Star Wars Cloaking Devices On Film/TV

[Aaron]

Oh good grief.

Look, I'm here to discuss Star Wars, not your imaginations. I analyze Star Wars. It's a hobby. And right now, the best information we have is that a ship as small as the Falcon is too small to have a cloaking device, and as of the Clone Wars era even a ship as small as the ~135 meter prototype ship is considered too small to usually mount one. Further, there is no canon evidence for a cloaking device on Maul's ship, which is smaller than even the Falcon, and only active ten years prior to the Clone Wars.

Could Lucas wake up tomorrow and decide that the next TCW show to feature a cloaking device will show one functioning on a vehicle the size of a Yugo? Sure he could. But that would be a surprise to everyone, and would run contrary to Needa's statement, and thus it would represent a change to the canon and to our interpretations thereof, just as "Pegasus" would've had Picard made the statement you imagine. But in the meantime, there is absolutely no evidence that Needa was wrong, so if we're going to try to understand Star Wars we must do so on the basis of the idea that Needa was right. To do otherwise is to reject the mental exercise that comes with analyzing something, and instead to simply begin mental masturbation.

Therefore, by trying to argue the point, you guys are no longer discussing Star Wars, but instead trying to insert your own opinions in place of Star Wars fact, driven no doubt by the fact that I'm no longer participating in the other thread in which you were arguing in favor of fallacies.

Yeah, I was arguing for you but who's keeping track right?

Now, if you would like to analyze and discuss real Star Wars, I'm interested. If you simply want to carry on against me personally, then you're being time vampires and I am not interested in wasting time with you. Do I make myself clear?

If your not interested in discussing the reasoning leading to your opinions or are not interested in listening to the reasonings of our opinions, then frankly; why should we even bother discussing anything with you? Why are you even here? Why does every thread you are involved in result in you running off like a child?

[stitch626]

Further, there is no canon evidence for a cloaking device on Maul's ship

You mean, besides the ICS...

Therefore, by trying to argue the point, you guys are no longer discussing Star Wars, but instead trying to insert your own opinions in place of Star Wars fact

You mean exactly what you did in the other thread...

[Aaron]

Robert isn't interested in discussing anything, he's interested in stating his opinion then whining about how no one agrees with him and then running off.

[stitch626]

I see... well I guess I won't waste my time. Anyone else want to discuss cloaking devices in Star Wars?
Specifically, a question. Would a cloak act similar to one in Trek (not talking vs, just the properties of the technology), as in can't see, can't detect, etc?

[Tyyr]

Well following the stated rules of Star Wars canon we have seen cloaks before. Until they officially decanonize the EU that's the way it is. I dunno how that's even an argument.

[Aaron]

Well following the stated rules of Star Wars canon we have seen cloaks before. Until they officially decanonize the EU that's the way it is. I dunno how that's even an argument.

It's an argument because Robert interprets Lucas's quote as meaning the EU is separate from the films. This is one of the big reasons why I don't seriously debate SW anymore. It all comes down to canon whoring. Gawd forbid one have a different canon preference.

I see... well I guess I won't waste my time. Anyone else want to discuss cloaking devices in Star Wars?
Specifically, a question. Would a cloak act similar to one in Trek (not talking vs, just the properties of the technology), as in can't see, can't detect, etc?

The only cloaks I know anything about in SW are the ones in the Zahn trilogy and they where "double blind", you couldn't see out or in. IIRC they used something called a crystal grav trap to pick up the ships.

[stitch626]

The only cloaks I know anything about in SW are the ones in the Zahn trilogy and they where "double blind", you couldn't see out or in. IIRC they used something called a crystal grav trap to pick up the ships.

That woudl be an interesting handicap. You'd have to know where you were going snd hope no ships got in your way.

[Tyyr]

I liked the Thrawn cloaks. It made it a real risk to use them.

[Aaron]

Yeah from what I vaguely recall, it was really only possible because he had a pet Jedi.

[Sionnach Glic]

Indeed, they were more of a strategic weapon than a tactical one. Utterly useless for combat purposes, but for surprise attacks (like at Sluiis Van) they're excellent.

[Sonic Glitch]

Indeed, they were more of a strategic weapon than a tactical one. Utterly useless for combat purposes, but for surprise attacks (like at Sluiis Van) they're excellent.

