Black Winkel
Faunus also hasn't changed too much.
Spoiler:
Who are you, and why do you say such things?
DS
I'm hinting that you're guilty of it Gideon, so is Nai, RH, faunus, and most others including myself.
Spoiler:
Kindly exclude instances where I am incontrovertibly guilty.
TP
The first guy seems innocent enough, but agreed about the others: They're assholes and seem the type to do such despicable things, especially that last one.
Motherfvcker, I am coming ontofor you.
Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
That I ultimately argue against the quote doesn't mean I dismissed it out of hand. Way to indulge in that patented antediluvian process: dumbass deduction.
No. You dismissing the quote out of hand does mean that you dismissed the quote out of hand. And this is exactly, what you did. You went to a deep thought process somewhere in the background, to reach the conclusion that "Urm...that official facts must be wrong, because my personal interpration of the source material yielded a different conclusion"? Seriously? Lmao.
Funny how the example I use isn't from the Official Star Wars Fact File. haermm
Worming out of such situations has become one of your main actions here as of late. My dear Gideon: You didn't even react directly to the quote in the Official Star Wars Fact file, because the only possible reaction to it, would be to either write it off, based on whatever reasoning, putting the basis of anything you've argued here into question as well, or accepting it, turning your pretty opinion to dust instantly.
Since none of that roads was fitting for you, you tried to argue around the quote, by making a generalization concerning the nature of quotes. The problem: You can't stick to said generalization, because it undermines the validity of your own arguments. That what we call double-standard. 🙂 But please. Go on with the denial. It's highly entertaining to witness your inability to argue your way out of that dead end.
If that were the case, why would I argue against certain quotes that support Palpatine's primacy?
You argue against one quote there, Gideon.
It's pretty obvious, that you try to argue in favor for the validity of the first quote, which doesn't make any sense. However. Both quotes have been debunked countless times in the past, so you're just utilizing a cheap rhetorical trick, in order to convince a possible reader, that you're trying to perform an objective analysis, in order to make your other arguments the more convincing. Too bad, that you have already revealed your true intentions in the introduction to your essay:
Originally posted by Gideon
Hopefully, by the end, the reader will be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Emperor Palpatine is not just the most powerful Sith Lord in the mythos, but the most powerful Force user in general, bar none.
Anybody who expects anything even close to objectivity from there, must be rather naive. And, in fact, your essay is nothing but the longest pro-Sidious argument in the history of this forum, exhibiting heavy bias in favor for the Dark Lord, on the boarderline of utter stupidity - as demonstrated in my last posting.
How about this guy. You should read some of his posts: the constant reference to infallible intellect, interpretive skills, his penchant for making absolute statements without a modicum of support, his characteristic backpedaling, natural obsessive nature, and his tendency to lie in order to achieve his ends.
I wonder, why you're linking my profile to support that nice description of yourself, Gideon.
It is still you, who proclaims to have found the absolute truth of who is the more powerful Sith, implying, that you're ahead of anybody in terms of intellect (because we can't see the truth) and interpretive skills (because we didn't find the truth in the sources). It's you basking in absolute statements ("Sidious is the most powerful Sith Lord ever. This debate should be over."😉, backpedaling ("but I argued in favor for others...?"😉, exhibiting the obsessive nature (12 page Sidious essay) and tendency to lie to archive his ends (see contents of said essay). You were saying? 😉
Ah yes. Producing one more red herring, because of getting owned...business as usual. I bet the ignore trick is the next thing incoming.
So because I've argued that Palpatine is supreme, that means he's unrivaled?
If you make the contention, that his supposed supreme position should directly affect his standing in fights to the death, than yes, this is exactly what you're implying. Also notice your phrasing here: Palpatine can just be "rivaled" and even this "only in certain aspects" (you other posting). He has rivals and peers - but he doesn't have any superiors. Regardless in what field. That is exactly what I've been pointing out, Gideon. So thanks for proving my point. 🙂
Interesting how you declare Luke Skywalker the most powerful Jedi of all time and then argue in this same response that no one can possibly be right about this sort of issue, that LFL has no established hierarchy, so on and so forth. Pathological lying looks great on you, Nai.
