Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
Well I wouldn't go that far. There's always a right or wrong
Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.
Handbooks can be very wrong. I've done this dance in comics for years, I'm not just pulling that opinion out of nowhere.
I think the only point of contention, and what would make everyone say "ok, agreed" is the use of the word "strength." Take this quote:
Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
As the Encyclopedia dictates {and articulated by Yoda in Dark Rendezvous, by using the likes of Anakin and Dooku as examples}, while midichlorian counts indicate strength in the Force, they do not dictate power, which is Force mastery and control. That is only acquired through dedicated study and training.
Read with normally accepted definitions of strength and power, there seems to be little or no distinction between them in this sentence. Strength is basically synonymous with power in this context...you need to disambiguate it to avoid varying interpretations. Ergo, it's a poorly worded entry.
You have said you agree that midichlorian count does not equate to actualized power. So it would be foolish to place Anakin as high on a list as he could be but flatly isn't.
So instead, this should simply read "potential strength" instead of "strength" or to disambiguate it further, use "power" in both criteria, making the sentence: "midichlorian counts indicate potential power in the Force, they do not dictate actual power."
Further, no one really cares about potential power. I can't imagine anyone using a potential power list for any practical purpose, on this forum or otherwise. Thus, there seems to be no sense in discussing anything but actualized power.