Beeing Promoted in the Forums

[BadSamaritan]

I think Warlord and Grand Admiral are on about the same level. Considering warlords answer to no one, and for the most part, neither did the Grand Admirals.

 

And speaking of Grand Admirals, anyone know of a good link about them? I know a star wars magazine had a good article on all of them (Insider i think?) but i havent been able to find any exceptionaly good links on them on the web as of yet.

[Trejiuvanat]

If you read the first few pages of this thread you'll find that the ranks here are in a wrong order and that there's a mix-up between naval, army and starfighter ranks.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

The only rank that I've found that doesn't belong is General. The rest of the ranks are correct. I don't think that there is any difference between the Imperial Navy and Imperial Starfighter ranks. If you are an officer, you're the same rank as your equivilent in the opposite wing of the Navy.

[NIIIC]

The only rank that I've found that doesn't belong is General.

 

So you have noting to do here, Just joking, i will have to erase that post when you passé to the next rank, if you do

Edited September 3, 2004 by NIIIC

[Barkoa]

Yah. Shame that the ranks are all over the place. I'd rather just have army rankings, while Im sure others would prefer Naval. I wish I could just stop once I get to general, but thats a ways away!

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Once you get to 2000 posts you can pick your rank. I'm sure General is available

[Barkoa]

Thrawn, you're ranked general and you've only got 700, oooh, i know what you mean. about staying on that rank. well, when i get there, i'll probably go fo jedi master or something... but i have ages to go!

[Mad78]

Patience, young Padawan, you must learn patience.

[NIIIC]

Don’t worry Barkoa, you are going at an exultant rate, about 10 posts per day i saw, it remembers my olds days when i was at 25 posts per day.

 

Got wrists problems.

[Guest Scathane]

The only rank that I've found that doesn't belong is General. The rest of the ranks are correct. I don't think that there is any difference between the Imperial Navy and Imperial Starfighter ranks. If you are an officer, you're the same rank as your equivilent in the opposite wing of the Navy.

That's quite incorrect, Thrawn. There is a difference between army, navy and fighter ranking in boh Star Wars and real life. You can find them here. SOCL - how we miss him - was so kind to point that out. SOCL and I devised a new ranking system in which members would go through different segments of the army. you can find it here.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

The problem with that list is that is assumes the SW universe follows the same ranking system as a RL Military. It is impossible to impose RL restrictions on SW things. The primary problem is that the list you linked to uses a series of source books (which are outdated. Almost 15 years old) as its references. Actually, he only uses one reference (bad practice no matter what you are doing), and that reference is for a RP game, which makes things up to coincide with gameplay. He picks apart the rank system used in the computer games, stating that the ranks of General, Colonal, and Major cannot be used in the Naval ranking system because they are army ranks. So? It's not our universe, they can do whatever the bloody hell they want with thier ranking system.

He's also failed to take multiple official SW sources to create an accurate listing of a rankings system. He is under the belief that Commander is above Captain. If so, why is Commander Gherant (deck officer aboard the Executor) not superior to the Captain who takes over for Piett when he is promoted to Fleet Admiral? Indeed, why was he not promoted in place of Piett?

Realy people, the SWTC is not the best place to get your information. It is riddled with problems and, considering the man who created it is suppose to be a professor, is ver unprofessional. He takes only one source and posts it as fact?

In addition, he leaves out ranks such as Grand Admiral because it doesn't fit his ranking scheme! Nothing but an amateur trying to pass of fhis ideas as fact.

 

EDITI've decided to include a rank list (for the navy at least), as well as officers seen in the movies who held that rank, or characters from the books.:

 

Grand Admiral: Thrawn

Fleet Admiral: Piett, Ozzel

Admiral: Chirneau, Motti

Vice-Admiral: Pallaeon

Rear Admiral: Assumed rank, no support for this one

Commodor: Same as above

Captain: Piett, Pallaeon, Godherdt, Sarkli, Yorr (Pilot, Vader's personal shuttle), Bewil

Commander: Praji, Merrejk, Gherant, Desanne

Lieutenant-Commander: Ardan

Lieutenant: Hebsly (fighter pilot), Endicott, Grond, Cecius

Ensign: Assumed Rank

 

I think the guy at SWTC got confused by the fact that there are Army officers aboard the Naval ships. Veers is a General, but he's not part of the navy. General and Colonal are not part of the Imperial Navy rankin system. He's also forgotten that more often than not, fighter corps (equiv. of Airforce) often times share ranks with one of the other military wings. In the case of Star Wars, it would make sense that the fighter corps would take ranks from both.

[Mad78]

I agree with Thrawn and I don't really understand why it would be necessary to explain every single percpective of SW like the TC does. And with that there are alot of errors in them.

[Guest Scathane]

Firstly, I didn't say the SWTC is a definitive source and neither did I say that they are correct in al respects. However, with regard to the ranks they're quite correct (apart from the Grand Admioral thing, I admit). I understand that Star Wars is fiction and that not everything has to be the same as in real life. Nevertheless, GL could have chosen to make up the ranking in SW entirely. He didn't, however. He borrowed ranks that are in use in real life. In that sense, it's a bit strange to change the standard ranking. If GL had given every Stormtrooper the rank of General and Veers the rank of Private and would continu to go on to assert that in the SW Universe, Private is the highest attainable army rank, I'm sure you would find this quite weird indeed.

 

He is under the belief that Commander is above Captain.

No he isn't. If you look at his list a little bit better, you would see that a naval Captain outranks a naval Commander, which is exactly why Commander Gherant doesn't outrank the Captain who takes over for Piett.

 

So, the only thing we (SOCL and myself) are saying is that if you choose to use ranks we know in real life as well, then do it correctly.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Perhaps i was a little hasty in my rant. His ranking system for the navy is, as you said, correct. However the ranks of Acting Sub-Lieutenant, Line Captain and High Admiral are not, in my opinion, Star Wars ranks, as they are only mentioned in the RP source book.

As for his confusion with Commander and Captain, if you scroll down to where he discusses TIE fighter (the game), he thinks that they position commander above captain in that game. Since I've never played it, that may well be true.

The only thing I dissagree with are his ranks for the Fighter Core and the Army. General is, as far as I'm concerned, the highest rank in the Imperial Army.

[Guest Scathane]

However the ranks of Acting Sub-Lieutenant, Line Captain and High Admiral are not, in my opinion, Star Wars ranks, as they are only mentioned in the RP source book.

I could well argue that, as far as I'm concerned, the rank of Grand Admiral is not a Star Wars rank, since it's only mentioned in the novels.

