Talk:Imperial II-class Star Destroyer/Legends

Appearances
Perhaps the subsection Appearances should be taken out since one could list just about every post-Return of the Jedi novel. Perhaps it should be replaced with 'Sources' subsection?--SOCL 03:29, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. If a complete list of appearances would be made, it would stretch from ESB all the way to the Dark Nest Trilogy. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 15:38, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Bridge viewports can resist a concussion missile?
Is this based on of Isard's Revenge? This says that the Reckonings bridge viewports "resisted the impact at first" when the CM hit, but given the time-delay between the splinters from the shattering "inner layer" lacerating Krennel and the actual explosion, I think it could be read that the missile goes through' the bridge, then drives deeper into the tower, and finally detonates. --McEwok 13:52, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the bridge viewport can resist a concussion missile. If the shields are down, it could fly straight into the bridge and detonate, similar to the A-wing in RotJ. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:05, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Imperial III-class?
I have found no real hard evidence yet, except for the Gurps Imperial Sourcebook and a few mentions here and there, but does the Imperial III subclass of the Star Destroyer exist in canon? If so, what's the story behind it? - Danik Kreldin
 * GURPS Imperial Sourcebook? It's not in the West End Games verison, that's all I know.  &mdash; Silly Dan  12:45, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * The GURPS Imperial Sourcebook is unlicensed and non-canon. If there was an Imperial-III in official sources, we'd have had a page for it months ago. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  13:27, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be very interesting to have an Imperial III-class, though. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:03, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * We could always make a general page for ISD variants seen throughout the comics' histories. ;) VT-16 14:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be a monumental undertaking. We'd end up with a page a mile long, with a hundred comic image excerpts, with section titles like Imperial-class Star Destroyer with unusual bridge tower face design and Imperial-class star destroyer with elongated forward hangar and Imperial II-class Star Destroyer with Imperial I-class engine baffles. I'd love to see how many we could come up with. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  15:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that hit me after posting that. >P
 * I guess we could have something either added to the ISD-I page or in a seperate article, generalizing the most common changes/additions a ship could undergo (assuming we utilize SoD and not "This artist can't draw for shit") ;P VT-16 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If we had all those pages... Wow. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Point Defense turrets
Aren't there also approximately twenty point defense laser cannons on the ISD-II? --128.195.98.134 01:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe so. But we'll need a confirmation first. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Speed
Ok i don't get it how can an Imperial class star destroyer able to catch up to the Millenium Falcon even though it have max acceleration of 2300g while the Falcon has a max accerleration of 3000g? It doesn't make sense. -Darth Tader
 * Please don't delete topics, even if you don't want them here. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * no, I just moved my disscussion to the Millennium Falcon dissussion page Darth Tader
 * Okay, then, but it appears to involve an Imperial-class Star Destroyer. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Imperial II in Empire at War?
Doesn't Empire at War take place between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope? Astroview120mm 04:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really look up to EaW when it comes to canon. --Danik Kreldin 04:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As I always say, games screw up canon. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it was noted somewhere that the ISD-I model was "fixed" for the production of ESB, so that it could be used alongside the ISD-II model (to save money). This was explained as an in-universe refitting, IIRC. I don't have a source, so don't take my word for it, though. VT-16 20:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's probably the case. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Since Imperial IIs are in both Empire and Jedi, there are more available images in them and the game designers probably just used those as reference. They might not even have known the difference between I and II. I didn't know for awhile, either. --Commander Mike 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think game designers know a lot of things, to tell you the truth... Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The people who make the games don't say "Bwahahaha, let's mess with canon and screw everything up!" They either don't know any better, or they just pick something for ease of programming (the models for ISD-II's may be in better shape or something, or more of them, than ISD-I models) or for gameplay. People playing the Rebels expect to have access to A-Wings, so they stick them in even before they were invented. Most games are made for the casual fan, who may not even know that there are two different ISD subclasses.--Commander Mike 02:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course they don't mess up canon on purpose, but I have a feeling they don't know a lot about the Star Wars timeline and when certain things were made. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Great...
An idiot just vandalized the article. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reverted. RMF 20:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now the stupid anon needs to be banned, and all the articles that he vandalized need to be reverted. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jaymach banned him, and I reverted all his other edits. RMF 20:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, again. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jaymach also vandalized the Home One article, can someone unlock it, ban him, and put in the other length which is supported by canon that isn't out dated?
 * Jaymach is not a vandal. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then who was?
 * Just because something was changed that you liked doesn't mean a person is a vandal. Jaymach has a very large list of great contributions to this site. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that a reason for the edit was shown. He didn't provide one, at all. I asked him twice if the WEG sourcebook was still valid after 10 years, and he didn't answer.
