Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Can Yoda and Mace pull it off, setting is in the Dune Sea, anything goes. This is ROTS Yoda and ROTS Mace Windu against post KotOR Revan where Revan regains all his old memories.

Revan gets OWNED, hard. I'd consider Revan a match for these two by themselves but together he doesn't stand a chance.

Yoda himself is a match for Revan and more than likely more powerful than him according to novelizations, add Mace is overkill.

Yup, Yoda takes this alone.

I wouldn't go that far, I'd say out of 10 its split even 5 - 5 in Revan vs Yoda

I'd say Yoda most of the time. He was considered to be stronger than any jedi that the order ever provided, and Revan is one of them. Revan was also stronger as a jedi, and Yoda has been stated to be the most powerful jedi up until Luke Skywalker.

Mace or Yoda alone comfortably.

This a ridiculous thread. There's way too much Revan fanboyism going around. He's not that good, guys. He's powerful, yes, but, way overhyped.

Whoa. He can't take these two down at once...

What about what he did to Kas'Im and stuff?

You know, exploding that whole Temple under his feet?

Diden't Revan uncover incredible power?

Although I DO know that Windu's Vapaad would finish Revan off, regaurdless...

Yoda could beat Revan alone.

Mace could beat Revan alone, he's black

Originally posted by jollyjim311
Mace or Yoda alone comfortably.

This a ridiculous thread. There's way too much Revan fanboyism going around. He's not that good, guys. He's powerful, yes, but, way overhyped.

Your KOTOR hatred balances the fanboyism out. What on God's earth makes you think either one can take him comfortably. If YODA is indeed #1(if it is confirmed as not in universe), then after reading POD, Revan is almost realistically #2. Mace's force abilities don't compare to Revan's. Yoda's most likely do, which gives him more of a chance than Mace. Revan would destroy Mace.

My ass.

You're full of shit.

I might as well post my reason, before I get reported @_@

Mace Windu is a BMF. He cannot die, he is beyond conflict.

Revan gets owned.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Your KOTOR hatred balances the fanboyism out. What on God's earth makes you think either one can take him comfortably. If YODA is indeed #1(if it is confirmed as not in universe), then after reading POD, Revan is almost realistically #2. Mace's force abilities don't compare to Revan's. Yoda's most likely do, which gives him more of a chance than Mace. Revan would destroy Mace.

Do you understand what you just said, DS?

Yoda could likely take Revan, but Revan would destroy Mace?

I think not. If Yoda could take Revan, then Mace would easily give him a run for his money, and Revan wouldn't win by a longshot, mile, or even several feet.

Originally posted by Escape81
Do you understand what you just said, DS?

Yoda could likely take Revan, but Revan would destroy Mace?

I think not. If Yoda could take Revan, then Mace would easily give him a run for his money, and Revan wouldn't win by a longshot, mile, or even several feet.

Yes I said Yoda more than likely is equal to Revan in force abilities while Mace is NOT. Mace is on par with Yoda in Saber abilities, but NOT force abilities, therefore if Revan can contend with Yoda in force abilities, he would take Mace down. When I say "Destroy", I mean beat. Not curbstomp. Perhaps my terminology wasn't specific.

Originally posted by Darth Sexiest
Although I DO know that Windu's Vapaad would finish Revan off, regaurdless...

Your a retard.

Revan loses.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Yes I said Yoda more than likely is equal to Revan in force abilities while Mace is NOT. Mace is on par with Yoda in Saber abilities, but NOT force abilities, therefore if Revan can contend with Yoda in force abilities, he would take Mace down. When I say "Destroy", I mean beat. Not curbstomp. Perhaps my terminology wasn't specific.

"On par"?

Oh, no, I disagree, completely. Shatterpoint detailed an example where Mace controlled an avalanche (and rode it, I believe) using the Force. To share the title of senior Master (which we know isn't dictated by age, as Mace isn't that old) with Yoda - it is likely that he must be very, very, very close to Yoda in power.

Yes, I agree. He's no match for Sidious or Yoda in a contest of sheer Force powers. But, given Mace's Shatterpoint ability and Vaapad, I'd put him, at least, as Revan's equal in swordsmanship (and would likely defeat Revan in blade-to-blade combat).

The only true thing I'd wager on is Revan's considerable Force abilities. But Yoda or Sidious could possibly defeat or stalemate Revan in combat, Mace and Dooku could certainly give him a run for his money, too. And so could Anakin - in sheer saber combat.

Originally posted by Escape81
"On par"?

Oh, no, I disagree, completely. Shatterpoint detailed an example where Mace controlled an avalanche (and rode it, I believe) using the Force. To share the title of senior Master (which we know isn't dictated by age, as Mace isn't that old) with Yoda - it is likely that he must be very, very, very close to Yoda in power.

Yes, I agree. He's no match for Sidious or Yoda in a contest of sheer Force powers. But, given Mace's Shatterpoint ability and Vaapad, I'd put him, at least, as Revan's equal in swordsmanship (and would likely defeat Revan in blade-to-blade combat).