 

For some reason unknown to me, you seem to feel that the game source books are inferior to whatever other sources you yourself deem worthy. Anyway, by doing this, you skip certain information sources. I find this somewhat odd for someone who accuses an academic professor of being unprofessional because he allegedly draws from one source only (which, in fact, he doesn't)...

 

As for his confusion with Commander and Captain, if you scroll down to where he discusses TIE fighter (the game), he thinks that they position commander above captain in that game. Since I've never played it, that may well be true.

I think it's safe to assume that the professor has checked this. Thus it's also safe to assume that he doesn't think but rather knows this...

 

The only thing I dissagree with are his ranks for the Fighter Core and the Army. General is, as far as I'm concerned, the highest rank in the Imperial Army.

It's your prerogative to disagree but, as far as I'm concerned, the mistakes are made on account of GL/LucasArts, not Curtis Saxton.

[Stellar_Magic]

Well I'm going to put my two cents in now...

 

Most of this is based of the EU and my memory of it.

 

Firstly the organization of the basic arms of the military.

 

Fleet Command is the ultimate authority and in overall command of all actions.

 

Starfighter Command supports fleet command but the majority of its officers are subordinate to their fleet comrades.

 

EX:

Captain Blah of fleet command can order Commander Yak of Starfighter command to do such and such...

 

Army (Core or Command I'm not sure) they're subordinate to everyone.

 

Now ranks, ranks in star wars are a bit wierd and different from ranks in reality.

 

Personnel of the rank of General or higher are automatically members of fleet command in that they are given ultimate authority over task forces and units from all branches. They are not part of the Army.

 

Captain is lower then commander in starfighter and fleet command, otherwise Captain Celchu would be Rogue Leader. Captains and Commanders have very little difference in authority and a Captain may be given command over a commander for any number of reasons.

 

I thinks thats enough to ramp up some discussion.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

For some reason unknown to me, you seem to feel that the game source books are inferior to whatever other sources you yourself deem worthy. Anyway, by doing this, you skip certain information sources. I find this somewhat odd for someone who accuses an academic professor of being unprofessional because he allegedly draws from one source only (which, in fact, he doesn't)...

 

Actually, if read the whole page, you find that his references for all of his ranks are from The Imperial Sourcebook, which is published in 1989 (and there-for quite out of date). Furthermore, the company, westendgames, was not supported by any of Lucas' companies. They no longer support any Star Wars Titles. At the bottom he lists other sources, but, quite unprofessionally, he fails to indicate what information comes from where. As a "professor", he should know that students who undertake this practice are not only guilty of plagiarism, but would find that their proffs would refuse to accept the work because it can't be verified.

As for me skipping certain sources, the only "source" I skip, is the SWTC. To the best of my knowledge, my ascertions are confirmed by any other sources. If you can find any that do not, I would appreciate the information:)

 

It's your prerogative to disagree but, as far as I'm concerned, the mistakes are made on account of GL/LucasArts, not Curtis Saxton.

 

Hmmm, the creator of a fictional work is in error because some one doesn't agree with the facts he uses in his creation? Again, you cannot apply real-world restrictions to a sci-fi universe, no matter what the topic. If GL wants a meter-long potato to have the power to destroy a planet, who is Curtis Saxton to so "well, potatos don't have the internal power to generate sufficient energy to destroy a planetoid. There for, it was obviousley a twenty kilometer long lemon". It just doesn't work that way.

Although there is no "official" listing of ranks, we can determin from reputable sources, including video games, novels, comic books, and movies, that the ranking structure that Mr. Saxton provided is not 100% accurate. There are rank there that have never been mentioned in the Star Wars universe, and other ascertions that he has created to make things make sence to him.

 

EDIT:

SM, you've just re-iterated what my primary point is: you cannot use real-world ranks with the imperial navy. It just doesn't work. The New Republic followed the same rank structure as the Empire, though Moff and Grand Moff were left out because they are A) non-military ranks and B) because they don't have a dictator-style government.

Though no official rank was given to Ackbar, he was basically a Grand Admiral, though the Republic didn't use that rank either.

[Guest Scathane]

Actually, if read the whole page, you find that his references for all of his ranks are from The Imperial Sourcebook...

I have read the entire page, as well as the rest of the supporting pages. The Imperial Source Book is not his only source of reference but his basic source of reference.

 

...which is published in 1989 (and there-for quite out of date).

I bet there are Star Wars novels which are just as old or maybe even older... Are they all outdated as well?

 

Furthermore, the company, westendgames, was not supported by any of Lucas' companies.

What do you mean by not supported by any of Lucas' companies? Surely it was licensed by GL?

 

They no longer support any Star Wars Titles.

By which you mean what, exactly? Coolhand doesn't make Star Wars games anymore, in fact, it doesn't even exist anymore... Does this make all information in the game outdated?

 

At the bottom he lists other sources, but, quite unprofessionally, he fails to indicate what information comes from where. As a "professor", he should know that students who undertake this practice are not only guilty of plagiarism, but would find that their proffs would refuse to accept the work because it can't be verified.

I am familiar with the rules on academic quoting and agree that this can indeed be qualified as unprofessional. Then again, the SWTC isn't an academic publication, now is it?

 

As for me skipping certain sources, the only "source" I skip, is the SWTC. To the best of my knowledge, my ascertions are confirmed by any other sources.

Which sources would that be?

 

If you can find any that do not, I would appreciate the information:)

Well, actually since the SWTC clearly states that it serves To illuminate STAR WARS with a sense of realism. To explore the interesting implications of the phenomena depicted on screen (and in some of the unfilmed literature). As an exercise in the extension and consolidation of the "suspension of disbelief" that is necessary for an effective fantasy. To rectify omissions and distortions in the coverage of the STAR WARS universe found in some licensed references. To study the objective and quantifiable aspects of the STAR WARS universe, to assess the capabilities of beings and phenomena in STAR WARS. and it does not state it wants to rewrite the Star Wars universe, you have yet to convince me that your sources (and which sources!) are definitive in any way. Until then, the source I would refer you to is the SWTC.

 

In addition, I have yet to find his name listed on any of the accademic sites he lists on his resume, including the institute is is suppose to be working at currently. Any searches for his name yield only the SWTC, or fragmented sites that just happen to have his first and last name on them somewhere.

How strange that I seem to be able to find him:

 

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/theory/ppl/saxton.html
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/rcfta/anrep97/anrep97/node21.html
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~saxton/
http://uk.dk.com/static/cs/uk/11/features/starwars/skywalker.html
http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/index_e.html

But I bet that you feel that you can classify the Mount Stromlo Observatory, Australian National University and Max Plank Institut für Radioastronomie websites as fragmented sites that just happen to have his first and last name on them somewhere, right? Really, Thrawn, disagreeing with someone is one thing but actually implying that someone is lying about his academic career, achievements and publications is, in my view, crossing the line big time. Especially since Curtis Saxton isn't lying about his career!