And freaking people out by putting asteroids in orbit...

[DSG2k]

Yeah, I was arguing for you but who's keeping track right?

How does trying to disagree with my every statement here count as arguing for me?

Now, if you would like to analyze and discuss real Star Wars, I'm interested. If you simply want to carry on against me personally, then you're being time vampires and I am not interested in wasting time with you. Do I make myself clear?

If your not interested in discussing the reasoning leading to your opinions or are not interested in listening to the reasonings of our opinions, then frankly; why should we even bother discussing anything with you? Why are you even here?[/quote]

To analyze and discuss Star Wars . . . not your imaginations, as I said. You are pretending as if the personal beliefs and preference about what Star Wars ought to be like -- the way Star Wars would be in your mind -- constitute some sort of Star Wars fact. It does not.

To actually discuss "the reasoning leading to your opinions", then we would operate based upon known canon (quantitatively or qualitatively) and from there ponder meaning . . . like discussing a lightsaber's cutting ability based on when it has or has not cut through things. From there we might develop some general concepts about lightsabers, and if we forgot some cutting event or saw some new one on TCW then we would discuss that and how it affects our notions.

However, what you are doing is arguing for the rejection of known canon. What the hell is that?

Why does every thread you are involved in result in you running off like a child?

That's hardly accurate. I have only left one thread, the last one in which you guys were demonstrably fallacious but in full dogpile mode. There was nothing to do but declare victory and leave.

But let's go ahead and review this recent history of which you speak, hmm?

The first thread involved a pleasant discussion, but ended because you came in spewing crap everywhere, and so I got on to you for bringing up personal attack nonsense, and then you declared yourself enraged and the thread got closed as a result. So you broke the thread. (And now you blame me. How ridiculous!)

I left the TOS Fleet thread after having personal attacks and insults and false declarations of error thrown my way all at once for no reason other than the fact that I disagreed, at which point I refused to back off my correct assessment of the fallacious argument of the other side. I had tried to agree to disagree peacefully but they'd have none of it, and some extra folks dogpiled. I continued to resist long enough to satisfy myself that nothing more was to be gained, and then had to simply declare victory. I'm pretty sure they're still bitchin' about me, but I left the thread so I don't know.

In this thread, someone decided to start talking about EU cloaks despite the reference to the fact that we've never seen cloaks in canon Star Wars before. Then, when I clarified that we were talking about the Lucas canon, the person tried to contest the idea of the canon policy as if I don't know what I'm talking about (and as if I don't have a link to a site called "CANONWARS.COM" in my freakin' signature).

Then after some useless messages people brought up a misremembering of Darth Maul's ship, and in reference to my reply Stitch (from the TOS Fleet thread) claimed I was being a jerk for answering a question. Then, even though the canon topic has been officially split off one guy tried to pick a fight on it, and then you and Stitch decided to try to come continue your argument of character stupidity from the TOS Fleet thread, and so here we are.

Maybe if the people from the TOS Fleet thread would knock it off, in other words, the threads might be more pleasant. Hold a grudge all you like, but if you want to speak about childish behavior you need only look to yourself.

"Wah, he wouldn't cave when we flamed him, so we can't let him have any fun here! Wahhh!" I mean, seriously, we're all arguing this stuff so we're all on the short bus, here, but you could at least try to act like you're supposed to be on the longer bus.

[DSG2k]

Therefore, by trying to argue the point, you guys are no longer discussing Star Wars, but instead trying to insert your own opinions in place of Star Wars fact

You mean exactly what you did in the other thread...

No, you're following the same pattern. You're assuming what has not been seen in the canon, contradicting known canon statements in the process, but continuing to argue for it anyway. Last time it was an imaginary ship from a long-retired class, this time it's cloaking devices on small ships, but the fatal flaw is the same.

It's just trolling my attempted useful conversations in any case.

[DSG2k]

Well following the stated rules of Star Wars canon we have seen cloaks before.

Yes, just once, in "Cat and Mouse"[TCW2].

Now if you want to discuss the cloaking devices from the EU, which follows Licensing's rules of what does or does not count, I've started a new thread for us.

[Sionnach Glic]

Title edited to reflect that this is purely for cloaks seen in the visual medium.