 * Well, don't call him a vandal because of that. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Most sites would really call that trollish behavior. I wasn't going to call him a vandal, I would have just liked to see why he chose that figure, and if that source book was still valid after over 10 years.
 * Yet you said that Jaymach vandalized the article. That's the same as calling him a vandal. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it vandalizing if he didn't provide the source? Or answer simple questions to his figure?
 * No. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I pointed out the HO size problem before and how it not only conflicts with ROTJ, but with other WEG sources as well, and I thought that issue would be solved by a disclaimer in the infobox as well as reasoning in the Bts section. Wasn't that done? At least put the two different numbers up there. (For the record, "canon" eminates from the films, it does not exclude them, like some would like to believe. That goes for the Home One as well as any issue here and on the ISD-I page.) VT-16 13:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection
I'm protecting this article due to the ongoing edit war: let an admin know when it's resolved. I suggest resolving it on Talk:Imperial I-class Star Destroyer. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC) They're an exact number that's wrong. As I've said before, the 60/60 or 100/20 numbers aren't in addition to the large visible guns, they're supposed to be everything. And according to the poorly researched rpg books, all these guns are the same. JimRaynor55 02:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The anon should stop now. And if he doesn't, I think we should ban him for a week. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about we come to a compromise then?
 * The objective here is the truth, not to compromise. If you think you're right, then explain why, citing sources. Otherwise, too bad. JimRaynor55 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was trying to explain why until all you jumped down my throat and dogpiled me. Then all I said was ignored and you kept trying to push a figure that doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Really, for such a big ship as a Star Destroyer, does it make sense to be so lightly armed in the big guns? The model is just that, a model, it doesn't show every single encampment on the ISD. The 60 turbolasers and ion cannons, beside the top side main battery could be through that cutaway between the two ships. In the movies, we do see many more guns in that area.
 * And because of the use of the model in this figure, the MC80 cruiser is more heavily armed than the standard ISD. That contradicts the canon.
 * You didn't provide any explanation for me to ignore. You say that it doesn't make sense for the ISD to have so few guns, but compared to what?  It has what it has.  The visuals are G-canon, and you can't dismiss them.  And again, what part of "Numerous light turbolasers and ion cannons" do you not understand? JimRaynor55 22:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Numerous light turbolasers and ion cannons" is a lot better than a stupid figure that is different from what is seen in the movies. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Which isn't an accurate figure. Hell, light turbolasers and the main battery really don't make a threat to the shields of a MC80. The EU says the MC80 has 48 turbolasers and 20 Ion Cannons, and it also says the weapons compliment that the movies do not show. And really, light turbolasers do not have enough firepower to perform a BDZ do they?
 * A more general figure is better than one that says something different from the movies. Leave it alone, anon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it different from the movies? Did one of you go over every inch of the model or something, counting all the turbolasers and/or light turbolasers? And how do you even tell the difference?
 * Listen, anon, JimRaynor55 is a great contributor to this site. He provides canon material. I have no doubt that he has proof to support what he says. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So you don't question it? And if he provides no proof, he has more say than someone who prefers to stay anonymous?
 * No, I don't, because JimRaynor55 can be trusted. Your vision of canon is apparently different from everyone else's. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So if his analysis comes from fanon(that is the only way I can see the figure), and mine come from the canon EU, I get out voted because you don't see that JimRaynor55 can be caught in a lie? This sounds like a double standard.
 * JimRaynor wouldn't base anything off of fanon, anon. You're just upset that you're not getting your way. "Numerous light turbolasers and ion cannons" is perfectly fine. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You sure about that? Absolutely positively sure? Because, you know, he does go to a site that makes fanon calculations and analysis of Star Wars.
 * And that site would be what? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Star Destroyer.net. They made fanon up, and pass it off as canon. I've been butting heads with them for a hell of a long time.
 * From "Turbolaser Commentaries": "These pages present a study and quantitative assessment of Star Wars turbolasers." That's not fanon; it's called assessments based off of things from the movies. Real-world calculations are always applied to Star Wars. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Even though the basis of Star Wars is Science Fantasy, not Science Fiction? Most stuff in Star Wars is not even in the realm of real world physics. Those commentaries are all conjecture. Thus, that is fanon. And really, the turbolaser firepower that is presented there does not fit the movies or the EU, thus it is even more fanon.
 * "Most stuff in Star Wars is not even in the realm of real world physics". Not really. Those commentaries provide a real-world analysis of turbolasers, not fanon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And are turbolasers even, I don't know, possible under real world physics? Are lightsabers? Ion Cannons? And really, those commentaries are fanon since they are pure conjecture on the composition and size of those asteroids.
