SOCL

You always know how to make me laugh, even when I'm drinking scawlding hot coffee and spill it in my lap. Actually, sometime back (about a year), didn't we all go on a huge campaign to gain the source code? For instance, I remember you e-mailed a few blokes concerning all that...but then I disappeared from the forums. I assume nothing very fruitful came from that?

Hey, Evaders, after I click on the 'Home' link at the top, then click 'Your Account', and from the new window that loads click 'Your Info', my avatar screws up for some reason. It's only when I click on the 'Your Info' link, but when I go to mess with that sort of information via the 'Forums' link and subsequent 'Profile' link, the avatar doesn't screw up. Any ideas?

Cloak of Deception is the prequel to Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter.

Really? It was more-or-less meant as a rhetorical question...

I understand that, but I'm addressing a larger issue: Is the official site--StarWars.com--canon or not? I mean, sure it contains information from the movies, but it also contains information from the EU which, officially, is not canon. Sure, everyone can say this or that is canon, but the only official LucasFilm canon are the movies.

A GREAT song!!! The Seatbelts - Ask DNA

Sorry about that; what I meant to type was:Actually, I've always wondered why we have it (not that I'm complaining)?

Well, yes, I realize. I suppose I just wanted to see some of the opinions expressed by European SWR members.

I suppose there's so much stuff in Star Wars, esp. the EU, thatwe could go on for days and days naming stuff to us. For instance, what ever happened to the Sovereign-class ships being constructed in the years after Endor and before the Emperor's cloned return? Granted, they were never completed with some people saying they were scrapped by various warlords to help create the different warlord fleets following the events of Dark Empire, but isn't it possible to theorize that their uncompleted hulls were merely hidden away somewhere?

That's what it sounds like. Is there a way to fix it?

Can it? Doesn't The Official site also contain matters pertaining to Thrawn and much of the EU, which we know not to be canon? As far as I have it understood, canon is the movies.

Hey, guys, shouldn't this be left to the Moderators and Admin?

Isn't ROTS supposed to address some of these issues? For instance, if I have it understood (and please, if you've read the novelization, simply confirm or deny, don't put any spoilers), the movie is supposed to explain why Qui-Gon did not disappear like Ben and Yoda, as well as go a little deeper into Qui-Gon's reasonings and so forth. Also, I also had it understood Maul was supposed to make some sort of appearance (by this I mean in memories and words, not in person...err...being).

Timothy Zahn used it that way. I agree, and still agree, and will always agree with the fact that not everything in Star Wars can be explained by Earth-based terms, but if you can't explain it to people who are from Earth on Earth-based terms, then how can you explain it at all? The point being, all I try to do is rationalize matters in Star Wars into such a way that we can understand at based on what we have here on Earth. I mean, do you actually believe that if Star Wars is/was real, then Basic would sound like English? Or that Imperial officers would sound British? Why not? Besides, it serves to provide conclusions to some Star Wars matters which neither LucasFilm nor the movies has made clear. This does not mean that all his conclusions are correct, nor does it mean that anything not disputed by the movies that is on his website is correct, either, it simply tries to make some logic out of otherwise senseless situations (and, again, this does not mean that everything in Star Wars is 'senseless'). Besides, if you don't like the site, don't go there. Correct. The same idea as what I typed above, only Dr. Saxton sometimes goes to the extreme (for instance, despite everything else said, he still remains adamant that the domes on top of the Star Destroyers are sensors domes and not shields generator domes, or how he believes that every ship in the comic books that does not look like something already known is a new class ). I don't agree with everything he says, and most certainly I have reservations about a great deal of what he says, but I also find his site to be quite useful as a jumping-off point for applying logic and rationale to Star Wars. So you do heed what he says? Well, when it would be Imperial-class Star Destoryers. Besides which, no one is trying to say that Dr. Saxton is more correct than StarWars.com, but then again, much of what he has done has led to much of what we call canon, most especially the vehicles and vessels of AOTC and ROTS. He is, after all, the writer and editor to the Incredible Cross-Section Books for both of those movies, so when it comes to comparing Saxton's knowledge with that of a normal fan, I'd go with what Saxton says...but maybe that's just me. Further, as far as the ISD class name goes, this is all do-in-part to the fact that Saxton sticks with the original to just about everything, and so he remains adamant that the ISD class name is Imperator and not Imperial. This is the same situation with the shield generator domes on top of the bridges of Star Destroyers, as well as Dr. Saxton's tenacious nature to believe--despite evidence to the vice--that 'Star Destroyer' is the ship type and not simply a nickname given to a type of battlecruiser.

