It still persists. The idea that Ragnos is somehow a force god isn't exactly a majority either. NJO Luke's power's shown to be frankly incredible. Still don't see how Ragnos takes this.
Why actually try to refute when you can insult? Internet really that serious for you? Os arguing the power of two fictious characters really so important you need to resort to that?
Something about a guy who can damage star destroyers with the force, actively communicate with crystals, master numerous Jedi techniques, become an avatar of the force at one point, channeling the full power of the light like Jacen and Ganner have done, communicated with spirits that have passed on through the Force, broke the dark side presences on several areas, was described as a maelstrom of force energy, but calm and focused, fought through an army, killed the elite Vong warriors and then squared off with Overlord Shimrra, the greatest warrior the Vong had and killed him...he's also produced extremely powerful and real illusions, including fleets, almost instinctively taught himself dueling...
Funny that you'd use that statement when you come out of a 3 month post-pwn hibernation for a favorable Sidious quote that was much ado about nothing and didn't even establish anything for certain.
-yawn- When you're done being a hypocrite, come back to me.
Been over this before with Sorgo. Styles convinced me to come back...and that has what balance on this argument? We call that a fallacy. And Misdirection. And frankly, irrelevant. And, oh yes, my argument has a bit mroe to back it up minus an obscure quote about someone who's never even appeared alive in Star Wars
__________________ Thanks to Venificus:
Last edited by Lightsnake on May 1st, 2006 at 12:32 AM
A pre-source sourcebook quote that has been likely retconned and an in-universe source of whom the official author has even said does not establish anything with any level of certainty is definitive how?
Before the author came here. And I provided quotes and links proving that sourcebooks go...and retcons happen. You have the official author';s word on that, too. Counts as much as any book.
And once more, there's that hypocrisy again...I'm still waiting for that god amongs god and most powerful of all time quotes, especially as the other end has never appeared alive in this fight, and we have the official author saying it could change at the drop of a dime. We also have the Ancient Sith's entire war effort being destroyed in a matter of days at most. And proof of the retcon? Sith Empire still starts at 7000 BBY, Blotus the Hutt was still a chancellor...
And ultimately I was arguing that there were interpretations on the quote that could be taken involving "history," "strongest," and "most powerful." Evidently, I was correct that there were possible interpretations of the quote and it wasn't binding.
So now, I'm a hypocrite for being right?
I caught you red-handed in a case of hypocrisy and bias, yet somehow, you trying to dispute it. You're better off forgetting about it and going home instead of making it worse with each passing post.
Being right? The author confirmed he meant 'of all time.' And yes, in a book of Star Wars history, 'in history' would apply to a singular era given twenty pages of coverage. Dan confirmed it could change depending on who's writing.
Once more: I'm still waiting for those quotes. At the very least, my side has a leg to stand on minus vague quotes that apply to five thousand years before the Imperials fall. You want to talk about hypocrisy and bias? Try writing off destroying a fleet and praising destroying a star with an electrical weapon. Bias? Discounting everything on Palp's power made official in several writings and source books and taking even the vaguest quote on the Ancients as great power when they got their asses kicked on three worlds.
Apr 30th, 2006 06:22 PM