 

Hmmm, the creator of a fictional work is in error because some one doesn't agree with the facts he uses in his creation? Again, you cannot apply real-world restrictions to a sci-fi universe, no matter what the topic. If GL wants a meter-long potato to have the power to destroy a planet, who is Curtis Saxton to so "well, potatos don't have the internal power to generate sufficient energy to destroy a planetoid. There for, it was obviousley a twenty kilometer long lemon". It just doesn't work that way.

Awww, come one, Thrawn! If GL would have put something like that in his movies, we wouldn't be here discussing them! This was exactly my point in my last post, an argument which you fail to address, by the way. Moreover, we all know that GL isn't the most meticulous kind of character when it comes to consistency in the Star Wars universe. He has screwed up on multiplle facets of his own creation in the sense that he explains something or adds something to the story which contradicts earlier assertions.

 

Although there is no "official" listing of ranks, we can determin from reputable sources, including video games, novels, comic books, and movies, that the ranking structure that Mr. Saxton provided is not 100% accurate. There are rank there that have never been mentioned in the Star Wars universe, and other ascertions that he has created to make things make sence to him

If you take another look at the SWTC, you would probably notice that the rank list Saxton mentions is not a list of Star Wars ranking, dude! It's a list of real life military ranking which he uses for comparison with rankings used in Star Wars material. Further more, I never said that the Saxton ranking essay is 100% correct and neither does he himself. And, please, humour me, why is it that video games, novels and comics are reputable sources to you and a LucasArts licensedgame sourcebook is not?

 

A more general note to your arguments, Thrawn... Dr. Curtis Saxton has worked and academically published for the Mount Stromlo Observatory, Australian National University and Max Plank Institut für Radioastronomie. He has published on Star Wars for Dorling Kindersley, a reputable publisher that sells millions of books worldwide. So, tell me, who are you to disagree with him?

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

First, I'll cover my butt for one of my grievous errors: After searcher (while I was ammending other parts of my post) I did come across reputable sites with Mr. Saxton listed on them. Prior to your completion of your post, I removed that particular section from my post. That was an error on my part, and just goes to show that Google doesn't have all the answers.

 

1. Yes it is his basic source, but it is also the only one which he refers to, other than an issue ot Tales.

 

2. No, there are not any Star Wars novels that are older, or, at least none that don't go over what happens in the movies. The first Expanded Universe was Heir to the Empire, published in 1994. There was a revised eddition of the Imperial Sourcebook published in 1994, though since no dates are provided in his bibliography, we can't be sure which edition he is using.

As for "Are they outdated as well": no, but for one reason. The facts stated in the early novels are reiterated in the later ones. Sort of a refresher.

 

3. Perhaps licensed, but since West End Games continued to produce RPG source books well into the time that Wizards of the Coast became the owner of the rights to the Official Star Wars Role PLaying Game, I question the authenticity of the information within their sourcebooks. I get the impression that they simply created their own facts.

 

4. By that I mean, LucasFilm has abandoned them, and replaced their producs with another one. I wouldn't quote anythig from Decipher's cards because LucasFilm has revoked their rights to produce the SWCCG and given them to another company. The case with Coolhand is different. While they may not be making Star Wars games, LucasArts hasn't given their contracts to other devopers.

 

5. No, it may not be an accademic publication, but that has little bearing on the proper etiquet for source notation. This, however, realy doesn't matter. I just thought it would be nice to know what came from where.

 

6. Sources:

Star Wars: A New Hope (Film)

Star Wars: A New Hope (Novel)

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Film)

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Novel)

Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (Film)

Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (Novel)

For monotony sake, I'll just say: All Star Wars Novels from the time of Heir to the Empire to Survivor's Quest

Assorted SWRPG Sourcebooks published by Wizards of the Coast Inc.

Some Information from the Star Wars Trading Card Game (basically the SWCCG), published by Wizards of the Coast Inc. Not much from here, just ranks and names (granted, some things conflict with other sources)

http://www.starwars.com

Star Wars: X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter

Star Wars: X-Wing Alliance

Star Wars: Rebellion

Assorted comic books and graphic novels

Star Wars: Insider Mag.

 

7. To illuminate STAR WARS with a sense of realism

This statement alone can be countered by an article in SW: Insider issue 076, in which the issue of the Death Star killing all the ewoks with its explosion was brought up. The individual who was responding (on behalf of LucasFilm) stated that you can't bring realism into the Star Wars univers, there are just too many things that won't work. For that reason alone, much of Mr. Saxtons writings cannot be taken as gospel, though they are interesting to read.

 

8. Already provied my most sincere apologies above, but, for humilities sake, I apologise again.

 

9. I know that, but again, take the example of the destruction of the second Death Star. If it were really destroyed above Endor, the explosion would have rained death upon the planet, killing the Ewoks instantly, and slowly freezing the rest of the planet in a nuclear winter. The fact is, because it is set in another universe, not everything has to make sense. Star Wars is restricted by the rules of physics and accepted science because it is set in our galaxy.

As for GL's contradictions, well, though I don't agree with it, most of them are contradicting things written in the novels which, by all rights, he can do. That's not to say the novesl aren't legitamate (that would be contradictory to my point), but if GL doesn't like something in them, he can change it if he wants. If only he could take back medichlorians...

 

10. Below the rank chart he goes into detail about how the ranks fit into the Star Wars universe, at least for the naval ranks. He may well not believe that the other two colomns fit in (thank got), but there are some ranks that are just too shaky for my taste.

As for the sourcebook not being credible, as I mentioned above, LucasFilms moved away from that company and replaced them with another. In my view, West End Games and Dicipher are no longer credible sources.

 

11. Who am I to dissagree with him? If Stephen Hawking and I are arguing about Star Wars, does Hawking win because he has a doctorate and is a well-know physicist, and has published and sold millions of books around the world. No. He doesn't have a doctorate in Star Wars. His credentials have no bearing on this at all.

[Guest Scathane]

First, I'll cover my butt for one of my grievous errors: After searcher (while I was ammending other parts of my post) I did come across reputable sites with Mr. Saxton listed on them. Prior to your completion of your post, I removed that particular section from my post. That was an error on my part, and just goes to show that Google doesn't have all the answers.

I could have told you that Google isn't a reputable source of information...

 

1. Yes it is his basic source, but it is also the only one which he refers to, other than an issue ot Tales.

No, it isn't, he refers to a computer game as well.

