I'm sure if Kun was meant to be more powerful than Sidious, it would be him, not Sidious, who is bursting at the seams with "most powerful Sith/Dark Sider in history" quotes. But he's nat.
Nai, it's okay to be second place. Or third. Or sixth.
__________________ “The galaxy must experience the pain of death and the rapture of rebirth as I have. I will bring chaos. It is time for war.”
Registered: Jun 2016
Location: The Throne of the Sheevites
Nai, you should try to understand that the world doesn't revolve around you, and that there are other completely valid perspectives regarding sourcebook quotes, besides your own. How about, instead of running around like a 4-year-old telling everyone they're wrong and you're right, simply agree to disagree?
Registered: May 2005
Location: .::The Anti-Fanboy Confederation::.
Kun is in none of these in 1993.
Apparently, the stupid has decided to stay stupid. Nothing to do about that.
But just for info:
a)
There wasn't even an "in-universe perspective" back in 1993, because there was no formal "expanded universe" that had been established back then. Essentially, you had very few writers making stories up, that were just in theory happening in the same continuity. The latter was just established when Lucas went on producing the PT to keep things in check and he even took things from the expanded universe (e.g. "Coruscant"). That is pretty obvious, if you care for actually reading SW material published back in the day.
b)
The endnotes aren't part of the source, but an essay written by Tom Veitch on the development of the comic. How is that "in universe" anyway?
c)
Utilzing your twisted logic against you: The endnotes were no longer published with the source after the third print. So, apparently, they were edited out, which probably means, they aren't "canon" any longer. D'uh.
Beating idiot with his own twisted logic. Priceless.
I, seriously, don't give a crap about where Kun is placed in the (nonexistant) "hierarchy" of Sith Lords. I just don't like people performing logical stunts in order to sell their bullshit.
There are instances in which one can agree to disagree.
The question, if a quote coming from 1993 can refer to things that didn't even exist back then is not one of those. And this isn't a different "completely valid perspective" but just utter bullshit. So I'm really sorry that I tell people that they are wrong, when they proclaim that the sky is green. And I'm really sorry if I hurt people's feeling by telling them, that they are stupid if they act stupid.
But given that you are the person, who thinks that Sidious can beat an infinite amount of Vaders in combat, I can understand why you are worried about my attitude.
__________________
"Dear God, what is it like in your funny little brains?"
Who cares? Sidious has post-Kun quotes claiming that he's the most powerful ever as well. Even if you can't find an agreeable way of settling the 1993 quotes, there's others that can be used.
He was in 1994 and guess what? Sidious was and is all the aforementioned as well, this is known as continuity.
Cute. But yes, your condition appears to be incurable.
The DE Endnotes are written from an in-universe perspective yes, this should be obvious given the describe the characters and universe itself as if it were real. And in a living, breathing universe, beings do not pop out of wormholes and into existence the moment at which they are written. Rather the Sith Lords of ancient times already exist within the contexts of those quotes, we just don't know about them.
As for whether continuity had been yet established, irrelevant, fact is it exists, and both Dark Empire and Tales of the Jedi are part of it.
Regardless according to the Wookiee it was first outlined in 1994, that's practically simultaneous.
See above.
That doesn't probably mean anything. Naturally we know that the reality is that they were reiterated by multiple sources since.
I'm really starting to think your an obnoxious person.
I'll leave Temp to mock you on that one.
Nope, its just called continuity, and it appears you are the only one whose upset about it.
To make it easier to understand, (fictional) continuity according to Wikipedia is: "consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer over [a] period of time."
Or in other words, if Darth Sidious is established as the "the Dark Side's most powerful expression" in 1993, he will remain so foreseeable future until otherwise retconned into something else, not cease to be the moment a new comic or novel is published, which for the record would render continuity redundant. Instead these characteristics are continuous, which yes means they carry into the future.