The only true thing I'd wager on is Revan's considerable Force abilities. But Yoda or Sidious could possibly defeat or stalemate Revan in combat, Mace and Dooku could certainly give him a run for his money, too. And so could Anakin - in sheer saber combat.

You've got a point, just not on Anakin. He's just not emotionably fit to fight someone with half a brain.

Originally posted by Escape81
"On par"?

Oh, no, I disagree, completely. Shatterpoint detailed an example where Mace controlled an avalanche (and rode it, I believe) using the Force. To share the title of senior Master (which we know isn't dictated by age, as Mace isn't that old) with Yoda - it is likely that he must be very, very, very close to Yoda in power.

Yes, I agree. He's no match for Sidious or Yoda in a contest of sheer Force powers. But, given Mace's Shatterpoint ability and Vaapad, I'd put him, at least, as Revan's equal in swordsmanship (and would likely defeat Revan in blade-to-blade combat).

The only true thing I'd wager on is Revan's considerable Force abilities. But Yoda or Sidious could possibly defeat or stalemate Revan in combat, Mace and Dooku could certainly give him a run for his money, too. And so could Anakin - in sheer saber combat.

I'm not arguing with you there Escape, notice how I only mentioned force abilities, and not saber combat.

Originally posted by Escape81
Do you understand what you just said, DS?

Yoda could likely take Revan, but Revan would destroy Mace?

I think not. If Yoda could take Revan, then Mace would easily give him a run for his money, and Revan wouldn't win by a longshot, mile, or even several feet.


Don't talk back to my apprentice like that.

Not if you want a crimson-bladed lightsaber in the face. chair

Wrong.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
You've got a point, just not on Anakin. He's just not emotionably fit to fight someone with half a brain.

True.

@DS:


He's on par with Yoda in both.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Your a retard.

Revan loses.


Lol, YOUR the retard.

If you weren't one, you'de know that his Vapaad would help him cutail Revan's Force attacks, in a way.

And duh, of course he loses. Retard.

Originally posted by Escape81
True.

@DS:


He's on par with Yoda in both.

Again I disagree with you that Mace is on par with Yoda in force abilities. The only one on par with Yoda in that category would be Sidious. Mace is on par with Yoda in saber combat, but still not as good as he is.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Again I disagree with you that Mace is on par with Yoda in force abilities. The only one on par with Yoda in that category would be Sidious. Mace is on par with Yoda in saber combat, but still not as good as he is.


Exactly.

Once again, my dark disciple womps your ass.

But just to add, Mace dosen't exactly have to be as strong in the Force as Revan to beat him.
He can utilise Vapaad to feed off Revan's gradually lost surplus energy, and/or redirect it back into him.
Therefore, he dosen't need power of an exact proportion to Revan's.
He can just use the Dark Lord's own power against him.

Originally posted by Darth Sexiest
Lol, YOUR the retard.

If you weren't one, you'de know that his Vapaad would help him cutail Revan's Force attacks, in a way.

And duh, of course he loses. Retard.

Too bad Revan has precog too. Vaapad wouldn't give Mace the advantage he needs to win.

Originally posted by Escape81
"On par"?

Oh, no, I disagree, completely. Shatterpoint detailed an example where Mace controlled an avalanche (and rode it, I believe) using the Force. To share the title of senior Master (which we know isn't dictated by age, as Mace isn't that old) with Yoda - it is likely that he must be very, very, very close to Yoda in power.

Yes, I agree. He's no match for Sidious or Yoda in a contest of sheer Force powers. But, given Mace's Shatterpoint ability and Vaapad, I'd put him, at least, as Revan's equal in swordsmanship (and would likely defeat Revan in blade-to-blade combat).

The only true thing I'd wager on is Revan's considerable Force abilities. But Yoda or Sidious could possibly defeat or stalemate Revan in combat, Mace and Dooku could certainly give him a run for his money, too. And so could Anakin - in sheer saber combat.


Yup. Mace could beat him as well, don't forget.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Too bad Revan has precog too. Vaapad wouldn't give Mace the advantage he needs to win.


Mace has Precog too I believe.

Vapaad would, btw.

Originally posted by Darth Sexiest
Vapaad would, btw.

Vaapad wouldn't, btw.

Um...yes, it would.

Well, I said Revan is about even with Sidious and Maul, and Mace + Yoda are a stronger team than they are so Yoda and Mace take Revan comfortably.

Originally posted by Blax X
Mace could beat Revan alone, he's black




We all know Revan is a black man.

Originally posted by xxXAcStylesXxx
We all know Revan is a black man.

He was the dark lord of the sith...

Is Revan really black??? (Just wanted to know)

Originally posted by Prodigal Knight
Is Revan really black??? (Just wanted to know)

Apparently

Was there a source, or is this just an assumption???

Only a black man can contain Revans badasseyness, just like Mace Windu

Originally posted by Prodigal Knight
Was there a source, or is this just an assumption???

George Lucas...

Dang, in the name of George Lucas: "Revan is black."

LOL, that's surprising.

