ulic vs. AOTC anakin

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Once again trying to decide whos stronger between two people from different time periods is futile, but nevertheless Ill get to you tommorow once I have more time if you want to debate. And I dont hate ragnos hes cool, I hate revan hes a dork.

What exactly has triggered this huge "time period" change? If anything, I see Naga Sadow's time period as being far stronger than Sidious. It was a era of the Ancient Sith Empire, an empire of "godlike" war lords, yet somehow Sidious is underrated because you "can't compare eras."

What a f*cking contradiction, you say Sidious "gets no respect" amongst the pantheon of all time characters, and then you say you can't compare eras. So wtf are you supposed to do? Say Sidious is the best of all time without a comparison?

Right fanboy, moving on down the line, "kid."

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Oh sure naga sadow is without a doubt "clearly superior"... this is two people from different time periods, its impossible to know for sure whos stronger. Damn kids.

And where the hell did I even string together "clearly superior" in that post?

If you can't even READ from a QUOTE, don't bother posting a forum for debate.

More Great Nonsense.

Nice points there, LD.

Originally posted by Illustrious
What exactly has triggered this huge "time period" change? If anything, I see Naga Sadow's time period as being far stronger than Sidious. It was a era of the Ancient Sith Empire, an empire of "godlike" war lords, yet somehow Sidious is underrated because you "can't compare eras."

What a f*cking contradiction, you say Sidious "gets no respect" amongst the pantheon of all time characters, and then you say you can't compare eras. So wtf are you supposed to do? Say Sidious is the best of all time without a comparison?

Right fanboy, moving on down the line, "kid."

I didnt contradict myself, I didnt say "sidious would beat naga sadow".. Im saying dont automatically disregard sidious like you guys have been doing.

Originally posted by Illustrious
And where the hell did I even string together "clearly superior" in that post?

If you can't even READ from a QUOTE, don't bother posting a forum for debate.

"It's the EU forum, and it's clear, by virtue of feats, force powers, status, and contemporaries that Naga Sadow is the superior."

Direct quote from you dumbass.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
I didnt contradict myself, I didnt say "sidious would beat naga sadow".. Im saying dont automatically disregard sidious like you guys have been doing.

No, you said that he's somehow underrated, or "gets no respect" when juxtaposed to the pantheon of elite all-time characters, then you say there is no way to compare those of different eras. No one is saying he doesn't get respect for the PT era, he simply doesn't get respect when contrasted against other, older Jedi and Sith and their otherwordly feats.

So basically, either prove up or shut up.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
"It's the EU forum, and it's clear, by virtue of feats, force powers, status, and contemporaries that Naga Sadow is the superior."

Direct quote from you dumbass.

You realize that it being clear that he is superior is different than saying it's "clearly superior" right? Putting that quote together is taking things out of context. And the "without a doubt" is your fabrication.

Don't be daft.

Originally posted by Lord Darkstar
well to decide the versus outcome from people from different timelines, you must judge what went on during those times (peace or war), if war, then were they front-line or the armchair general. How feared were they during that time. Who were some of there opponents? What does history say about that time? These are just a few ways that you can help conpare people from different times.

For example, I do not know how good with a sword the best roman front-line general was while the romans were at war with the germanic tribes. However, I do know that all soldiers in the army were trained with a sword and were very skilled and even talked about today. I also know that it was during a time of war, so they would practise there skills. I also know that he was a front-line general, meaning he faced opponets.

Now, none of that proves that he can beat a army commander today if they met fighting with swords. But we do know that the army today does not use swords or get trained with them. So we cannot make a definite conclusion, however, all the evidence leads to the roman general beating the current day army general in a sword fight. That sort of thing is what we are trying to do here. And while Sidious was great in his time, when compared to somebody else (Exar, Marka etc.) he doesn't pass the test.

Yeah I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. It may have been the trend that people from the old times were on average stronger due to more combat experience but there are exceptions to the rules. I dont see how the combat experience argument can justify saying the best from one time period is better than the best from another.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Yeah I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. It may have been the trend that people from the old times were on average stronger due to more combat experience but there are exceptions to the rules. I dont see how the combat experience argument can justify saying the best from one time period is better than the best from another.

Tell me then, what feat has those of the PT/OT era done to match the feats of the Ancient Sith?

From a mere "what have you done" aspect, the Ancient Sith are the stronger individuals.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Yeah I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. It may have been the trend that people from the old times were on average stronger due to more combat experience but there are exceptions to the rules. I dont see how the combat experience argument can justify saying the best from one time period is better than the best from another.

