Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Hiding from zombies
Well, thanks to a jog of the memory, I will concede that I did remembe Vastor... I just didn't recollect his name when I posted earlier. But the OFFICIAL ROTS novelisation is about as official as the OT novelisations and the PT novelisations. That is, they are Eu and thus quasi-canon. And EU quasi-canon CANNOT contradict the movies in any way. ROTS contradicts the movie more than any other novelisation I've seen.
As for the rest being bullshit, it's not. You just refuse to admit your logic isn't sound.
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Hiding from zombies
And in reference to your little logics post... You quoted If Mace>Sidious then Mace>Yoda. However, this argument runs under the assumption (Underline that word) that Sidious>Yoda, which isn't true. Sidious=Yoda is even a stretch. And in reference to mine... again... If a dog can get lucky and kill you, but does not have the ability to kill a pesky fly (who is much weaker) it's you<dog<fly according to how you have presented your case.
So yoda ran away from the fight and even said "failed, I have" but saying it was even a tie is a stretch... As for your logic game this is a straight up fight whoever looks to be the strongest wielder of the force will win, no resourcefulness or anything because then predicting the fight is impossible. And all you janus fanboys go home.
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Hiding from zombies
First off, yoda was without a lightsaber and something like one hundred feet below Sidious. Clone troopers were coming to assist Sidious. The situation was against him, but Yoda isn't weaker than Sidious. And By tie I meant in terms of one being better than the other or just being about equal, not the ROTS fight. Again, read things and don't take them out of context.
My "logic game" is pretty much how anyone else with a brain is gonna deduct this argument. Illustrious, Sorgo, Fishy, Vader and Nai Fohl to name a few are those who use this method, and they tend to convince me more than you do. Your argument is "attack the weakest point because otherwise my character whom I show extreme bias for doesn't have a snow flake's chance in hell".
The point to using logic is because we have to make the best judgment based on what we know and what we can prove either through evidence and reasoning. Since obviously that concept doesn't mean anything to you because you are pretty much here to champion Sidious and Vader and nothing else, I can't expect you to understand it, much less refute any of it.
"As for your logic game this is a straight up fight whoever looks to be the strongest wielder of the force will win, no resourcefulness or anything because then predicting the fight is impossible. "
Wow, is this statement really horrid. Define straight up fight. Now, show me how the thread creator conforms to your definition of "straight up fight". Now tell me how the Force alone is the only way this battle can be resolved. Now tell me how resoucefulness must be ignored because it will make "predicting the fight impossible'> Vengeance, nothing is 100%; no judgment made on this subforum is binding. Predicting every one of these fights IS impossible, because of all the variables involved. That's why I advocate making even threads with a time, place, etc. What you're basically saying is "I can't win by my way so your way must be ruining what we are trying to accomplish here".
[QUOTE=4615433]Originally posted by Darth_Janus
[B]First off, yoda was without a lightsaber and something like one hundred feet below Sidious. Clone troopers were coming to assist Sidious. The situation was against him, but Yoda isn't weaker than Sidious. And By tie I meant in terms of one being better than the other or just being about equal, not the ROTS fight. Again, read things and don't take them out of context.
My "logic game" is pretty much how anyone else with a brain is gonna deduct this argument. Illustrious, Sorgo, Fishy, Vader and Nai Fohl to name a few are those who use this method, and they tend to convince me more than you do. Your argument is "attack the weakest point because otherwise my character whom I show extreme bias for doesn't have a snow flake's chance in hell".
The point to using logic is because we have to make the best judgment based on what we know and what we can prove either through evidence and reasoning. Since obviously that concept doesn't mean anything to you because you are pretty much here to champion Sidious and Vader and nothing else, I can't expect you to understand it, much less refute any of it.
"As for your logic game this is a straight up fight whoever looks to be the strongest wielder of the force will win, no resourcefulness or anything because then predicting the fight is impossible. "
Wow, is this statement really horrid. Define straight up fight. Now, show me how the thread creator conforms to your definition of "straight up fight". Now tell me how the Force alone is the only way this battle can be resolved. Now tell me how resoucefulness must be ignored because it will make "predicting the fight impossible'> Vengeance, nothing is 100%; no judgment made on this subforum is binding. Predicting every one of these fights IS impossible, because of all the variables involved.
Well done Lord Janus
__________________
When the darkness comes, keep an eye on the light no matter how far away it seems.
This is better than some of the stuff Ive been hearing from you.
1.Yoda was without a lightsaber and so was sidious...I dont see the point here. Yeah clone troopers were coming to assist but I really doubt yoda would have trouble with that he would just force push them away. In pure abilities there tied, I havent seen anything to back up that yoda is stronger especially since the ROTS novel(heheh) made it seem the fight up untill the end was completely even and the movie didnt show yoda with a clear advantage either. As for the actual fight I believe sidious won but once again ill be generous and say they tied, doesnt get any better than that for yoda.