Originally posted by Prodigal Knight
Dang, in the name of George Lucas: "Revan is black."

LOL, that's surprising.
I was kidding, I'm not sure. Everyone seems to be saying he is black, so far now, Revan is black

canon-wise, he is black.

So is NJO Luke. Not DE and below, only NJO.

Originally posted by Blax X
canon-wise, he is black.

So is NJO Luke. Not DE and below, only NJO.

*gasp* Oh noes! Luke is teh opposite of teh Michael Jackson!2211!

who ever said revan is black, alot of people potray him as the bald guy in my avatar

Originally posted by Blax X
canon-wise, he is black.

So is NJO Luke. Not DE and below, only NJO.

black as in costume or skin?, Not many black people in star wars, just mace and lando, sigh, lets assume Revan is really black

Originally posted by Escape81
"On par"?

Oh, no, I disagree, completely. Shatterpoint detailed an example where Mace controlled an avalanche (and rode it, I believe) using the Force. To share the title of senior Master (which we know isn't dictated by age, as Mace isn't that old) with Yoda - it is likely that he must be very, very, very close to Yoda in power.

Yes, I agree. He's no match for Sidious or Yoda in a contest of sheer Force powers. But, given Mace's Shatterpoint ability and Vaapad, I'd put him, at least, as Revan's equal in swordsmanship (and would likely defeat Revan in blade-to-blade combat).

The only true thing I'd wager on is Revan's considerable Force abilities. But Yoda or Sidious could possibly defeat or stalemate Revan in combat, Mace and Dooku could certainly give him a run for his money, too. And so could Anakin - in sheer saber combat.


There is also a point in the book where Mace cannot lift an object about to crush people, while he says Yoda could do it, probably with one hand..... Yoda is clearly above him in force powers, and in swordsmanship Mace regarded Yoda as his better as well.

Originally posted by kamikz
There is also a point in the book where Mace cannot lift an object about to crush people, while he says Yoda could do it, probably with one hand..... Yoda is clearly above him in force powers, and in swordsmanship Mace regarded Yoda as his better as well.

I never said they were equals, Kamikz. Read again. I said they were on par.

Wait, what's the difference?


Ok, just got informed that "on par" is "near" and not "equal". Didn't know that. Well I guess they are pretty close in power, I wouldn't say very close, but....

On par is equal... @-@'

The terminology I would is "in the same league", escape.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
The terminology I would is "in the same league", escape.

Why, 'on par' and 'in the same league' mean virtually the same thing.

On par means equal, in the same league means they're in the same category of superiority, yet one is better than the other. Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan are in the same league, but NOT on par with each other

So, why is Revan better than Mace with the force, exactly? (Specifics.)

POD

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
POD


Yup. Sexy is right.

What else is new?

I've read it. It says nothing as far as him using the force goes. Only that he knows how, and has notes.

I haven't read POD, but Darth Sexy kindly gave me a very brief message giving some of the powers Revan teaches to Bane. They all seem very impressive and definately seem on par or even better than the Force moves Windu has shown us.

I agree, Revan is overall better then Windu, given his obvious force power. But in saber skills Mace is better.

Yoda on the other hand is a much different story, Yoda is stated to be THE most powerful Jedi up until Luke comes along. Meaning that he is in fact more powerful then Revan.

o yea, revan sure has better force powers than windu, for saber combat even in the kotor era id out him with in tie with kavar

Originally posted by jollyjim311
I've read it. It says nothing as far as him using the force goes. Only that he knows how, and has notes.


Well being the most powerful jedi ever until Luke, being noted to be able to lift a landing pod (I think it was that, not sure) with one hand when Windu couldn't move it at all, having most likley the highest Midichlorian count in the whole PT except for Anakin, plus having a defence against every single technique and 800 years of studying.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
On par means equal, in the same league means they're in the same category of superiority, yet one is better than the other. Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan are in the same league, but NOT on par with each other

1. On par means close to equal, not exactly equal.
2. Jordan and Kobe are not in the same league, Jordan >>> Kobe. Kobe ain't quite in the big leagues just yet.

HAHAHA hell yea!! Jordan pwns Kobe!!!! No, but if youre on par, i means your are in fact equals though right? Is there a way to check? Ill check real quick.


EDIT:

Main Entry: 1par
Pronunciation: 'pär
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, one that is equal, from par equal
1 a : the established value of the monetary unit of one country expressed in terms of the monetary unit of another country using the same metal as the standard of value b : the face amount of an instrument of value (as a check or note): as (1) : the monetary value assigned to each share of stock in the charter of a corporation (2) : the principal of a bond
2 : common level : EQUALITY -- usually used with on <judged the recording to be on a par with previous ones>
3 a : an amount taken as an average or norm b : an accepted standard; specifically : a usual standard of physical condition or health
4 : the score standard for each hole of a golf course; also : a score equal to par
- par adjective
- par for the course : not unusual : NORMAL

now number 2 shows equality, even capitalized (i didnt do that), so on par means equals, not close to, equals.

And i really dont want to hear that SW has its own definitions away from the actual english language. Thats a cop out.