So by your line of reasoning, any one of us can take out a fifteenth century professional mercenary in melee combat? Because that's the difference in ages. The best swordsman in our day and age perhaps practices for ten, twenty years on the side. The average swordsmen in medieval Europe practiced every day save for Sundays with a broadsword weighing easily twenty, forty pounds for hours upon hours a day, along with archery practice, horseback riding in heavy armor, battlefield training, and then applying it for most of their adult careers in various battles of life and death.

So yeah, combat experience does make a difference... in combat. Duh.

Originally posted by Illustrious
You realize that it being clear that he is superior is different than saying it's "clearly superior" right? Putting that quote together is taking things out of context. And the "without a doubt" is your fabrication.

Don't be daft.

From that quote you basically said, its clear -insert reasons- that naga sadow is the superior. So thats were I got "naga sadow is clearly superior". Thats what you meant dont try to deny it. And dont tell me to stop being daft all you have been doing is flame me because I happen to disagree with the accepted views of this forum.

Stop putting yourself in such a euphemistic light, and stop trying to make me seem like the bully to make yuorself look good. You were the one that threw out the insults first, "kid."

You were the one that claims Sidious gets no respect first, without offering ANY proof or reasons.

You were the one that claimed he was underrated against the all-time pantheon, but then said you can't compare eras.

You were the ones that took my line out of context, and when I tell you not to, you say I'm "flaming" you.

Right, you're the little lamb, and I'm the big bad wolf. Sure...

Originally posted by Illustrious
No, you said that he's somehow underrated, or "gets no respect" when juxtaposed to the pantheon of elite all-time characters, then you say there is no way to compare those of different eras. No one is saying he doesn't get respect for the PT era, he simply doesn't get respect when contrasted against other, older Jedi and Sith and their otherwordly feats.

So basically, either prove up or shut up.

I said there is no way to completely prove that from somone from one time is better than another, but yes I believe that sidious could defeat many of the old sith, notice I said "believe" Im not going to push it as though it was absolute fact.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
I said there is no way to completely prove that from somone from one time is better than another, but yes I believe that sidious could defeat many of the old sith, notice I said "believe" Im not going to push it as though it was absolute fact.

Which Sith could he beat? And give a few reasons at least. You saying you "believe" he could doesn't mean crap, in fact, it hardly has a place in this thread. If you believe your dog could beat Superman, that's great, but that doesn't mean you voice it unless you have something to back it up.

Agreed. If you want to shout out your opinion, whatever. But when you keep coming back like this, you're obviously either playing for attention or not sure what the difference is between having an opinion and taking a stance in a debate.

Originally posted by Illustrious
Stop putting yourself in such a euphemistic light, and stop trying to make me seem like the bully to make yuorself look good. You were the one that threw out the insults first, "kid."

You were the one that claims Sidious gets no respect first, without offering ANY proof or reasons.

You were the one that claimed he was underrated against the all-time pantheon, but then said you can't compare eras.

You were the ones that took my line out of context, and when I tell you not to, you say I'm "flaming" you.

Right, you're the little lamb, and I'm the big bad wolf. Sure...

-You started flaming me for no reason other than I disagreed with you correct? 🙄

-Yes I didnt because Im not a big fan of arguing whos stronger from different times periods as Ive already explained, but I'll oblige to this if you like.

-I stated what we both know you meant.

-Your not a wolf but you are acting like a barbarian.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
Agreed. If you want to shout out your opinion, whatever. But when you keep coming back like this, you're obviously either playing for attention or not sure what the difference is between having an opinion and taking a stance in a debate.

Reading is your friend.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
-You started flaming me for no reason other than I disagreed with you correct? 🙄

-Yes I didnt because Im not a big fan of arguing whos stronger from different times periods as Ive already explained, but I'll oblige to this if you like.

-I stated what we both know you meant.

-Your not a wolf but you are acting like a barbarian.

Awile ago I made a comparsion of Darth Somebody to you and now I take it back...DS is at the very least poilite and does provide reasons for his opinon.

Well, they're never around at the same time. What does that tell you? It's probably Ian McDairmid or whatever on the other side of that SN.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
-You started flaming me for no reason other than I disagreed with you correct? 🙄

-Yes I didnt because Im not a big fan of arguing whos stronger from different times periods as Ive already explained, but I'll oblige to this if you like.

-I stated what we both know you meant.

-Your not a wolf but you are acting like a barbarian.

-No, I asked you what gave you the idea that Sidious was greater than say... Naga Sadow. Then you responded with a condescending statement about not comparing eras which terminated in "kid."

-Then argue feats, contemporaries, and powers. Sidious still loses.

-So suddenly you think you know what other people mean. Good job on the telepathy man.

-You haven't offered one shred of evidence, all you do is continuing with senseless banter.