Talk:Viper 289/Archive 1 - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:58:34Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:58, 11 April 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I maintain that it is unreasonable to assert that two vipers, explicitly identified by number and having nothing in common (unlike the 791/591 business) are meant to be the same. Are you now going to argue that Raptor 312 never existed, and was retconned into 478? The argument makes no sense, and is not worth noting. There were plenty of opportunities to a viper to be damaged beyond repair between "Final Cut" and "Flight of the Phoenix", and we've definitely seen vipers survive worse damage that 591 sustained in "Final Cut" (c.f. Hot Dog's, seen badly damaged in "You Can't Go Home Again" but apparently repaired based on SciFi.com CAG roster) --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 22:23, 12 December 2005 (EST)		I maintain that it is unreasonable to assert that two vipers, explicitly identified by number and having nothing in common (unlike the 791/591 business) are meant to be the same. Are you now going to argue that Raptor 312 never existed, and was retconned into 478? The argument makes no sense, and is not worth noting. There were plenty of opportunities to a viper to be damaged beyond repair between "Final Cut" and "Flight of the Phoenix", and we've definitely seen vipers survive worse damage that 591 sustained in "Final Cut" (c.f. Hot Dog's, seen badly damaged in "You Can't Go Home Again" but apparently repaired based on SciFi.com CAG roster) --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 22:23, 12 December 2005 (EST)

April Arcus at 03:28, 13 December 2005

2005-12-13T03:28:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:28, 13 December 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I maintain that it is unreasonable to assert that two vipers, explicitly identified by number and having nothing in common (unlike the 791/591 business) are meant to be the same. Are you now going to argue that Raptor 312 never existed, and was retconned into 478? The argument makes no sense, and is not worth noting. There were plenty of opportunities to a viper to be damaged beyond repair between "Final Cut" and "Flight of the Phoenix", and we've definitely seen vipers survive worse damage that 591 sustained in "Final Cut" (c.f. ~~Apollo's, mk. II, badly damaged in the mini-series;~~ Hot Dog's, seen badly damaged in "You Can't Go Home Again") --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 22:23, 12 December 2005 (EST)		I maintain that it is unreasonable to assert that two vipers, explicitly identified by number and having nothing in common (unlike the 791/591 business) are meant to be the same. Are you now going to argue that Raptor 312 never existed, and was retconned into 478? The argument makes no sense, and is not worth noting. There were plenty of opportunities to a viper to be damaged beyond repair between "Final Cut" and "Flight of the Phoenix", and we've definitely seen vipers survive worse damage that 591 sustained in "Final Cut" (c.f. Hot Dog's, seen badly damaged in "You Can't Go Home Again" but apparently repaired based on SciFi.com CAG roster) --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 22:23, 12 December 2005 (EST)

April Arcus at 03:27, 13 December 2005

2005-12-13T03:27:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:27, 13 December 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I maintain that it is unreasonable to assert that two vipers, explicitly identified by number and having nothing in common (unlike the 791/591 business) are meant to be the same. Are you now going to argue that Raptor 312 never existed, and was retconned into 478? The argument makes no sense, and is not worth noting. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 22:23, 12 December 2005 (EST)		I maintain that it is unreasonable to assert that two vipers, explicitly identified by number and having nothing in common (unlike the 791/591 business) are meant to be the same. Are you now going to argue that Raptor 312 never existed, and was retconned into 478? The argument makes no sense, and is not worth noting. There were plenty of opportunities to a viper to be damaged beyond repair between "Final Cut" and "Flight of the Phoenix", and we've definitely seen vipers survive worse damage that 591 sustained in "Final Cut" (c.f. Apollo's, mk. II, badly damaged in the mini-series; Hot Dog's, seen badly damaged in "You Can't Go Home Again") --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 22:23, 12 December 2005 (EST)

April Arcus at 03:23, 13 December 2005

2005-12-13T03:23:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:23, 13 December 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I maintain that ~~there~~ it is unreasonable to assert that two vipers, explicitly identified by number and having nothing in common (unlike the 791/591 business) are meant to be the same. Are you now going to argue that Raptor 312 never existed, and was retconned into 478? The argument makes no sense, and is not worth noting. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 22:23, 12 December 2005 (EST)		I maintain that it is unreasonable to assert that two vipers, explicitly identified by number and having nothing in common (unlike the 791/591 business) are meant to be the same. Are you now going to argue that Raptor 312 never existed, and was retconned into 478? The argument makes no sense, and is not worth noting. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 22:23, 12 December 2005 (EST)

April Arcus at 03:23, 13 December 2005

2005-12-13T03:23:26Z

New page

I maintain that there it is unreasonable to assert that two vipers, explicitly identified by number and having nothing in common (unlike the 791/591 business) are meant to be the same. Are you now going to argue that Raptor 312 never existed, and was retconned into 478? The argument makes no sense, and is not worth noting. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:23, 12 December 2005 (EST)