Originally posted by kamikz
Well being the most powerful jedi ever until Luke, being noted to be able to lift a landing pod (I think it was that, not sure) with one hand when Windu couldn't move it at all, having most likley the highest Midichlorian count in the whole PT except for Anakin, plus having a defence against every single technique and 800 years of studying.

Haha. I was talking about Revan.

If Yoda is the most powerful up until Luke (making his better than Revan, of course), and Mace is on par with Yoda ( First line ]his inferior, true, but close), then why is it that Mace needs to be proved stronger than Revan and not the opposite? We actually have seen displays of power from Mace, and we know specifics, and, to be frank, they're damn good. It would look like it begs the question "Why is Revan as powerful as Mace?" and not "Why is Mace as powerful as Revan?"

Originally posted by jollyjim311
Haha. I was talking about Revan.

If Yoda is the most powerful up until Luke (making his better than Revan, of course), and Mace is on par with Yoda ( First line ]his inferior, true, but close), then why is it that Mace needs to be proved stronger than Revan and not the opposite? We actually have seen displays of power from Mace, and we know specifics, and, to be frank, they're damn good. It would look like it begs the question "Why is Revan as powerful as Mace?" and not "Why is Mace as powerful as Revan?"

because im starting to think that the Yoda statement was an in universe statement.

Sexy, an in universe statement is fallible. It's in the perspective of someone or something inside the story, it's not omniscient.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
because im starting to think that the Yoda statement was an in universe statement.

It was written the omniscient narrator in the RotS novel.

Originally posted by Escape81
It was written the omniscient narrator in the RotS novel.

I don't know what that means in terms of the EU Escape.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I don't know what that means in terms of the EU Escape.

That means it doesn't hold water.

Ok so that technically means Revan could be the most powerful Jedi up until Luke?

Yes. I'd rather have Lord Hoth be though.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
That means it doesn't hold water.

Is that right?

The movies and novelizations, unfortunately, are canon. EU works are not, if they contradict with canon sources. Perfect example: Apparently, Sirak (a fighter from Revan's time) was said to have been versed in Vaapad (which was invented by Mace Windu). This statement in PoD doesn't change a damn thing.

Mace invented Vaapad, meaning Sirak didn't know it, despite PoD saying as such.

Movies > EU works.

The novelization, stated by the omniscient narrator, said that Yoda was the most powerful foe of the Darkness, ever. This is a fact. The EU must adhere to it.

"omniscient narrator" means it's an opinion, not fact.

I was told by the likes of Illustrious and Janus that these random statements are in universe, and therefore hold no water over EU.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
"omniscient narrator" means it's an opinion, not fact.

No, it does not.

It isn't a character speaking, or an in-universe source. It is the work itself, speaking.

Omniscience means "all knowing", anyways. So, even if it were an "omniscient in-universe source", it would still apply.

Originally posted by Escape81
No, it does not.

It isn't a character speaking, or an in-universe source. It is the work itself, speaking.

Omniscience means "all knowing", anyways. So, even if it were an "omniscient in-universe source", it would still apply.

And again, it's an opinion.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I was told by the likes of Illustrious and Janus that these random statements are in universe, and therefore hold no water over EU.

Consider the source, DS. The line about Yoda, to my knowledge, was not in universe, and I own the novelization. It wasn't a character saying that "Yoda was the most powerful Jedi ever". It was the work itself dictating it.

And, on the subject of Illustrious and Janus, please. Having Yoda reign supreme would ruin their idea of the PT sucking, and the older Jedi/Sith ruling/owning all.

These were the guys that said that "Yoda could not defeat the most powerful Sith Lord ever" was a reference to political power...

It most definately seems poetic to me, not a factual statement.

I agree, I myself can actually see Revan, Hoth and maybe a few other jedi before Yoda's time being above him.

Ya. It's open to speculation, but it can safely be put away as a point in an argument.

actually that statement seems quite definitive. It is made by the author, and there's nothing to interpret. If the author wrote it, it's fact.

He most likely was indirectly voicing Yoda.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
actually that statement seems quite definitive. It is made by the author, and there's nothing to interpret. If the author wrote it, it's fact.

And the writer was being poetic.

you can THINK anything you want about the writers motives, but its pretty clear that he was depicting the strongest of the lightside versus the strongest of the darkside.

The point is DS, that quote can no longer be used as proof that Yoda is the strongest because its credibility has been undermined. Now you'll just have to accept that, what's clear to you, and only to you might I add has no bearing on the debate.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
you can THINK anything you want about the writers motives, but its pretty clear that he was depicting the strongest of the lightside versus the strongest of the darkside.

You can think anything too- you still don't have a defintive argument for that passage.

of course I do.. It's made in the book, therefore its canon, regardless of what you THINK he said.

No.

@ King Adas


Forgive me, but simply choosing not to accept a canon statement isn't "undermining" the credibility of the statement itself. You are attempting to interpret what is plainly stated in the narrative as "poetic".

