completely.

Since, of course, we weren't talking about TF trying to disable queens yacht...
Oh wait, we were!

So lucky that they didn't once hit the Yacht while targeting the droids? Riiiight.

Since, of course, for that scene whole yacht compacted so it would only occupy space in the movie shot.
Don't be silly. We don't see rest of the yacht and we don't know whether is hit or not.

Losing your leg can be fatal under the right circumstances.

Exactly. And getting hit in the engine can also be fatal under right circumstances.

You countered nothing, and conceded not once.

What part of "I concede" did you not understand?

So you are in fact lying and you *did* make the claim.

Sigh... Do you understand the difference between "sudden deactivation" and "blowing up"?

Crippled power plant = harm to the ship. Incidentally it might also suggest that the engines are tied to the reactor system, so that may make damaging engines risky.

Since of course Red Leaders X-wing instantly exploded when... No, wait, it didn't.
So, you're saying that because Red Leaders power plant didn't exploded it means that we shouldn't try to disable engines because it might lead to power plant blowing up?
Then why are you arguing with me?

When is it going to occur to yo u that the crashing aspect is completely irrelevant to the issue of "Harm to the ship?"

It occured to me long time ago. Like I repeatedly stated, Red Leaders X-wing was harmed. But it was the crash that destroyed it, not the hit.

Yet another attempt to equate the only way to harm a craft is making it crash into something.

No, it is my attempt to point out that Red Leaders X-wing hit didn't cause it to blow up.

You do recall that your claim that "disabling an engine is harmless ot the ship" has been the point I was refuting all along, right?

Then you basically wasted your time. I never claimed it. It was said that sudden deactivation of one engines can cause craft to spin out of control. I said that sudden deactivation is not harmful, ie it's not guaranteed to make it spin out of control. And I recently said over and over and over again that shooting engine can lead to the whole craft blowing up... And why do you still argue with me?

Yet again we see your attempt to base the entire criteria of "harm to a ship" on whether or not it crashes into something.

Yet again you confuse "harm" with "destruction".

The CRASH is irrelevant to the definition of HARM TO THE SHIP (in this instance, Red Leader and/oir Gold Leader's fighters.)

Of course its irrelevant. As I said before, Red Leader's X-wing was harmed. But it requied collision with Death Star to destroy it completely.

As for the Queen's Yacht, it could very well have crashed into the Trade Federation ship.

Yes. That's why I was careful to put the word 'almost' into my statements.

And how the hell do you propose they get through the shields, asshole? Low-powered fighter bolts?

Since they didn't wanted to blow it incidentally, lot's of smaller bolts seems like a good idea.

By the way, prove that Trade Federation quadlasers are equivalent to X-wing laser cannons, since you seem to be arguing precisely that.

Huh? I argue only that TF used lower setting on their weapons.

By the way, the Queen's yacht is FAR larger than a starfighter, asshole. Its more on par with a Corvette or the Falcon (its actually larger than the Falcon by a significant margin.)

But then, there were more guns firing at it.

And for that matter, what makes you think that a single full-power hit from the TF ship would blow the Queen's Yacht up?

Because it is popular claim that SW capital ships are vastly more powerful than starfighter-scale ships.

Still trying to prove that point are we? So if they had such poor accuracy, how could they destroy droids without hitting the ship in the process if their accuracy sucked?

Simple: because they got lucky.

Besides which, did it occur to you that the misses were deliberate to "box" the target in by forcing them to deliberately dodge

Dodge what? TF blasts? That doesn't sound like a good plan.
If they had the neccesary accurancy, then the most obvious route was to punch throught the shields with low powered blasts and then disable key components by low powered blasts, too.

Its something called a "limited barrage pattern" and a standard Imperial Tactic (ref: Hutt Gambit).

But TF is not Imperial Fleet.

Besides, did it occur to you that if they ARE attempting to cripple the transport, that would be far more difficult than disabling it, requiring FAR more precise fire to do so

Now you seem confused. You argue that crippling starships requies precise fire and that it somehow causes my statement that disabling ships requied precise fire and since they were unable to disable it they were lacking accurancy?

(BTW, you're still wrong. They actually DID force the shields to go down.

So make up your mind. First you claim that shields weren't down, they you say that they were down.

Darth Wong wrote:All I saw was a moronic treatment of movie lower limits as if they were upper limits.

Then you saw wrong. What upper limits? I was talking about lack of accurancy, not firepower.

Master of Ossus wrote:Kazeite, in order for the thrusters seen at Bespin to have actually been levitating the Falcon as it touched down, they would have had to have:

1. Been powerful enough to actually hold up the bulk of the Falcon, which is highly questionable at best given their tiny size.

2. Been continuously active, and they shut off at various times while maneuvering the Falcon towards the platform.

Both of these lead me to believe that they were maneuvering thrusters."

Please note that by the time they engage, the landing is almost over. Falcon is already at the right position, and all that is requied is to slow her down.
Not to mention that there were couple of other instances of Falcon engaging in maneuvers in atmosphere and deep space alike, that would require use of those thrusters. And they weren't used.


Anyway, it seems to me that we all are in agreement now that disabling engines with careful fire is possible.

So, let's get back to my original question: if TF posseses the accurancy (which you claim it does), then why weren't they able to actually disable queens yacht by shooting at key components with precise shots?

Lord Poe wrote:

YT300000 wrote:I usually don't chuckle when my heritage is insulted.

Don't be so sensitive.

I'm not sensitive, I just have a very short temper. And I take all sorts of things personally.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Don't mind the newbie. Few of us pay attention to him anyhow