Star Wars Cloaking Devices On Film/TV

[DSG2k]

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

Thanks!

[Aaron]

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?

The heart of this disagreement is that you interpret the canon policy a certain way and others interpret it differently.

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!)

Your a goddamn liar Robert and you know it. As a matter of fact, I mentioned that I felt you got a bad rap.

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.

Like I mentioned before, the heart of this disagreement is that you interpret the canon policy a certain way and others disagree. There can be no agreement until the heart of the matter is resolved.

Now kindly do not bitch and moan about us being time vampires, when it is you who posted the thread. And it is you who continue to look down your nose at the members for disagreeing with you.

[DSG2k]

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!)

Your a goddamn liar Robert and you know it. As a matter of fact, I mentioned that I felt you got a bad rap.

You're being a fool. I'm not lying by being disappointed at your poor behavior, and I'll be damned if you didn't break the thread.

Imagine you were having a good conversation with someone who disagreed with you, trying to show them how their information is mistaken. Things are going pretty well, and it's a good rational discussion. (No trolling and flaming like Tyyr, no stalwart defense of fallacies like Stitch, no weirdness like DeepCrush, and none of the other nonsense from the other couple of disruptors from the TOS Fleet thread.)

Then I come in and call the whole thing crap because you're involved, and explain that you are lampooned by a bunch of people from KendallSucks.Net who think you're a dumbass, implying ulterior motive on your part, and exposing your full name and assorted pet names and whatnot in the process.

Do you not see how that is a complete derail of the conversation? Do you not see how that is poisoning the well of discourse? What I have thus done is to perform an attempted character assassination on you, whether or not that was my intent. Even if I say, parenthetically, that I don't think you're as bad as they say, I've still performed the personal attack that they would've performed in my place, and should've kept my mouth shut.

Even if you disagree with every word I write on my canon or other sites and think it's as bad as a 9/11 'Truther' site or something, interrupting a rational and fun conversation to claim that one of the conversants is lampooned as a truther or what-have-you is just taking a wizz into the whole conversation . . . and, as we've seen, it caused the thread to be locked, and thus broken.

If being called out on that makes you shake with rage, then I don't know what to tell you. But frankly, unless I was in a thread discussing the Vs. Debate or a Vs. Debate person (neither of which is allowed or desirable here) and acting like I wasn't involved (which I wouldn't do anyway), then any bringing-up of the anti-me idiot brigade has absolutely no place in any thread in which I'm taking part.

Would you want a bunch of idiots who hate you mentioned in every unrelated thread in which you take part? No, I doubt it. So why should I be any different than you?

Like I mentioned before, the heart of this disagreement is that you interpret the canon policy a certain way and others disagree. There can be no agreement until the heart of the matter is resolved.

Then quit bitchin' about it in this thread, and just discuss cloaks on film or TV (or film scripts or film novelizations, but the title could only be so long).

Now kindly do not bitch and moan about us being time vampires, when it is you who posted the thread.

Stop wasting my time with this interpersonal nonsense and petty bickering, and you won't be a time vampire anymore.

And it is you who continue to look down your nose at the members for disagreeing with you.

Disagreement alone doesn't satisfy the requirements for being able to look down at you . . . just disagreement of the type you and those others from the TOS Fleet thread foment, full of sound and fury but empty of reason, purpose, or logic.

Now, do you wanna talk cloaks or keep talking about me?

[Aaron]

*shakes head* Unbelievable.

[stitch626]

You were the one making up an imaginary ship comprised of a Connie hull, but not being a Connie. While I was supporting the idea of a known ship. Unless you intend to claim that the Connie never existed (well, I have heard worse arguments).
However, this is not the thread for such discussion... so I'm done with that now.


I never said Needa was stupid. Just uninformed. It is foolish to assume that any one officer would know everything about every past ship, especially one that is secret.
I certainly would not expect a U.S. General to know every tactical system of submarines from 30 years ago.

[Tsukiyumi]

Believe me when I say: no one likes me when I'm angry.

I hesitate to say it, as I often derail threads myself, but everyone should please get back on topic here.

[Mikey]

Believe when I say: I have zero interest in either side of this debate. However, this would have been locked already if Tsu didn't get here first.

[Tsukiyumi]

I'm willing to give this another chance. I have little interest in this discussion either, but I can see the merit in people discussing the original topic.

[stitch626]

Sorry bout that... I'll do my best not to bring in outside thread stuff.

[DSG2k]

However, this is not the thread for such discussion

Finally, a valid and agreeable statement. Thank you.

I never said Needa was stupid. Just uninformed. It is foolish to assume that any one officer would know everything about every past ship, especially one that is secret.
I certainly would not expect a U.S. General to know every tactical system of submarines from 30 years ago.

Again, I'm here to discuss Star Wars, not what we can imagine to be in Star Wars. 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.

So I'm really not interested in any further claims that Maul's ship had a cloak, unless and until you can find me something in the Lucas canon to prove it. Until then, you're just fantasizing. Drop it.

[Mikey]

...and we're done.