This isn't the case. Because you don't have a telepathic link with the author, nor are you the author itself, you have no position to state that it is hyperbole or poetic.

Therefore, until such a time when you can bring about ironclad proof that this entire statement was indeed false - then you are in no position to deny it in debates.

You don't seem to have any.

@RocasAtoll


What a stunning - and extremely convincing, I might add - argument.

Don't be so egotistical as to presume that your "opinion" (the "no"! command) has any bearing on this argument. If you want your opinion or your point of view to be taken seriously, please back it up with more than simple denials and one word statements of disagreement.

You've brought nothing to the table.

Originally posted by Escape81
@ King Adas


Forgive me, but simply choosing not to accept a canon statement isn't "undermining" the credibility of the statement itself. You are attempting to interpret what is plainly stated in the narrative as "poetic".

That would be Himokun, not me.



This works both ways you know, you are in no position to state that the statement is omniscient and infallible.



It's not that I'm not accepting it, there are just more ways of looking at it than one. Free indirect discourse, look it up -http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=444, I'd say that there's lots of evidence that this is the case here, which would mean that the statement is indeed fallible and shouldn't be used in debates until proven otherwise.

Originally posted by King Adas
That would be Himokun, not me.



This works both ways you know, you are in no position to state that the statement is omniscient and infallible.



It's not that I'm not accepting it, there are just more ways of looking at it than one. Free indirect discourse, look it up -http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=444, I'd say that there's lots of evidence that this is the case here, which would mean that the statement is indeed fallible and shouldn't be used in debates until proven otherwise.

You are missing the point. It is stated in the book and it's clear as day. Who are YOU to interpret it to fit your argument? You can't pick and choose what you want to interpet, that's not logical debating.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
You are missing the point. It is stated in the book and it's clear as day. Who are YOU to interpret it to fit your argument? You can't pick and choose what you want to interpet, that's not logical debating.

It's really not as clear as day, if you knew how to interpret literature one bit, you would know this. If the link I posted earlier was too complex for you, try this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_indirect_discourse.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
You are missing the point. It is stated in the book and it's clear as day. Who are YOU to interpret it to fit your argument? You can't pick and choose what you want to interpet, that's not logical debating.

What gives YOU the right to interpret it to help YOUR argument?

Originally posted by King Adas
That would be Himokun, not me.



This works both ways you know, you are in no position to state that the statement is omniscient and infallible.



It's not that I'm not accepting it, there are just more ways of looking at it than one. Free indirect discourse, look it up -http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=444, I'd say that there's lots of evidence that this is the case here, which would mean that the statement is indeed fallible and shouldn't be used in debates until proven otherwise.

It wasn't meant to be intelligent. I'm being as cloased minded as him.

huh?

Don't try to make sense of what I say sometimes.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Don't try to make sense of what I say sometimes.

That, m'dear, would be impossible.

It's written clear as day.

I agree with Adas... It was a statement that could refer to Yoda's conviction. Until it is defined as strength in the substansive sense(ie., Yoda was the most potent Jedi force user ever) , I see no reason to interpret it as such. It could just as easily mean strength of convictions. As such, it is not an intelligent point to bring up to support an argument.

Besides, there is a flaw in the quote anyways. It fails to regard future generations of Jedi such as Luke, and as such should be retconned. The quotation itself is never defined to include only those Jedi before the PT.

Originally posted by zephiel7
Besides, there is a flaw in the quote anyways. It fails to regard future generations of Jedi such as Luke, and as such should be retconned.

Excuse me? That quote was made during RotS. Luke wasn't even born by the time Sidious and Yoda faced off. It doesn't need to acknowledge future generations.

"Finally, he saw the truth.

This truth: that he, the avatar of light, Supreme Master of the Jedi Order, the fiercest, most implacable, most devastatingly powerful foe the darkness had ever known..."

Oh, yes. That is a BLATANT reference to conviction...

Originally posted by Escape81
Excuse me? That quote was made during RotS. Luke wasn't even born by the time Sidious and Yoda faced off. It doesn't need to acknowledge future generations.


If you chose to apply it in the Star Wars universe in general, then you would also have to apply it to future generations, because the author himself does not specify. I was merely stating that even if the reader choses to interpret the quote as strength in the substansive sense, then if it were to refer to every Jedi outside the PT (which the writer himself does not clearly distinguish), it is retconned by Luke, and thus holds no water.

In any case, the quote is purposefully ambiguous and cannot be taken seriously. A "naked quote" that is ambiguous and interpretive in nature is not something that I would view seriously, regardless to whom it applies to.

Can we agree that it is a non-valid point in an argument, Escape?

(Btw, I consider anything like that non-valid in an argument).

(Btw, I consider anything like that non-valid in an argument).

I agree

It's a perfectly valid arguement. Had ever known doesn't include future generations, and since the only Jedi who are close to Yoda in power by that point are Odan, Vodo, and maybe one or two others there is no problem with it.

"that he, the avatar of light, Supreme Master of the Jedi Order, the fiercest, most implacable, most devastatingly powerful foe the darkness had ever known..."