__________________
Last edited by Beniboybling on Dec 24th, 2016 at 11:11 PM
Registered: Aug 2014
Location: The balance of the Force
For the record, I wouldn't at all mind the establishment of Sheev as top dog, if it weren't for the PT Brigade attempting to Status Quo the entire era as some form of a matrix of circular wank. Worse is the Sheev wank itself, Vader can pose a threat to Sidious and he straight up loses to DE Luke, but apparently he can stomp the likes of Revan, Krayt, Kun, Plagueis and even Valkorion.
It isn't something that would ever be established in continuity but people like to willfully abandon common sense and jump on the wank train.
__________________
Within your furnace heart, you burn in your own flame. This is how it feels to be Anakin Skywalker.
Registered: Aug 2014
Location: The balance of the Force
Very funny, even funnier is that the mere concept of the Banite Sith being challenged by anybody but Banite Sith and their descendants seems to infuriate you and your ilk.
But please continue with the pretense that you weren't whipped into the PT brigade as a defense mechanism against Ant.
__________________
Within your furnace heart, you burn in your own flame. This is how it feels to be Anakin Skywalker.
Registered: Aug 2014
Location: The balance of the Force
You mistook 'truth' with head-canon.
If you actually went beyond Status Quos via novel blurbs, I wouldn't be at all bothered. That isn't what is happening though, there are no actual debates, just fallacious power scaling establishments that act in exactly the opposite interest of debate. Anybody who argues against it is immediately labelled 'retard' or is trolled with spite threads by the resident PT Brigade trolls.
You're a joke, now stop wasting my time with your compulsive replies to every sentence I post. I already own you, just like Carthage.
__________________
Within your furnace heart, you burn in your own flame. This is how it feels to be Anakin Skywalker.
Wat
Who says this?
KEK, most PT-guys believe Plagueis > DE Luke/Vader, etc.
Also, who says that Sidious can stomp Plagueis or Valk?
But yeah, he can stomp Exar.
Registered: May 2005
Location: .::The Anti-Fanboy Confederation::.
Do I really need to drop to your level of stupid, to explain to you why this is nonsense?
In the "Sith War" comic, Kun is cited as the "darkest power in the Galaxy". Using your logic, that Galaxy - because of "continuity" - included Vitiate, the Son and Abeloth. So Kun is "darker" than either of those? There is nothing to contradict that notion, right? No retcon.
So in your version of the continuity, Exar Kun is the "darkest power" in a Galaxy that hosts nigh godlike Dark Side entities such as the Son / Abeloth. One wonders what that makes Kun then.
Uh. What a comeback. "No you." Apparently, your level of creativity fits just nicely to your level of intelligence.
In a living, breathing universe, things get forgotten by sources operating within the universe. Is the author of the endnotes omniscient? Present proof that he is. Or does he just not know about Kun? Then how can make statements encompassing him? Seriously. No matter how you attempt to twist logic here, you always reach a dead end with your "view".
Yeah. We get it now. Stuff exists, despite it doesn't exists, so it can be referenced by a quote from 1993, which then defines the standards for future development of a "continuity" not even existing when the quote was written. Even though the quote was since deleted from the aforementioned "continuity". The word "desperate" doesn't even begin to describe what must be your state of mind when debating me.
Erm. What?
According to Wookiepedia, Leland Chee was the first person appointed to track continuity in the Star Wars (Expanded) Universe with the "Holocron Database" in the year 2000. In fact, when you go to the "Canon" page on Wookiepedia it lists two quotes by Lucas. One saying, that he can't keep continuity up for the EU, the second declaring the EU a seperate universe from his movie universe. Both quotes - and the Y2K appointment of Chee - directly contradict your fairytale of a "continuity" beeing established in the early-/mid-90s. In fact, all references to any kind of continuity / canon quoted on the page are released past the year 2000.
How quick you are to throw your own standards out of the window. So when the endnotes stay in the source, they must be important and correct and influencing future development in the "continuity". In the second you get to know that they are edited out, this fact is suddenly irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is the fact, that they don't "exist" any longer from the perspective of "canon". So you can cite the "multiple sources" in which they were reiterated instead.