 

2. No, there are not any Star Wars novels that are older, or, at least none that don't go over what happens in the movies. The first Expanded Universe was Heir to the Empire, published in 1994. There was a revised eddition of the Imperial Sourcebook published in 1994, though since no dates are provided in his bibliography, we can't be sure which edition he is using.

As for "Are they outdated as well": no, but for one reason. The facts stated in the early novels are reiterated in the later ones. Sort of a refresher.

I didn't know that there aren't any novels that are older. However, this would rather make The Imperial Source Book a definitive source on Star Wars before 1994 than the reverse.

 

I must admit that Saxton's SWTC lacks publication and version dates, which, in turn, makes it hard to verify things. This makes for a weak argument on Saxton's part.

 

I'm sure that novel information is re-iterated. As for gaming stuff, that rather tends to get updated. Even so, even West End has been responsible for quite some stuff, as I will go on to show you.

 

3. Perhaps licensed, but since West End Games continued to produce RPG source books well into the time that Wizards of the Coast became the owner of the rights to the Official Star Wars Role PLaying Game, I question the authenticity of the information within their sourcebooks. I get the impression that they simply created their own facts.

Perhaps licensed?! Don't you think that LucasArts would have sued West End's butt for eternity, hadn't their works been licensed?! Of course it was licensed! That West End allegedly continued to publish after Wizards of the Coast acquired the rights (which I seriously doubt, by the way) reinforces this argument. Moreover, Wizards of the Coast acquired the rights to Star Wars roleplaying no earlier than December 1999 (http://www.starwars.com/gaming/other/rpg/news19991217.html)! This is less than five years ago!

Furthermore, West End Games was even responsible for information in the movies through Hem Dazon (http://www.starwars.com/episode-iv/feature/20030502/indexp2.html). The first sketches of Coruscant were even published in West End material (http://www.starwars.com/eu/feature/20000807/index.html) The Dark Empire trilogy found its way into West End's Dark Empire Source Book, which pieces together the history between the events of Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy and the start of Dark Empire (http://www.starwars.com/eu/feature/20000405/indexp2.html).

 

Taken the aforementioned starwars.com links into account, I think it's safe to say that West End games was licensed by LucasArts. In fact, they were: from 1989 up to and including 1999. A a period of a mere ten years. And you bluntly state that you get the impression that they simply create their own facts. I think that's rather daft of you, dude!

 

4. By that I mean, LucasFilm has abandoned them, and replaced their producs with another one. I wouldn't quote anythig from Decipher's cards because LucasFilm has revoked their rights to produce the SWCCG and given them to another company. The case with Coolhand is different. While they may not be making Star Wars games, LucasArts hasn't given their contracts to other devopers.

And again, your implying a lot of stuff without having the facts to back them up. Just because they rights went over to another company, doesn't mean that they're unreliable sources of information. Their contracts might well have been revoked because of commercial reasons.

 

5. No, it may not be an accademic publication, but that has little bearing on the proper etiquet for source notation. This, however, realy doesn't matter. I just thought it would be nice to know what came from where.

Firstly, you don't have any bearing on proper etiquette for source notation either, regarding your own source notation below. Secondly, it really doesn't matter?! One post ago you were accusing someone of plagiarism and now that your argument gets thwarted, it really doesn't matter?! Sjeez! That's pretty lame, dude...

 

6. Sources:

Star Wars: A New Hope (Film)

Star Wars: A New Hope (Novel)

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Film)

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Novel)

Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (Film)

Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (Novel)

For monotony sake, I'll just say: All Star Wars Novels from the time of Heir to the Empire to Survivor's Quest

Assorted SWRPG Sourcebooks published by Wizards of the Coast Inc.

Some Information from the Star Wars Trading Card Game (basically the SWCCG), published by Wizards of the Coast Inc. Not much from here, just ranks and names (granted, some things conflict with other sources)

http://www.starwars.com

Star Wars: X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter

Star Wars: X-Wing Alliance

Star Wars: Rebellion

Assorted comic books and graphic novels

Star Wars: Insider Mag.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: for someone who's criticizes another man's source notation etiquette, you have a poor way of doing better yourself.

 

Tell me, by the way, are there any Marvel comics in that assortment?

 

7. To illuminate STAR WARS with a sense of realism

This statement alone can be countered by an article in SW: Insider issue 076, in which the issue of the Death Star killing all the ewoks with its explosion was brought up. The individual who was responding (on behalf of LucasFilm) stated that you can't bring realism into the Star Wars univers, there are just too many things that won't work. For that reason alone, much of Mr. Saxtons writings cannot be taken as gospel, though they are interesting to read.

As for source notation: an individual was responding on behalf of LucasArts?! Furthermore, and this is about the third time I'm telling you this, I do not think that the SWTC are definitive in any way, so you could safely state that I hardly take them as gospel. Please stop implying that I am. Moreover, Saxton doesn't state that Star Wars should have had an Endor Holocaust, he merely reflects on what the consequences of the Death Star exploding would have been in a real universe. Lastly, I don't hear you countering the ranking system with any concrete argument or example. Is that because you don't have any?

 

8. Already provied my most sincere apologies above, but, for humilities sake, I apologise again.

Yeah, yeah, we'll get to that in the end.

 

9. I know that, but again, take the example of the destruction of the second Death Star. If it were really destroyed above Endor, the explosion would have rained death upon the planet, killing the Ewoks instantly, and slowly freezing the rest of the planet in a nuclear winter. The fact is, because it is set in another universe, not everything has to make sense.

Star Wars isn't set in another universe, it is set in another galaxy. Otherwise, the opening would probably have stated A long time ago in a universe far, far away...

 

Star Wars is restricted by the rules of physics and accepted science because it is set in our galaxy.

Come again? Coming from you, I don't understand this remark... You did get the galaxy/universe thing right here, though!

 

 

As for GL's contradictions, well, though I don't agree with it, most of them are contradicting things written in the novels which, by all rights, he can do. That's not to say the novesl aren't legitamate (that would be contradictory to my point), but if GL doesn't like something in them, he can change it if he wants. If only he could take back medichlorians...

What's this?! You're saying that GL isn't contradicting himself, but that most of these non-present contradictions are in the novels?! How weird...

 

By the way, that wouldn't be those same novels you deem reputable sources, would it?

 

Now why would he have to take back midi-chlorians? Just because you don't like the notion?

 

10. Below the rank chart he goes into detail about how the ranks fit into the Star Wars universe, at least for the naval ranks. He may well not believe that the other two colomns fit in (thank got), but there are some ranks that are just too shaky for my taste.