This quote was made regarding the battle between Sidious and Yoda. At this time, Luke and Leia were still residing in Padme's stomach - and were not born.

The quote is plainly obvious, Zephiel. At that time, Yoda was the most powerful "foe the darkness had ever known", but only at that time - when Luke began to become more powerful, such as in DE and NJO - he surpassed Yoda, if on panel evidence is sufficient enough to dictate anything.

By RotS (by Revenge of the Sith), Yoda was the most powerful Jedi ever. That means his power supercedes all before him. Doesn't say a damn thing about anyone after.

And, this quote is still stated by an out-of-universe canon authority.

It applies.

Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
It's a perfectly valid arguement. Had ever known doesn't include future generations, and since the only Jedi who are close to Yoda in power by that point are Odan, Vodo, and maybe one or two others there is no problem with it.

Hmmm, perhaps, but I am still waiting to see that it actually means strength in the substansive sense. I believe Wallace stated that such "naked quotes" were not always 100% accurate.

This was made with regards to the claim that by ROTS Palpatine was the "most powerful Sith Lord ever.." (from NEC)

One could state that "Napolean was the greatest conqueror this world had ever known" and imply it to future generations as well. I still don't see it holding water.

No it wouldn't. If it said something like "Napolean was the greatest conqueror this world had ever" or "Napolean was the greatest conqueror this world has ever known" then it would. It doesn't, so it does not.

So, it is a valid point or no?

Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
It's a perfectly valid arguement. Had ever known doesn't include future generations, and since the only Jedi who are close to Yoda in power by that point are Odan, Vodo, and maybe one or two others there is no problem with it.

Jesus christ Glentract, get off of your TOTJ high horse. Odan and Vodo are NOT close to Yoda. Get it through your skull.. And once again, Escape is right. The quote is conclusive in terms of #1 at that point. The end.

Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
One could state that "Napolean was the greatest conqueror this world had ever known" and imply it to future generations as well. I still don't see it holding water.

No it wouldn't. If it said something like "Napolean was the greatest conqueror this world had ever" or "Napolean was the greatest conqueror this world has ever known" then it would. It doesn't, so it does not.

I know, I already edited the post, it seems you were quick to reply

Hmmm, perhaps, but I am still waiting to see that it actually means strength in the substansive sense. I believe Wallace stated that such "naked quotes" were not always 100% accurate.

This was made with regards to the claim that by ROTS Palpatine was the "most powerful" Sith Lord ever.." (from NEC)

Originally posted by zephiel7
I know, I already edited the post, it seems you were quick to reply

Hmmm, perhaps, but I am still waiting to see that it actually means strength in the substansive sense. I believe Wallace stated that such "naked quotes" were not always 100% accurate.

This was made with regards to the claim that by ROTS Palpatine was the "most powerful" Sith Lord ever.." (from NEC)

RotS novelization = canon.

The quote = out of universe statement detailed in the past tense. It indicates only that, by RotS, Yoda was the most powerful foe of the Dark Side in history (RotS on back).

Nothing about future generations.

It applies.

So Escape says it's a valid point, right?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Jesus christ Glentract, get off of your TOTJ high horse. Odan and Vodo are NOT close to Yoda. Get it through your skull.. And once again, Escape is right. The quote is conclusive in terms of #1 at that point. The end.

You'll have to excuse Glentract, DS. He's from some of the guys who think that because Vodo taught Kun, he obviously equates to sheer uberness.

If I may:

"Dooku > Sidious for the win!"

Originally posted by Escape81
You'll have to excuse Glentract, DS. He's from some of the guys who think that because Vodo taught Kun, he obviously equates to sheer uberness.

If I may:

"Dooku > Sidious for the win!"


It's not that, its that he's copying the arguments of Janus and Illustrious VERBATIM. It's retarded.

Originally posted by Escape81
RotS novelization = canon.

The quote = out of universe statement detailed in the past tense. It indicates only that, by RotS, Yoda was the most powerful foe of the Dark Side in history (RotS on back).

Nothing about future generations.

It applies.

I am willing to conceed to this

BUT

I am waiting for an explanation that it is power in the substansive sense...

From Wallace with regards to the "obvious" quote that by ROTS Sidious "is the most powerful Sith Lord in history."

From Wallace.


a) As it turns out, Palpatine was only the "most powerful" when it came to political maneuvering, not ghost-ass-kicking

I


Pray tell, by what Wallace states, would that influence your bearing to interpret the quote as a reference to substansive strength? Or interpret it as strength of convictions...

Until I know this information, I see it as unfair to interpret the quote as "substansive power." They said they would not print "power charts," as a result, implying that these "naked quotes" are "power charts" mean very little...

I haven't cited that tNEC quote in a while, ever since Wallace responded to Lightsnake's emails.

I use Dark Empire quotes and quotes from other sourcebooks.

What I said, though, is this. When that quote was made, Illustrious savagely argued that the quote was referring to Sidious's political power.

The quote itself is:

"Yoda could not defeat the most powerful Sith Lord in history."