 * I'd like to see you give a better analysis then, anon. Real-world physics can be applied to many things in Star Wars. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's fanon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, let me guess, you are an SD.netter as well. There is no convincing you then....
 * No, I'm not. But JimRaynor55 uses canon, not fanon. If you look around the site, real-life physics is applied to many things. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. You're just some guy who has a problem against Saxton, Wong, or the other people who like to take a rational approach to SW. Look, calculations based on things we see are not "fanon." Neither is taking a look at the actual ship models used in the movies. SWTC has pictures and analysis of all the visible weapons on the ISD, which are canon fact. I also put in "numerous" light weapons because we know that there are a lot of guns that are too small to be seen from a distance, but we don't know the exact number of them. It's better to go with a general statement than it is to go with a clear mistake. Stop carrying on and come back when you have a real argument. JimRaynor55 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There you go, anon. There's the proof. Now, leave these articles alone. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Oh, I see. You're just some guy who has a problem against Saxton, Wong, or the other people who like to take a rational approach to SW. Look, calculations based on things we see are not "fanon."" Rational approach on Star Wars, which is fiction/fantasy genre which most physics don't apply? Now, where has 200 gigatons of firepower ever been shown from one turbolaser? And, to that matter, for Saxton's site has he shown every single weapon encampment in the Star Destroyer's trench like sides?
 * I'll make you guys happy, I'll stop replying and I'll leave the article alone.
 * Finally... Okay, unlock the articles. And if he still changes it, we should probably give him a week ban for going against his promise. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "I also put in "numerous" light weapons because we know that there are a lot of guns that are too small to be seen from a distance, but we don't know the exact number of them." Aren't the WEG figures an exact number? jSarek 02:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to leave it as "Numerous" for now. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If the book here mentions them as smaller guns, just have their number as "unknown" for now, if the model permits their placement anywhere. (Could be on the inside, for all we know, like on the Venator). VT-16 14:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'm getting a bit sick and tired of all the WEG tards that come in here and pass off what is essentially fanon writings paid for by LFL, as somehow superior sources to the films, which are the sole origin of the SW universe. They don't seem to get it through their heads that what they are supporting, is fanon made canon that contradicts the highest sources, namely the films. Falling back on "SDN is stupid" or "Saxton writes fanon" is the cheapest and most numerous excuse next to "it's all fiction, so it doesn't matter".

Listen up, this is an encyclopedia, and is meant to provide as accurate information as possible. Just like encyclopedias for real life things. If the models used in the films, show different amounts of weaponry to that stated in spin-off books (the disputed number claimed to be a "total amount", right?), the numbers in the books should be sidelined for accuracy's sake. This is not about "convincing" people, this is about being accurate and true to LFL's rules about canon. LFL states that the movies go first. The movies. Not WEG's RPG sourcebooks. No matter how influential those may be on their own.

WEG is fanon made canon, the movies are the ultimate canon (of course the filmmakers are fans of what they are doing, but that's different until the things are actually made). Recent books, like Saxton's are also fanon made canon, but they are fanon based on what the ultimate canon (the movies) show. That's the main difference. WEG sourcebooks were primarily made for gaming purposes and trivia on the side. If we wanted to be dicks, we could label it all "game mechanics" and discard them. But we don't do that, only the parts that conflict with the films. VT-16 14:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The information I've just added comes from a mixture of the Starships of the Galaxy (2001) and Imperial Sourcebook, Second Edition (1993). While the old WEG book gives the Fire Arcs for each individual cannon, the WotC book provides the Fire Arcs I've added to the article (notice, every cannon is in a battery). I'm not too sure if this is a retcon or not, but please provide any feedback and I'll look over it when I get back from work. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How nice of you to change the article back to those incorrect WEG stats, after we all explained why WEG is wrong, Jaymach. JimRaynor55 15:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How did Jaymach even make an edit, after the article was protected? And why is it protected again, after he made his edit? JimRaynor55 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Admins can edit protected pages. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How wonderful. Looks like we have an admin who thinks that rpg sourcebooks trump the G-canon films, and didn't even bother reading the entire debate explaining why WEG is wrong. JimRaynor55 15:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Range of guns...
...isn't those a bit low compared to other Science Fiction/Fantasy universes?
 * Possibly, but that's only an issue for Star Wars vs. Star Trek-type questions. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not comparing Star Wars to Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica here, anon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not only Star Trek that seems to have a greater range. I mean, other universes have a range of their guns from Jupiter to Pluto for example. Sure, Star Wars'ranges are far beyond visual range, yet they are not very impressive for a 25,000 year old civilization. And this is just a question why the range is so low, Nebulax.