As for the sourcebook not being credible, as I mentioned above, LucasFilms moved away from that company and replaced them with another. In my view, West End Games and Dicipher are no longer credible sources.

As far as I'm concerned, the only incredible source of information up until now is you. We aren't talking about Decipher here and neither is Saxton in the SWTC. As for West End Games, they're still considered to be credible by LucasArts.

 

11. Who am I to dissagree with him? If Stephen Hawking and I are arguing about Star Wars, does Hawking win because he has a doctorate and is a well-know physicist, and has published and sold millions of books around the world. No. He doesn't have a doctorate in Star Wars. His credentials have no bearing on this at all.

You're sidestepping the question. Firstly, we aren't talking about Stephen Hawking. Secondly, Hawking hasn't published Star Wars material, Saxton has. In fact, Curtis Saxton is mentioned at least four times on starwars.com with regard to his work on Star Wars. In fact, the Official Star Wars Website lists him as the writer of Star Wars: Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections and it states the following:

 

Dr. Curtis J. Saxton, who holds a Ph.D. in Theoretical Astrophysics, provides the authoritative and well-researched text, transforming the fantastic technology of Star Wars into a fascinating reality.

Source: http://www.starwars.com/eu/news/2002/02/news20020227.html

 

So, if starwars.com states his work is authorative and well-researched, then I ask you again: who are you to disagree?

 

Lastly (because I think we can safely end this argument here), I would like to give you a little advice, Thrawn. You tend to imply that certain people or companies are unreliable, commit plagiarism, make up their own stuff and more of such things. However, you don't have the facts to back this up. Apart from the fact that you're plain wrong, there is an official term for what you're doing: slander. Furthermore, you yourself do some of the things you accuse others of: your own source notation is vague and incomplete, for instance.

 

So, don't accuse people or organizations of things if you haven't got the facts to make them stick. Feel free to disagree with anything you feel you have to disagree with but don't drop your standards. Because if I reread this thread as well as look around on the web, I'm not left with the impression that either Curtius Saxton or West End Games is unreliable... I am, however, left with the impression that you are an individual who is prepared to falsely accuse others when it serves his needs or arguments... Now don't get me wrong, I am not out to diss you personally but I must say that I really, genuinely feel that unfounded accusations like the ones you made with regard to Saxton and West End are a severe thing...

[Trejiuvanat]

Back to the old times... I regret having resurrected this thread.

 

Enjoy the discussion guys. And, Scath don't get too BEAKy.

 

Trej goes and brings a popcorn bucket

[Mad78]

This appears to be turning into a very large match and the end does not appear to be for soon

 

***does like trej and gets a bucket of popcorn + a coca***

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

No, it isn't, he refers to a computer game as well.

 

He only refers to the TIE FIghter game to point out the inconsistansies in it. I'm refering to the references he uses in support of his list of ranks.

 

However, this would rather make The Imperial Source Book a definitive source on Star Wars before 1994 than the reverse.

 

Quite true! However, since the SWTC has been updated past the era of the of the West End Games controling the RPG, I think that he should have looked to Wizards of the Coast's publications. I'll come back to the later.

 

I must admit that Saxton's SWTC lacks publication and version dates, which, in turn, makes it hard to verify things. This makes for a weak argument on Saxton's part.

 

I admit that this would be true, but I have coe torealize that he is not stating that the SWTC is how the SW universe is, but rather how it would be were real world rules and regulations be applied. On this matter, I concede defeat.

 

Furthermore, West End Games was even responsible for information in the movies through Hem Dazon

 

This does add credability to thier work. However, the fact that the rights to the RPG were passed on to WOTC, who in turn re-cover what WEG published, makes me trust WOTC more. If the same ranks and what-not are given in the WOTC sourcebooks, I'll believe it.

 

The first sketches of Coruscant were even published in West End material

 

That is only because they were the company licensed (I didn't say they weren't) to do so. They didn't create those sketches, Ralph McQuarrie did. (Star Wars Insider, 076, June/July 2004, pg 50)

 

The Dark Empire trilogy found its way into West End's Dark Empire Source Book, which pieces together the history between the events of Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy and the start of Dark Empire

 

The book's primary focus was " the characters and technology of the series, quantifying these new elements into game stats." (starwars.com, 2000). If Michael Allen Horne got his information from other sources which over the time period between Zahn's trilogy and Dark Empire, no new information was introduced. If he wrote it himself, WEG is the nresponsible for those events as well (a considerable ammount of information). I'm interested in which is the case.

 

Taken the aforementioned starwars.com links into account, I think it's safe to say that West End games was licensed by LucasArts. In fact, they were: from 1989 up to and including 1999. A a period of a mere ten years. And you bluntly state that you get the impression that they simply create their own facts. I think that's rather daft of you, dude!

 

I didn't say there were not licensed by LucasFilm. I said perhaps licensed. I can see how my wording could lead to confusion. I did not mean "maybe there were, maybe they weren't", I mean "that may well be the case". As for making up thier own facts, I mean to suit gameplay. Information that you may find in an RPG sourcebook (including those from WOTC) cannot be entireley trusted because they are slanted to accommodate game-play. The same can be said for video games.

 

And again, your implying a lot of stuff without having the facts to back them up. Just because they rights went over to another company, doesn't mean that they're unreliable sources of information. Their contracts might well have been revoked because of commercial reasons.

 

That's quite true, but since the newer RPG sourcebooks go over the same areas, he should be referencing from them. I'm not questioning the veracity of the information, only the sources. If the same information is found withing the newer PRG sourcebooks, I'll give it more credence.

 

Firstly, you don't have any bearing on proper etiquette for source notation either, regarding your own source notation below. Secondly, it really doesn't matter?! One post ago you were accusing someone of plagiarism and now that your argument gets thwarted, it really doesn't matter?! Sjeez! That's pretty lame, dude...

 

The reason it really doesn't matter, is because this is a debate, not a piece of literature. in a debate it is sufficient to quote sources and to name those sources. However, for your benefit I have taken to using a simplified literary citing (as in Work Cited) method for my sources in this post.

 

6. Sources:

Star Wars: A New Hope (Film)

Star Wars: A New Hope (Novel)

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Film)

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Novel)

Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (Film)

Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (Novel)

For monotony sake, I'll just say: All Star Wars Novels from the time of Heir to the Empire to Survivor's Quest

Assorted SWRPG Sourcebooks published by Wizards of the Coast Inc.

Some Information from the Star Wars Trading Card Game (basically the SWCCG), published by Wizards of the Coast Inc. Not much from here, just ranks and names (granted, some things conflict with other sources)

http://www.starwars.com

Star Wars: X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter

Star Wars: X-Wing Alliance

Star Wars: Rebellion

Assorted comic books and graphic novels

Star Wars: Insider Mag.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: for someone who's criticizes another man's source notation etiquette, you have a poor way of doing better yourself.