2. My argument strategy is to use facts to make the most likely conclusion, and yes I do attack weak points in your argument because their weak, everyone does this.
3. Yeah I am a bit sidious and vader bias but not without good reason, there the original badass villians who breath evil like we breath like air. And the point about you using more evidence and reasoning then me werent you the one that said lines said from GL himself were full of shit?
4.A straight up fight discounts random events and things like resourcefulness, luck etc...even this method isnt completely predictable like you said but its sure of a hell lot more predictable than your method.
Adding to this although I am slightly palpatine and vader bias you are VERY negatively bias against them...I mean saying vader was slow and weak give me a break. I dont say mace windu sucks just because I fell like saying it.
"You are PWN3D" You were on a good run then you say this *sigh*
1.) Yoda would assualt a few and more would come, Sids would stall him, and the troopers would kill him. And its even worse he has no lightsaber. Lets see yoda deflect blaster botls and lightning. OK he ran for his own good.
2.) Nothing to say.
3.)You are running out of reasons. They were not meant to be the best, give it up.
4.)Nothing to Say.
5.)Many here are not bais. We are just pissed of that fans, come on the threads and try to argue different. And they have crummy reasons. And that we waste our time.
__________________
When the darkness comes, keep an eye on the light no matter how far away it seems.
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Hiding from zombies
1) So you're saying Yoda should have just braved the 100 some meter climb, dodging Sith lightning and clone trooper fire and the occassional thrown object, to engage in hand to hand combat with a Sith lord? As for what you saw or didn't see, whatever. Two people watch a car crash and both people give different accounts. I'm not gonna convince you here because you refuse to see otherwise.
2) The only facts you want to listen to are the ones you like or Gl himself, which you quoted as The ONly Source (tm). Then you cite the ROTS novel and to further validify your source, you claim it is proofread word for word and verified by Lucas (Which is hilarious when you consider Lucas apparently disregarded the book when he made the movie entirely.) And you attack the weakest parts of my arguments ONLY because that's about as close as you can get. You have yet to refute my argument with anything other than your own opinion.
3) I never said lines from Gl himself are shit. You said I was disbelieving or not listening to Lucas' words. That was utter shit. Again, out of context. Do you speak English natively?
4) This right here is more bullshit. A "straight up" fight in your words includes what? *Mace swings.* *Sidious parries* There is no room for luck, resourcefulness, etc? I'm not talking blind luck, but situational variables, things like that. Those exist regardless of whether or not you like them. Variables exist everywhere, with everything, and in every situation, which is why no two situations are alike. Which is why no two generals can be accurately compared. To discard variables in like saying "There won't be any rain today because I can only throw a fast ball in dry, arid weather. Only then can the best pitcher be decided."
As for me being VERY negatively biased against them, this is ridiculous. I'm merely pointing out that they aren't gods like you and a few others claim. And when I say Vader is slow and pretty weak, I'm not just pulling that out of my ass. If I was, there wouldn't be half a dozen people here who think the same thing.
1.1 force push all the troopers would of been knocked out, they are nothing compared to a 900 year old jedi master. And yoda could of continued to battle sidious with the force like they were doing till yoda gave up. If yoda is stronger than sidious he could of continued but they are even at best for yoda.
2. GL isnt the only thing that matters hes just the only ABSOLUTE source. When I took the direct quote from lucas about vader being 80% of sidious you said I was full of shit.
3. Reread your posts.
4.My way is more accurate...accuracy is good yes?
5.Yes and most of the people that agree with you on this devotely follow you on everything, you could tell them to jump off a bridge and they would do it.
Were going around in circles, you say I cant refute your points but what hard evidence do you have? That mace beat palpatine is your opinion on that very controversial fight, that obi really defeated maul is your opinion, that vader is slow and weak is very much your opinion, how do I refute an opinion to logical axiom? Im done for the night. If you cant let this thread die come back tomorow with some new material and I will continue.
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Hiding from zombies
1) Reread my post. If the situations were reversed, Sidious most likely could not and would not try and retake the high ground from such a position. Hell, he tried to run out the door immediately when he saw Yoda.
2) Your reasoning on the matter was shit. I never disputed that Gl said that, or that it applies. But how you said it applies IS bullshit. GL also said "think outside the box". But you're still stuck in it.
3) Don't have to. I previewed them before I posted. Got anything better?
4) How is your way more accurate? For the sake of the others if not myself, lay it out for us in its entirety, "your way".
5) People who don't even like me agreed with that accessment. Don't chalk up the multiple observations of Vader's slowness and lack of Force powers as my own little clique... Obviously you don't see it, just like you don't see anything wrong with Vader or Sidious period. You're probably trying to think of how Sidious can beat Revan and Exar Kun.
As for the last half of your reply, nice try. But take your ball and go home. You have YET to prove Vader and Maul can defeat Mace, and that was the main focus of this thread, which you carefully tried to avoid.
Aug 2nd, 2005 03:04 AM
Attachment: 