Oh. Well. He tried oh so often and failed every single time, because - you know - I really don't care. This place is still just entertainment to me and you people are cheap providers of it. I really don't care about your opinions, or proving them wrong or changing them. Neither do I care about advancing my own here.
No shit, Sherlock. And since when does any of that apply to the Star Wars EU, especially the early works (up to the release of the PT)? Did you read them? The only thing "consistent" there, is a general storyline for the main characters (e.g. Han and Leia being married and having children). The rest is subject to heavy interpretations through the authors at work. You may just want to think about Luke's power-levels over the various issues of EU literature.
And here is the point, where you still don't get the fundamental working principles of the SW canon. The written sources aren't some kind of "holy scripture", that has to be taken literal, unless some direct contradiction / retcon arises. Those are pieces of literature that are subject to interpretation, especially when most of it stems from the point of view (and hence the minds of) in-universe characters.
Or, and I'm referring you to the Wookiepedia "Canon" Page again with that, as Christopher Cherasi ones put it:
"The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them. Like the great Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi said, 'many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view."
Apparently, your "blind faith in the source material" point of view is rather ill-fitting when dealing with SW source-material, especially compared to my literary theorist / historian (or for general purpose: scientific) approach. But whatever makes you sleep better. As I said: I don't care, as long as you don't try to sell your bullshit as fact.
__________________
"Dear God, what is it like in your funny little brains?"
Your total lack of self awareness continues to astound and fascinate AP, did this little gem really slip your mind so easily?
But nah, fallacious powerscaling and hurr durr retard comments are your MO, resident PT wokers would be more than happy to trash you in a debate regarding Sheev & co. without blurbs at all, if you'd only make the thread.
But of course you already know that, lmfao.
And miss out on more of your cringe worthy responses? Never.
__________________
Last edited by Beniboybling on Dec 28th, 2016 at 01:31 PM
The One's were described as "more powerful with the Force than any Jedi have seen before" and capable of wielding the Force in ways beyond mortal ability upon introduction, so that's a yes to a retcon regarding them.
The case for Vitiate is a bit more ambiguous since he's been stated to be the most powerful Force user in history, but this is only certainty as of TOR, we don't know at what point he surpassed Kun. Otherwise yeah, welcome to 2012.
You really expected "your stoopid" to warranted anything more? How sad.
Evidently omniscient given he possesses intimate knowledge for example of Emperor Palpatine's efforts to clone himself for example:
(please log in to view the image)
(please log in to view the image)
Moreover the narrations are written concurrent with the events of comics, or rather before the wider galaxy would be able to get hold of this information, if they ever did at all.
So no, that he would omit anyone of the foremost Sith Lords in history from his assessment is an idea that can be safely dismissed.
It amuses me how the basics of canon have left you so stunned. Yes dear. Star Wars content written in to continuity provides a framework for how future content will pan out.
You mean the Canon page on Wookieepedia that literally has this at the very top?
Yeah, I respectfully withdraw your rights to refer to me as stupid into the foreseeable future.
No darling because though they may no longer be in print the fact remains that as published Star Wars material they remain canon by definition i.e.:
"Lucasfilm canon" refers to anything produced by any of the Lucas companies, whether it be movies, books, games, or internet.
--Leland Chee, Keeper of the Holocron
I never claimed that the definition of canon is that which is in print, that is a false rule that you contrived from my point that being reprinted would lend credence to the idea that they are still valid, but it doesn't define their validity.
Or in other words you need something more concrete than the assumption that because the Endnotes are no longer in print, they are no longer canon.
Naturally, but your posting history suggests otherwise, as Temp has pointed out several times now.
Nice but rather besides the point, being that the aforementioned statements are both continous and applicable to Kun. Whether or not they are reliable or not is a seperate matter, but naturally applying the foggy window conceit as a carte blanche to dismiss evidence not to your liking as unreliable, is arbitrary nonsense. No, it only introduces a basis for these so called objective sources to be interrogated through logical and empirical means, but in so far your attempt to do so has been weak and ineffective.
__________________
Last edited by Beniboybling on Dec 28th, 2016 at 02:34 PM
Dec 24th, 2016 02:33 PM