 

Tell me, by the way, are there any Marvel comics in that assortment?

 

No, just Dark Horse Comics .

 

As for source notation: an individual was responding on behalf of LucasArts?! Furthermore, and this is about the third time I'm telling you this, I do not think that the SWTC are definitive in any way, so you could safely state that I hardly take them as gospel. Please stop implying that I am. Moreover, Saxton doesn't state that Star Wars should have had an Endor Holocaust, he merely reflects on what the consequences of the Death Star exploding would have been in a real universe. Lastly, I don't hear you countering the ranking system with any concrete argument or example. Is that because you don't have any?

 

Yes, an individual was responding on behalf of LEC. If they didn't support him, the article wouldn't have been published. Here is an excript of the most important part of that article:

 

"Though many learned scholars and students of physics have micro-examined the Star Wars films for scientific accuracy and have come away with an entertaining degree of consistency, in some cases, science has to be thrown out the window. Armchair physicists have to look away when a screaming TIE Fighter passes through the vacuum of space, when a particularly volatile explosion combusts in an airless void, or when giant yellow letters inexplicable to the known rules of the universe float lazily into infinity. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's only a movie." (Star Wars Insider, 076, pg 97)

 

Also, I think you are confusing the purpose of my examples. The one about the potato wasn't to be taken litteraly, it was a metaphor to describe the way in which Saxton takes what is presented in the movies and other areas and says "Nope, it couldn't be. This is the way it has to be". He doesn't do this with everything, but there are some things which just irk me.

You'd like a counter? Dr. Saxton himself states that there are fewer combinations for the rank insignia and code cylenders than are possibe for ranks, and says that there are duplicates. There are not. Imperial ranks also rely on the side on which the insignia are worn, and a varying combination of code cylenders. The only way there could be too few combinations is if you are to accept his rank structure. the rank structure which I have provided allows for a methodical and sensical progression of insignia combinations.

 

Star Wars isn't set in another universe, it is set in another galaxy. Otherwise, the opening would probably have stated A long time ago in a universe far, far away...

 

Star Wars is restricted by the rules of physics and accepted science because it is set in our galaxy.

Come again? Coming from you, I don't understand this remark... You did get the galaxy/universe thing right here, though!

 

The first part is a typo. It should have read Star Trek.

 

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0345386256.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553374842/103-0362938-0151879?v=glance

http://www.starwars.com/eu/

 

Plus, a galaxy in another univers could be considered "far, far away".

 

 

 

What's this?! You're saying that GL isn't contradicting himself, but that most of these non-present contradictions are in the novels?! How weird...

 

By the way, that wouldn't be those same novels you deem reputable sources, would it?

 

Now why would he have to take back midi-chlorians? Just because you don't like the notion?

 

Erm, yes, weird indeed...

 

Yes, those are the same novels. However, as I stated before, Lucas can make changes to the traditionally accepted beliefs found by those novels. The only facts that are no longer reputable ar those contradicted by Lucas.

 

I didn't say I didn't like the idea of midi-chlorians, I simply got the impression that he didn't mention the concept again because of the negative response from fans, though that didn't stop him from inluding Jar-Jar again.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the only incredible source of information up until now is you. We aren't talking about Decipher here and neither is Saxton in the SWTC. As for West End Games, they're still considered to be credible by LucasArts.

 

If you take another look at Saxton's source list, he inludes Decipher's card game, but I guess that doesn't constitute "talking about Decipher". Also, there isn't a news report in the star wars or LA, or LF sites that says "we still thin West End Games is still credible". In addition, it's not a matter of "are they credible", they are a credible company, it's a matter of is their information credible in comparison to newer sources on the same topic.

 

You're sidestepping the question. Firstly, we aren't talking about Stephen Hawking. Secondly, Hawking hasn't published Star Wars material, Saxton has. In fact, Curtis Saxton is mentioned at least four times on starwars.com with regard to his work on Star Wars. In fact, the Official Star Wars Website lists him as the writer of Star Wars: Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections and it states the following:

 

Dr. Curtis J. Saxton, who holds a Ph.D. in Theoretical Astrophysics, provides the authoritative and well-researched text, transforming the fantastic technology of Star Wars into a fascinating reality.

Source: http://www.starwars.com/eu/news/2002/02/news20020227.html

 

So, if starwars.com states his work is authorative and well-researched, then I ask you again: who are you to disagree?

 

Again, you have confused my metaphor for an argument, but I'll ignore that.

The fact is, LEC supports Saxton's Star Wars: Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections, and says that it transforms "the fantastic technology of Star Wars into a fascinating reality". This is not a comment on the SWTC, and it is rather presumptuous to attempt to extend thier endorsement of his above book the the SWTC. Again, that they state his work is "authorative and well-researched" does not include the SWTC in their opinion.

 

Lastly (because I think we can safely end this argument here), I would like to give you a little advice, Thrawn. You tend to imply that certain people or companies are unreliable, commit plagiarism, make up their own stuff and more of such things. However, you don't have the facts to back this up. Apart from the fact that you're plain wrong, there is an official term for what you're doing: slander. Furthermore, you yourself do some of the things you accuse others of: your own source notation is vague and incomplete, for instance.

 

Firstly, I have not accused Dr. Saxton of plagiarism. You'll note that I state that "students who undertake this practice are not only guilty of plagiarism, but would find that their proffs would refuse to accept the work because it can't be verified." This does not accuse him plagiarism, it simply points out that for a piece of literature, it is not very well sourced. I have also not stated that Mr. Saxton is ureliable, but that one of his sources may be so due to the fact that it is outdated, and that it has since been replaced with newer material. I have clarified the "make up thier own stuff" point, though I'll do so again. They create information to assist with gameplay, and these pieces of information are not intended to be taken as Star Wars fact.

Also, if I were guilty of anything, it would not be slander. Slander is the oral communication of statements that are defamatory to another. The "official ter" is libel. However, since you are simply twisting facts to fit your argument, or are missunderstanding what I have said, no crime has been committed. I would also encourage you to look up the legal term "fair comment", which, should your accusations proove true, is also applicalbe to this instance.

As for my failure to properly cite resources, as I have already stated, this is a debate, and though it be written rather than verbal, references need not be provided in the same manner as is required in an essay or other such work.