Because the context of the situation was a fight, I don't see how it could be a reference to political power. But such is Illustrious's thinking on regards to characters that he doesn't like.

Originally posted by Escape81
I haven't cited that tNEC quote in a while, ever since Wallace responded to Lightsnake's emails.

I use Dark Empire quotes and quotes from other sourcebooks.

What I said, though, is this. When that quote was made, Illustrious savagely argued that the quote was referring to Sidious's political power.

The quote itself is:

"Yoda could not defeat the most powerful Sith Lord in history."

Because the context of the situation was a fight, I don't see how it could be a reference to political power. But such is Illustrious's thinking on regards to characters that he doesn't like.



Um Excuse me, it was MY emails that brought Dan Wallace to these forums, hell it was MY topic with the NEC quote, don't give LS credit for my shit....thats all.

Originally posted by xxXAcStylesXxx
Um Excuse me, it was MY emails that brought Dan Wallace to these forums, hell it was MY topic with the NEC quote, don't give LS credit for my shit....thats all.

Whoops.

He told me that he sent his own emails, too.

Chill.

Originally posted by Escape81
I haven't cited that tNEC quote in a while, ever since Wallace responded to Lightsnake's emails.

I use Dark Empire quotes and quotes from other sourcebooks.

What I said, though, is this. When that quote was made, Illustrious savagely argued that the quote was referring to Sidious's political power.

The quote itself is:

"Yoda could not defeat the most powerful Sith Lord in history."

Because the context of the situation was a fight, I don't see how it could be a reference to political power. But such is Illustrious's thinking on regards to characters that he doesn't like.


What I was trying to get at is the line in ROTS Novel that "Yoda is the strongest" cannot be interpreted as simply strength in the substansive sense.

Wallace stated that these quotes could not be taken 100% seriously, since as we have seen, the reference to Sidious' "power" by that quote was purely political (Wallace himself even cleared that up).

Just so, the "strength" that they refer to Yoda could be strength of convictions (ie., zealousness). Until we know EXACTLY what the quote refers to we cant use it.

Originally posted by zephiel7
What I was trying to get at is the line in ROTS Novel that "Yoda is the strongest" cannot be interpreted as simply strength in the substansive sense.

Wallace stated that these quotes could not be taken 100% seriously, since as we have seen, the reference to Sidious' "power" by that quote was purely political (Wallace himself even cleared that up).

Just so, the "strength" that they refer to Yoda could be strength of convictions (ie., zealousness).

Wallace said "that line was a reference to political power"?

Where? 'Cause I don't remember it.

Its ok, he only sent them cause I thought it was stupid to bother the man with silly questions like "What did KJA mean when he wrote this...How is Ragnos's power quantified....etc"

Originally posted by Escape81
Wallace said "that line was a reference to political power"?

Where? 'Cause I don't remember it.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=400934&perpage=20&highlight=&pagenumber=3

Here it is.

From Wallace himself:
a) As it turns out, Palpatine was only the "most powerful" when it came to political maneuvering, not ghost-ass-kicking


We can't use naked quotes to substantiate an argument...

That wouldn't make much sense considering the quote was made in the fight scene making it relevant to fighting abilities, and everything points to Sidious being the strongest ever.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
That wouldn't make much sense considering the quote was made in the fight scene making it relevant to fighting abilities

The quote which states that Palpatine was the strongest Sith Lord was also with respect to a fighting scene.

"Yoda could not defeat the most powerful Sith Lord in history."

Wallace states that it was a reference to political power.

With that said, as per Wallace, I still can't stand by using a single quote to substantiate Yoda as the best Jedi until PT. These quotes are shown to be interpretive despite context.

We are better off using logical deductions through feats and putting the feats in context to determine who is stronger

Besides, its a lot funner that way...

Originally posted by zephiel7
The quote which states that Palpatine was the strongest Sith Lord was also with respect to a fighting scene.

"Yoda could not defeat the most powerful Sith Lord in history."

Wallace states that it was a reference to political power.

With that said, as per Wallace, I still can't stand by using a single quote to substantiate Yoda as the best Jedi until PT. These quotes are shown to be interpretive despite context.

We are better off using logical deductions through feats and putting the feats in context to determine who is stronger

Besides, its a lot funner that way...

You need to show me that link again. I don't understand how that could, at ALL, refer to political power in a fight. And if it DID refer to political power, then it would have never been mentioned in a fight. Unless there's definitive proof of that, I call bullshit. Not to mention I have seen the emails of lightsnake myself, from Dan Wallace, calling Sidious the most powerful.
Yoda being the best is also pretty conclusive and all the evidence points to that, and Revan being #2.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
You need to show me that link again. I don't understand how that could, at ALL, refer to political power in a fight. And if it DID refer to political power, then it would have never been mentioned in a fight.

New Essential Chronology author, Wallace states this. He even submits that the claim CAN be subject to dispute.
a) As it turns out, Palpatine was only the "most powerful" when it came to political maneuvering, not ghost-ass-kicking

Just to prove that I am no liar:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=400934&perpage=20&highlight=&pagenumber=3



According to Wallace, naked quotes like these are not surefire indicators of character strength. I still hold by this. They can be interpretive, despite context. Yoda's rank as #1 Jedi is disputable.