The relative status of Luke Skywalker hasn't been an issue of debate here for a very long time. Technically, you're correct, though. One can't be certain about that issue. Yet, you're trying a red herring once again: The topic was your believe in such absolutes. 🙂
I've always tried to keep our debates civil, Nai. That I've called you a Nazi either in jest or after you indulge in your House masturbatory sessions doesn't change the fact that you feel the need to belligerently assert your "dominant" (lolololol) intellect.
Don't even try to play the victim here, Gideon. You did not always try to keep debates "civil", but instead utilized a fair number of japes, jests and outright provocation against me and other people here. Denying that is laughable.
And I belligenrently assert my dominant intellect? Does it occur to you, that I have to limit myself quite a bit, in order not to turn any discussion here into a farce? We're dealing with literature interpretation here - a field of knowledge that I studied. The rest is logic and some philosophy - I also studied those. The one single time where I introduced a fraction of my theoretical knowledge into this forum, the result looked like that:
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But then Nai came back and pulled a "third person limited narrative" and suddenly everything was all like "whhoooooaaaaaaaaa!!!!"
Contrary to your own believes, even this isn't limited some SW stories, but extends into the realm of sourcebooks and visual guides as well. I could pick apart every single source utilized here, by introducing media theories, coherence, cohesion, connexity or modern hermeneutics in general. The result, aside from me posting entire essays on single sentences, would first be me talking pretty much to myself and every discussion ending with the idea, that we can't be sure who wins.
But that's not what I'm here for. So one might think that casual reference to my prodigious intellect shouldn't be taken more serious, than your attempts to sell yourself as "objective". 🙂
Someone seems to have forgotten how he used to try to assert Ragnos's dominance based on the skills and powers of his inferiors.
Do you honestly see no difference in forming an argument based on a lot of logical assumptions and the mere statement, that a character must possess the physical abilities of some people he trained? 🙄
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I think the majority of people here are guilty of double standards when it comes to accepting of rejecting sources.
I rather think the majority of people here is guilty of wanting to debate with some result incoming, instead of beating some quotes to death with a stick. Technically, every single source containing SW lore is questionable, making all quotes questionable, making every opinion questionable. But embracing that fact to the fullest extend, would mean, that conclusions to arguments would look like this:
"While we can't be sure, because of having to rely on speculation, third party interpretation of events happening fourthousand years in the past inside a fictional universe, aside from certain authors personal taste when it comes to character design, I think Luke Skywalker in his most recent incarnation could possible be able, to overcome C-3PO in a fight to the death. Imho."
I rather think the majority of people here is guilty of wanting to debate with some result incoming, instead of beating some quotes to death with a stick. Technically, every single source containing SW lore is questionable, making all quotes questionable, making every opinion questionable. But embracing that fact to the fullest extend, would mean, that conclusions to arguments would look like this:"While we can't be sure, because of having to rely on speculation, third party interpretation of events happening fourthousand years in the past inside a fictional universe, aside from certain authors personal taste when it comes to character design, I think Luke Skywalker in his most recent incarnation could possible be able, to overcome C-3PO in a fight to the death. Imho."
Need to buy a new PC before trying that...
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I suggest one of the I-7's selling on ebay. [/B]
I already ordered an i7-2600 system with a Geforce GTX 580, though the mainboard I wanted to have wasn't available, and now I have to wait 5-10 days before the stuff arives. Should be some nice turbo boost, since I didn't invest money into hardware after buying my Geforce 9800GT... 😉
Originally posted by Borbarad
I already ordered an i7-2600 system with a Geforce GTX 580, though the mainboard I wanted to have wasn't available, and now I have to wait 5-10 days before the stuff arives. Should be some nice turbo boost, since I didn't invest money into hardware after buying my Geforce 9800GT... 😉
Yea, that's what I have with a gtx 260 and 18 gigs of sexy sexy ram.