 

So, don't accuse people or organizations of things if you haven't got the facts to make them stick. Feel free to disagree with anything you feel you have to disagree with but don't drop your standards. Because if I reread this thread as well as look around on the web, I'm not left with the impression that either Curtius Saxton or West End Games is unreliable... I am, however, left with the impression that you are an individual who is prepared to falsely accuse others when it serves his needs or arguments... Now don't get me wrong, I am not out to diss you personally but I must say that I really, genuinely feel that unfounded accusations like the ones you made with regard to Saxton and West End are a severe thing...

 

Pretty much the same as above. You have misinterpreted what I have written (a problem with the internet and written media in general). Also, I've not accused anyone of anything. I've stated my opinion and supported it with what support I feal is needed. I've not stated that Mr. Saxton is unreliable, nor West End Games, only that the Imperial Sourcebook is not the most reliable srouce due to the reasons provided above.

 

 

I think that's rather daft of you, dude!

 

That's pretty lame, dude...

 

I am, however, left with the impression that you are an individual who is prepared to falsely accuse others when it serves his needs or arguments...

 

When engageing in a debate, which is precisely what this is, it is bad form to engage in personal attacks against your adversary. Your feelings about me are not the issue here, the varacity of the rank system listed on the SWTC is. We have (both) veered from the original topic, but most of what we covered is related. Personal attacks are simply low, my friend, especially for a topic which is really unimportant in the long run. Even in a debte about politic neither Texas Fett nor myself engaged in such attacks.

 

[/img]

[Guest Scathane]

He only refers to the TIE FIghter game to point out the inconsistansies in it. I'm refering to the references he uses in support of his list of ranks.

Well, I think we can agree on the fact that his references are somewhat old as well as that most of his references come from the Imperial Source Book. I admit defeat here.

 

Quite true! However, since the SWTC has been updated past the era of the of the West End Games controling the RPG, I think that he should have looked to Wizards of the Coast's publications. I'll come back to the later.

Yes, perhaps he should have done that. Again, I admit you're right here.

 

I admit that this would be true, but I have coe torealize that he is not stating that the SWTC is how the SW universe is, but rather how it would be were real world rules and regulations be applied. On this matter, I concede defeat.

Which was my original point (as well as SOCL's) exactly...

 

This does add credability to thier work. However, the fact that the rights to the RPG were passed on to WOTC, who in turn re-cover what WEG published, makes me trust WOTC more. If the same ranks and what-not are given in the WOTC sourcebooks, I'll believe it.

That's a good point. But of course, I didn't know they didn't earlier, now did I?

 

That is only because they were the company licensed (I didn't say they weren't) to do so. They didn't create those sketches, Ralph McQuarrie did. (Star Wars Insider, 076, June/July 2004, pg 50)

I never said they were created by WEG, but rather published in their works, which adds to the same credibility you mentioned above.

 

The book's primary focus was " the characters and technology of the series, quantifying these new elements into game stats." (starwars.com, 2000). If Michael Allen Horne got his information from other sources which over the time period between Zahn's trilogy and Dark Empire, no new information was introduced. If he wrote it himself, WEG is the nresponsible for those events as well (a considerable ammount of information). I'm interested in which is the case.

I would be interested as well.

 

I didn't say there were not licensed by LucasFilm. I said perhaps licensed. I can see how my wording could lead to confusion. I did not mean "maybe there were, maybe they weren't", I mean "that may well be the case". As for making up thier own facts, I mean to suit gameplay. Information that you may find in an RPG sourcebook (including those from WOTC) cannot be entireley trusted because they are slanted to accommodate game-play. The same can be said for video games.

I would agree with your views on information in RPG source books and video games. However, you stated earlier that you trust WotC's information more than WEG, which, at the time, I found strange. Moreover, you explicitely stated that WEG games made up their own facts and failed to mention that, as you now seem to assert, WotC does exactly the same thing, since this serves to accomodate roleplay.

 

That's quite true, but since the newer RPG sourcebooks go over the same areas, he should be referencing from them. I'm not questioning the veracity of the information, only the sources. If the same information is found withing the newer PRG sourcebooks, I'll give it more credence.

As mentioned above, a sensible attitude.

 

The reason it really doesn't matter, is because this is a debate, not a piece of literature. in a debate it is sufficient to quote sources and to name those sources. However, for your benefit I have taken to using a simplified literary citing (as in Work Cited) method for my sources in this post.

I know that. However, I still found it strange that you attacks someone's source notation and then go on to do the same thing yourself. It would have strengthened your argument if you had exerted better source notation yourself.

 

No, just Dark Horse Comics .

You probabaly feel Marvel Comics are outdated as well, I presume.

 

Yes, an individual was responding on behalf of LEC. If they didn't support him, the article wouldn't have been published. Here is an excript of the most important part of that article:

I understand that as well. I just think that using the term individual made for a strong argument.

 

"Though many learned scholars and students of physics have micro-examined the Star Wars films for scientific accuracy and have come away with an entertaining degree of consistency, in some cases, science has to be thrown out the window. Armchair physicists have to look away when a screaming TIE Fighter passes through the vacuum of space, when a particularly volatile explosion combusts in an airless void, or when giant yellow letters inexplicable to the known rules of the universe float lazily into infinity. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's only a movie." (Star Wars Insider, 076, pg 97)

Well, we all know that every science fiction or fantasy movie breaks the laws of physics with regard to sound in space. We also know this is done for recognition purposes. As for the yellow letters, I don't consider them to actually be in space in the movie any more than I consider a black screen with yellow letters to actually stand somewhere in the physical world of Blade Runner. So, I don't have any problem with altering reality if it's explained. As far as I know, GL has failed to explain his use of ranks satisfactorily.

 

Also, I think you are confusing the purpose of my examples. The one about the potato wasn't to be taken litteraly, it was a metaphor to describe the way in which Saxton takes what is presented in the movies and other areas and says "Nope, it couldn't be. This is the way it has to be". He doesn't do this with everything, but there are some things which just irk me.

You'd like a counter? Dr. Saxton himself states that there are fewer combinations for the rank insignia and code cylenders than are possibe for ranks, and says that there are duplicates. There are not. Imperial ranks also rely on the side on which the insignia are worn, and a varying combination of code cylenders. The only way there could be too few combinations is if you are to accept his rank structure. the rank structure which I have provided allows for a methodical and sensical progression of insignia combinations.

Hmmmm.... I have to go over that again. You may just be right....

 

The first part is a typo. It should have read Star Trek.

I know, I know, I was just pulling your leg...

 

Plus, a galaxy in another univers could be considered "far, far away".

True but if you talk to me about a galaxy that's far away without talking about it being in another universe, I think it rather normal for me to presume that it's in our universe.

 

I didn't say I didn't like the idea of midi-chlorians, I simply got the impression that he didn't mention the concept again because of the negative response from fans, though that didn't stop him from inluding Jar-Jar again.