Also, since power charts have not been published, you cannot make a claim by virtue of a single quote.

Dude, look at lightsnake's emails. His questions and answers just confirm what the NEC and the Novelizations state.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Dude, look at lightsnake's emails. His questions and answers just confirm what the NEC and the Novelizations state.

Could you show them to me.

Wallace commented there is "wiggle room" and "power charts" have not been published. He is effectively stating that there is subjectivity towards interpreting a quote.

Dan published the NEC and is in charge of chronology. We can go by his advice.

Originally posted by zephiel7
Could you show them to me.

Wallace commented there is "wiggle room" and "power charts" have not been published. He is effectively stating that there is subjectivity towards interpreting a quote.

Dan published the NEC and is in charge of chronology. We can go by his advice.


You don't need a power chart to establish the #1 seed in anything zephiel. His quote in the book ONLY makes 100% sense if it refers to power. You need to ask lightsnake for the emails

Well argue that with Wallace. He agrees their is a certain amount of subjectivity when interpreting Star Wars quotes.

Anyways, I'm out of this topic. The point has been debated to death, and I still go by Wallace's advice and what I believe would make the most sense.

Originally posted by zephiel7
Well argue that with Wallace. He agrees their is a certain amount of subjectivity when interpreting Star Wars quotes.

Anyways, I'm out of this topic. The point has been debated to death, and I still go by Wallace's advice and what I believe would make the most sense.


And again, Wallace confirmed what he said in the NEC.. That Sidious is the most powerful sith lord.

Halt! Stop the press.

Zephiel, that particular line was not in reference to political power.

Hence Dan said: "as it turns out...", meaning the original context of that quote was not intended for political purposes, but for personal power.

Originally posted by Escape81
Halt! Stop the press.

Zephiel, that particular line was not in reference to political power.

Hence Dan said: "as it turns out...", meaning the original context of that quote was not intended for political purposes, but for personal power.

He states that "there's plenty of wiggle-room in my statement where you can go one way or another."

I think that is permission on his part to allow for interpretation on these quotes...

Hold up, who's saying that that was even Dan Wallace, I mean I find it really hard to believe that such a big authority on SW would waste his time on some small time SW forum.

Originally posted by King Adas
Hold up, who's saying that that was even Dan Wallace, I mean I find it really hard to believe that such a big authority on SW would waste his time on some small time SW forum.

Save your skepticism. I doubt anyone would be that desperate to prove a point for such insignificant debates...The purpose of these forums is in essence to brag about how many SW comics you read...I cannot fathom how anyone would take it SO seriously...

i found this on kmc somewhere



http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/5621/danwallace3krvf6.jpg

Yup, that's lightsnake's email.

That was before Dan came in here and said it was all interpretive. I remember that back in the day when LS came back and the AnteDiluvians were told to leave by Ush.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Yup, that's lightsnake's email.

that is janus mail, he was the 1 who posted it, i mean come on some guys opinion can overrite other things? Seems weird for ROTS palpatine to be the strongest

Originally posted by zephiel7
That was before Dan came in here and said it was all interpretive. I remember that back in the day when LS came back and the AnteDiluvians were told to leave by Ush.

Actually no, because lightsnake told me those emails are like a few months old. And it's pretty obvious the email is real, but who signs up for this forum is impossible to tell. Dan Wallace doesn't contradict himself.

yea but he said in the email its his opinion only that palpatine is the strongest, and he did say something that sidious is the strongest on his era which is damm true, because GL confirmed it

remember the mail "Both of them were the most powerful in their eras 5000 years apart"

Originally posted by Kadesh
yea but he said in the email its his opinion only that palpatine is the strongest, and he did say something that sidious is the strongest on his era which is damm true, because GL confirmed it

remember the mail "Both of them were the most powerful in their eras 5000 years apart"

In the email he said that Sidious could defeat Marka Ragnos, and that he WAS the strongest ever.

yea but he said thats his opinion only and its made canon

Originally posted by Kadesh
yea but he said thats his opinion only and its made canon

His opinion is pretty much canon, as well as the NEC that he wrote.

so ok if he like said and wrote in the nec that if exar would be the strongest, would that be true? well he is the one who can write what ever he want in the nec as long as it doesnt contradict

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
His opinion is pretty much canon, as well as the NEC that he wrote.

But he immediately came to the forums and stated that it was interpretative... giving us permission to see to it as we will without violating canon.

Originally posted by zephiel7
But he immediately came to the forums and stated that it was interpretative... giving us permission to see to it as we will without violating canon.

#1. Look at the dates, which one is first.
#2. His emails confirms as him..ANYONE can sign up to this forum and be Dan wallace.

Originally posted by Kadesh
so ok if he like said and wrote in the nec that if exar would be the strongest, would that be true? well he is the one who can write what ever he want in the nec as long as it doesnt contradict

um can some1 answer this?