Understood. What you're talking about though, would basically be the the ability (or inability) to develope a formula to predict the unpredictable. But isn't that what Chaos theory attempts to do? By a theory/formula of everything, I believe they mean a formula for which everything can be solved despite knowing or not knowing certain amounts of knowledge. For instance, despite the fact we cannot predict the fluctuations of solar-flares of stars outside our view (i.e. so many lightyears away, we cannot see them), we could create a formula to predict these fluctuations based on what limtied knowledge we have. The theory/formula would not 100% accurate, but the difference wouldn't be statistically significant.

Hmm...maybe it's just me, but, GAT, it seems your signature stopped GIFing. It's stuck on Thrawn.

If you read Dr. Saxton's site, you'll see that he cites the fact that the ISDs were originally supposed to be called Imperator-class. Additionally, unless the first ship of the line was the Imperial, it wouldn't be the Imperial-class (the same reason I call the SSD Executor-class and not Super-class: the first SSD would have had to have been the Super and it wasn't, it was the Executor). The other issue is, you'll notice that it wasn't until after the Zahn novels that the ISD started to be called the Imperial-class; before that, ISDs were simply referred to as Imperial Star Destroyers (though, incidentally, the credits for ROTJ call them Stardestroyers...). By calling them Imperial and not Imperial, it makes it that the class is not mentioned and instead a ISD is simply a Star Destroyer that is owned by the Empire (i.e. the same as American cruiser and American-class cruiser). This in no way means the ISD's class name is not Imperial, but this wasn't something that was in any movie canon and wasn't adopted until after EU authors (starting with Kevin J. Anderson in the Jedi Academy Trilogy) coined the class name. Before that, it had honestly been known as the Imperator-class and/or simply Imperial Star Detroyer or Imperial-owned Star Destroyer. Given the relative size of a Star Destroyer, we can pretty much say they're battlecruisers. I could have sworn I read somewhere that 'Star Destroyer' was a term developed by the Empire for their ships in order to instill fear in the galaxy. It doesn't mean it's a destroyer that is in space, but that the name 'Star Destroyer' is actually not the ship type (though over time, it seems to have taken on it's unique type). What I'm trying to say is that ISDs are battlecruisers that are called 'Star Destroyers'. This is does not mean that Mon Calamari cruisers are Star Cruisers, nor does it mean that every type of warship in Star Wars is 'Star [whatever type]'. What makes me think this? Han Solo said "space cruiser" in TESB, and in ANH, he refers to Star Destroyers as cruisers, which could be short for battlecruiser. Why a battlecruiser? Simply because of how truly powerful and enormous Star Destroyers are compared to the rest of the ships in Star Wars, leaving room for larger ships like Executor-class and Eclipse-class to fill the Star Wars role of battleships in space. Another justification is that in Vector Prime we are presented to a new New Republic vessel called a "Star Defender". Okay, there is no type of warship called a "defender" as compared to a "destroyer". This is just a name used by the New Republic for this new type of ship in order to avoid such martial names as "destroyer", "battlecruiser", and "battleship". I could have sworn they were being chased by two, and then Han said in ANH, "There's two more of them coming in, they're going to try and cut us off." Perhaps just something tossed in to make the characters more believable?

Actually, that sounds closer to what happens to me.

I really like Admiral Nelson's cool hat!

About accounts being weird, my account keeps making all the new posts in the forums 'read'. In other words, posts that are new and have yet to read are not orange, instead they're all the color for 'Read'. Anyone experience this same problem?

There's a 'Quote' button in the upper-righthand corner of each post.

Sitting though the entire movie dressed as a Stormtrooper does require some imagination... I suppose I hadn't thought of that.... By the way, GAT, I like your signature! Plus, it doesn't take forever to upload!

Yeah, supposedly if you beat it on a certain difficulty, it would tell you how to destroy it. Does anyone know how?

It's sad to see that Elvis isn't around as much as he used to be.

I hate people who revive long-dead threads...and do it in a double-post.* I was actually, curious, though, to get an update on what people believe of the EU (European Union, not Expanded Universe) currently. I mean, I know there's a discussion of opinions already here, but I'm curious to know how people view it now (not that anything spectacular has happened since then, but just curiosity). Also, I don't quite understand the United Kingdom's role in the EU? If I have it understood correctly, they are a part of the EU, but then it seems as though they aren't...? I'm just a little confused and would greatly appreciate some clarification on that (facts) and then some opinions (with minimal debate). Actually, it would be really nice to read opinions from citizens of different nations within the EU before getting into a debate. I know, I can't dictate how and what people post here, but it's just a humble request. Mostly I'm interested in knowing the UK's role in the EU and how Europeans view the EU. *Note: Words after elipsis (...) added after original post.