GL has never really cared much for the opinions of his fans, as Jar-Jar goes on to show. Futhermore, your remark If only he could take back midi-chlorians sounded to me like something you wanted personally, is that so strange?

 

If you take another look at Saxton's source list, he inludes Decipher's card game, but I guess that doesn't constitute "talking about Decipher". Also, there isn't a news report in the star wars or LA, or LF sites that says "we still thin West End Games is still credible". In addition, it's not a matter of "are they credible", they are a credible company, it's a matter of is their information credible in comparison to newer sources on the same topic.

Oops, haven't seen Decipher there, my bad. However, as for the rest: you yourself said that West End Games and Dicipher are no longer credible sources, which lacks the balance you point out above. Furthermore, there isn't any report anywhere explicitely stating the LA still thinks older novels, WotC or whoever are still credible sources. All organizations mentioned, though, are still quoted by LA, so as long as they quote them, they're official sources, aren't they.

 

Again, you have confused my metaphor for an argument, but I'll ignore that.

Please don't. Moreover, if you insist on going into grammar and semantics (as you're doing below with regard to slander and libel) you haven't used any metaphors but rather plain comparisons.

 

 

The fact is, LEC supports Saxton's Star Wars: Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections, and says that it transforms "the fantastic technology of Star Wars into a fascinating reality". This is not a comment on the SWTC, and it is rather presumptuous to attempt to extend thier endorsement of his above book the the SWTC. Again, that they state his work is "authorative and well-researched" does not include the SWTC in their opinion.

I understand that this doesn't express a direct opinion by LEC on the SWTC. It does, however, assert the fact that LEC thinks that a published work by Saxton is reliable. I doubt that they would have given him this opportunity, had they thought that his previous works (including the SWTC) were total bollocks.

 

Firstly, I have not accused Dr. Saxton of plagiarism. You'll note that I state that "students who undertake this practice are not only guilty of plagiarism, but would find that their proffs would refuse to accept the work because it can't be verified." This does not accuse him plagiarism, it simply points out that for a piece of literature, it is not very well sourced. I have also not stated that Mr. Saxton is ureliable, but that one of his sources may be so due to the fact that it is outdated, and that it has since been replaced with newer material. I have clarified the "make up thier own stuff" point, though I'll do so again. They create information to assist with gameplay, and these pieces of information are not intended to be taken as Star Wars fact.

Also, if I were guilty of anything, it would not be slander. Slander is the oral communication of statements that are defamatory to another. The "official ter" is libel. However, since you are simply twisting facts to fit your argument, or are missunderstanding what I have said, no crime has been committed. I would also encourage you to look up the legal term "fair comment", which, should your accusations proove true, is also applicalbe to this instance.

As for my failure to properly cite resources, as I have already stated, this is a debate, and though it be written rather than verbal, references need not be provided in the same manner as is required in an essay or other such work.

 

Pretty much the same as above. You have misinterpreted what I have written (a problem with the internet and written media in general). Also, I've not accused anyone of anything. I've stated my opinion and supported it with what support I feal is needed. I've not stated that Mr. Saxton is unreliable, nor West End Games, only that the Imperial Sourcebook is not the most reliable srouce due to the reasons provided above.

 

When engageing in a debate, which is precisely what this is, it is bad form to engage in personal attacks against your adversary. Your feelings about me are not the issue here, the varacity of the rank system listed on the SWTC is. We have (both) veered from the original topic, but most of what we covered is related. Personal attacks are simply low, my friend, especially for a topic which is really unimportant in the long run. Even in a debte about politic neither Texas Fett nor myself engaged in such attacks.

Awwww, come on, man! With regard to the above three quotes, I would really like you to consider what you've posted before:

 

Realy people, the SWTC is not the best place to get your information. It is riddled with problems and, considering the man who created it is suppose to be a professor, is ver unprofessional. He takes only one source and posts it as fact?

 

At the bottom he lists other sources, but, quite unprofessionally, he fails to indicate what information comes from where. As a "professor", he should know that students who undertake this practice are not only guilty of plagiarism, but would find that their proffs would refuse to accept the work because it can't be verified.

If you feel the SWTC isn't the best place to get your information, then you're implying that it's unreliable.

 

If students who undertake the very same practice that Saxton does are guilty of plagiarism, then you're clearly and lucildly implying that Saxton is too, dude. So don't say you didn't accuse him.

 

Moreover, although you apologized for it, you implied that Saxton was lying about his career. If that isn't accusing someone of being unreliable, I don't know what is.

 

In my view, West End Games and Dicipher are no longer credible sources.

 

Perhaps licensed, but since West End Games continued to produce RPG source books well into the time that Wizards of the Coast became the owner of the rights to the Official Star Wars Role PLaying Game, I question the authenticity of the information within their sourcebooks. I get the impression that they simply created their own facts.

 

You say that you question a source's authenticity, that it makes up it's own facts and that it's no longer credible... And you're not accusing that source of being unreliable, you say?

 

Is that what you meant, then, Thrawn?

 

O listen guys, we've got a professor here who does things that would make students guilty of plagiarism if they did the same, his works on TF.N are riddled with problems and he's very unprofessional... and - o yeah! - I doubt that he works at the scientific institutions he says he works for. But that's not all guys! There's this company who LucasArts decided to diss, they may be licensed but they make up their own facts (the new one does too but that doesn't matter right now) and I doubt their works are authentic. But rest assured, I do not - and I repeat - I DO NOT qualify them as unreliable.

 

You have to admit that this seems a bit strange even to you, Thrawn. Of course, you could say again that I am twisting facts to fit my argument but as you can see above, I merely repeated your own words.

 

As for the difference between slander and libel, I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out! Libel it is, then! I don't mind qualifying your words as fair comment (which I looked up) as long as you don't start on my personal adresses to you being low... My personal adresses at your station were made with regard to your avoiding an argument you yourself made earlier, your initially stating biasedly that only one company was making up their own facts and your accusing implications based on incorrect or incomplete facts against other people and organisations. I wouldn't call them attacks but, ideed, they are my personal views, which - as you so adequately point out - is what one tends to get in a debate: personal views. If it makes you feel better, just consider my adresses at your station fair comment.

 

Nevertheless, I don't mean to hurt your feelings, so if I did, my sincere apologies. Then again, I don't feel I have attacked you personally but I do think you've crossed the line with regard to several implications you made.

 

Lastly, you seem to invest an awful lot of time in a thread you consider to be really unimportant in the long run.

[NIIIC]

My God, you are going to discourage every body one coming in it is enormous. Are we supposed to read all of this, as any one read all of this???