 * Again, we're not comparing Star Wars to other sci-fi universes. The range in Star Wars has nothing to do with the range of guns in other sci-fi series. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The damaging component of turbolasers moves at lightspeed, and against certain targets a SW ship can time their shots to hit at a distance of ten light minutes. I fail to see why this is low.  And if you think ST is better (which isn't the point of this site), go read SD.net. JimRaynor55 15:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He wouldn't do that, because he thinks that SD.net has only fanon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that BS from SD.net again. You ever thought they are very biased there(Wong has been caught in *many* lies about Star Wars and other things, and even creates fanfics where he either kills or beats up his opponents in debates)? And you're trying to make an excuse for a movie special effects error. If the visual portion is not the damaging, why is it the one that causes the damage? Why do Jedi bother to block the visual portion? And SD.net did make up fanon, since it didn't use actual feats, only *pure* conjecture to make those firepower estimates.
 * Shut up, anon. What ever happened to "I'll make you guys happy, I'll stop replying and I'll leave the article alone". Your sense of canon is twisted. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am leaving the article alone, and I was just asking a simple question why the ranges were so low. And, I have gone to the canon tree plenty of times, and according to it, Wongilations *are* fanon. And what is your problem?
 * You. Come back once you've learned to deal with the fact that things are canon even if you don't like it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How are Wong's Calcs canon? Did he get them published, and Leeland Chang accepted them?
 * Again, real-life physics can be applied to Star Wars. When will you learn? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it can't accurately. Wong's calcs rely on pure conjecture, they ignore what really counts, feats of the explosions of turbolasers, and nothing is solid on them. Wong's calcs are pure fanon, they haven't been published at all in a Star Wars books, thus fanon.
 * You really don't get it, do you, anon? Physics can be applied to Star Wars. Then, even if it isn't pusblished, it becomes a source, which is canon. You fail to see that. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The ICS flat out says that the damaging portion of turbolasers moves at lightspeed, and that they can hit targets at 10 light minutes. It's canon, whether you like Wong is wrong or not. JimRaynor55 15:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So Turbolasers have to be targetted 10 minutes in advanced to get that lightspeed portion correct? And nothing from the books or movies supports that. So why is the ICS canon? Oh, please stop addressing me in such a rude manner Nebulax.
 * No, not until you realize that you're wrong, anon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're really setting a standard Nebulax. I really thought you were more polite. And still you're dodging many parts of this arguement.
 * Turbolasers don't have to be targeted so long in advance if you're not trying to shoot at 10 light minutes. God, it's not that hard to figure out.  As for the movies, they DON'T contradict these ranges at all.  In pretty much every battle, the objective was to contain or capture enemy ships, which meant getting close.  In fact TESB supports long ranges, since Vader wanted to drop out of hyperspace far from Hoth and bombard it from a distance.  I also find it funny how you're suddenly trying to use the movies, when before you were arguing for the superiority of the rpg books. JimRaynor55 15:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There are no scenes in the movies where an ISD fired on a target outside visual range. And unless the target is a planet or some other body in space that moves in a fixed path, you can't hit a target 10 light-minutes away with TL's even if they did move at the speed of light. It would take the TL bolt ten minutes to cross the distance and they would have to be aimed where the target would be 10 minutes in the future-CrossoverManiac
 * Did you not understand my point about how all the battles in the movies involved trying to capture enemy ships, which meant getting up close? And why did you ignore my point about what Vader tried to do to Hoth? And of course that 10 light minute thing can only be done to stationary targets or targets moving in a predictable path, what's your point? And aren't you the same CrossoverManiac troll that got banned from SD.net? JimRaynor55 15:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're calling CM a troll just because he won't accept the turbolaser firepower and this lightspeed portion? Man, that is low. Did Wong start a blog against him too?
 * No, I vaguely remember a guy called Crossover_Maniac acting like an idiot at SD.net. As for you, I don't think you know what the hell you're even talking about.  This is Wong's blog, and it has nothing to do wit hpeople he debates and hates.  He also hasn't been caught in numerous lies, or write violent fanfics about killing other debaters, as you have alleged. JimRaynor55 15:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The who wrote the one about him killing/beating up Darkstar? According to the link that I saw, he wrote it along with Poe and others. KK also caught him in a bunch of lies in the Obi-wan Kenobi vs Scarlet Spider debate. And I've read through the threads where he's been caught in lies in the Star Wars vs Star Trek debate, and whoever disagrees with him he bans. This is a guy you want to affiliate yourself with?