Originally posted by Illustrious
What the hell do you think "cited" means?It's in The Tales of the Jedi: The Golden Age of the Sith TPB and is one of those solid evidence narrations.
I don't pull stuff out of my ass besides logical inferences, sorry to disappoint you.
I havent read that book yet, ill take your word for it that its in there until I read it myself.
Originally posted by Illustrious
Where does it say Luke beats Ragnos? Ragnos is cited as "the Dark Lord of the Sith -- the most powerful of the most powerful."I agree though, how do they "go on forever and ever and ever" yet Revan has a slight edge? If he had a slight edge, it likely wouldn't go on forever. That line right there is showing your true colors -- you WANT Revan to win, but you don't want to say outright that Revan will, so you use "going on forever and ever" as some kind of mask.
This thread is plain unmanageable. You have three duels in one that are almost too close to call.
sorry i've been a way for a while and while looking for another thread I came across this,
About the revan having a slight edge, all that means is that while it would go on forever if there had to be a winner chances are it would be revan nothing more nothing less it just means ultimatley if they had to fight until there was a winner then it would be super long to the point it would be unbeleivable but ultimatley Revan could pull it off.
Originally posted by Illustrious
What the hell do you think "cited" means?It's in The Tales of the Jedi: The Golden Age of the Sith TPB and is one of those solid evidence narrations.
I don't pull stuff out of my ass besides logical inferences, sorry to disappoint you.
Oooh, like that's totally canon and cannot be contradicted at all. Lucas himself contradicts himself.
ever thought why no credible star wars site mentions anything about Ragnos' "immense power" if they even bother to mention him at all? That's hardly indisputable proof that Ragnos is the most powerful, especially considering how many sith lords have emerged or been talked more in depth about since that book.
Originally posted by Emperor Revan
Oooh, like that's totally canon and cannot be contradicted at all. Lucas himself contradicts himself.ever thought why no credible star wars site mentions anything about Ragnos' "immense power" if they even bother to mention him at all? That's hardly indisputable proof that Ragnos is the most powerful, especially considering how many sith lords have emerged or been talked more in depth about since that book.
Wow, I don't even know why I bother for this.
First it's "You don't know Ragnos was powerful, you know he ruled over people who were powerful." Never mind that Sadow and Kressh stopped fighting, showed their respect while Ragnos' spirit came from the grave, and that it's Sith ideology that the strongest rule, which Ragnos did for 150 years.
Then it's "You only know of one person Ragnos defeated, and you don't know how powerful he is." Even though it was mentioned in canon that Simus was extremely powerful (arguably the most powerful of his era), that he could keep his head alive in a jar, and that he trained Sadow.
Then it's "No credible star wars site mentions Ragnos." Starwars.com also seems surprisingly devoid of Revan too, doesn't that seem to be counterintuitive to both sides? The fact still remains that they are EU, and most "credible" star wars sites are for die hard MOVIE fans.
Then it's "That's hardly indisputable proof" even though it's mentioned as NARRATION and that he ruled during the height of the Sith Empire. Are you going to try to argue that Palpatine didn't kill 3 Jedi Masters in seconds now too? The fact of literature is: Narration = Fact, Dialogue, monologue, thoughts = possibly fact. It's that simple.
Then it's "Considering how many Sith Lords have emerged since then." So what? The newer Sith Lords are the most powerful? Ragnos ruled at the "Golden Age" of the Sith, canonically and in narration described as the HIGH TIME of the Sith Empire, the most powerful point of the Sith Magicians/Warriors. Yet somehow, he's going to be beaten by individuals who've "emerged since then" like Revan, right? Poorly veiled fanboy attempt here.
He's CANONICALLY cited as "the Dark Lord of the Sith -- the most powerful of the most powerful" during the era of the greatest Sith. Unless evidence appears to contradict this, it's fact, it's in narration, it's writtten. Bring your evidence before you bring the heat. Otherwise drag your ass out of the kitchen.
Stop trying to debate what the narration said. Next you're going to be trying to debate that Sidious' lightsaber wasn't red, or that Yoda's not green as long as it supports your position.
I could be proving you wrong all day, but if you decide that narration and canonical evidence suddenly "is not necessarily true," then we're back at square one.
Originally posted by Illustrious
Wow, I don't even know why I bother for this.First it's "You don't know Ragnos was powerful, you know he ruled over people who were powerful." Never mind that Sadow and Kressh stopped fighting, showed their respect while Ragnos' spirit came from the grave, and that it's Sith ideology that the strongest rule, which Ragnos did for 150 years.
Then it's "You only know of one person Ragnos defeated, and you don't know how powerful he is." Even though it was mentioned in canon that Simus was extremely powerful (arguably the most powerful of his era), that he could keep his head alive in a jar, and that he trained Sadow.
Then it's "No credible star wars site mentions Ragnos." Starwars.com also seems surprisingly devoid of Revan too, doesn't that seem to be counterintuitive to both sides? The fact still remains that they are EU, and most "credible" star wars sites are for die hard MOVIE fans.
Then it's "That's hardly indisputable proof" even though it's mentioned as NARRATION and that he ruled during the height of the Sith Empire. Are you going to try to argue that Palpatine didn't kill 3 Jedi Masters in seconds now too? The fact of literature is: Narration = Fact, Dialogue, monologue, thoughts = possibly fact. It's that simple.
Then it's "Considering how many Sith Lords have emerged since then." So what? The newer Sith Lords are the most powerful? Ragnos ruled at the "Golden Age" of the Sith, canonically and in narration described as the HIGH TIME of the Sith Empire, the most powerful point of the Sith Magicians/Warriors. Yet somehow, he's going to be beaten by individuals who've "emerged since then" like Revan, right? Poorly veiled fanboy attempt here.
He's CANONICALLY cited as "the Dark Lord of the Sith -- the most powerful of the most powerful" during the era of the greatest Sith. Unless evidence appears to contradict this, it's fact, it's in narration, it's writtten. Bring your evidence before you bring the heat. Otherwise drag your ass out of the kitchen.
Stop trying to debate what the narration said. Next you're going to be trying to debate that Sidious' lightsaber wasn't red, or that Yoda's not green as long as it supports your position.
I could be proving you wrong all day, but if you decide that narration and canonical evidence suddenly "is not necessarily true," then we're back at square one.
This is all sound.
Originally posted by Se7in
This is why Lucas is an *******. He says Sidious is the strongest Sith Lord, yet Ragnos shows way more immense power. I fail to see how Sidious could manage to compete with Sith from the age of Ludo, Marka, and Ajunta.
He doesn't. To be fair to GL, most of what he says pertains only to the movies moreso than it can to the EU. The Sith during the high time of the Sith Magicians, aka during the Golden Age of the Sith comics, were practically godlike entities compared to the other Sith from later ages.