Originally posted by steveholt955
What's amusing to me is people parading under the banner of objectivity, when none exists. Gideon is a Sidious fanboy, Legend is an ancient sith fanboy, badda bing badda boom. While there's evidence for Sidious' greatest ever title, I fail to understand how quotes that came before newer material came out, can encompass said material.
It's still printed as is.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._Report back to the ship as soon as possible. We'll bang, okay?
Is Neph being an idiot again?I don't have the patience to look through the last few pages.
edit- That dude above looks like Shepherd.
Originally posted by Zampanó
*snip*
I'm unsure as to how you arrived at Nephthys's interpretation, since the presence of two parties (subordinate, superior) in no way conflicts with my interpretation. Perhaps you could explain further?
Spoiler:
For the record, it was never my intent to genuinely argue the point. I was merely playing the Devil's advocate to illustrate to Nephthys to pitfalls of dishonest, manipulative interpretation that ultimately obstructs open discussion.
Originally posted by Zampanó Given that Lucas does not recognize the existence of any EU characters, considering such comparisons to be G-canon seems specious at best.[/b] [/B]
False. Quinlan Vos and Asajj Ventress are just a few characters to originate in the EU and find their way into G- and T-canon on Lucas's command. To say nothing of other EU constructs like Nightsisters, Death Watch, and even Coruscant itself.
Regardless, I believe you misunderstand the nature of Lucas's declarations the same way Janus did for years. The idea that Lucas assessed Sidious versus other Sith Lords in the EU and came to an impartial determination is farfetched, yes, but it was never suggested to begin with.
Instead, Lucas is supreme. When one is supreme, imbued with ultimate authority, one can issue such things as one pleases: arbitrarily, at whim, through fiat, etc.
That's why they call it Word of God, not Word of Judge or anything.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
What's amusing to me is that you've pointed the finger at everyone but yourself. So, just to get that out in the open: you're a Vitiate fanboy.
What's amusing is that I did not deny I was biased, but hinted at the idea that <b>BECAUSE</b> I could be biased, I stay out of the debates, therefore making myself objective 😆
Originally posted by pencilcrayon
http://i.imgur.com/dWbKxDt.jpgIt's still printed as is.
Can you elaborate what "it" is?
Agreed. We can't claim to understand the exact and entire nature of George's edits nor can we claim that he truly exercised a perfect level of consistency with them, never mind the numerous inconsistencies with the later released and more authoritative movie. Not to mention, does the RotS novel even say that Sidious was the greatest/most powerful/most glamorous etc.?
The ROTS novel never claims Sidious is the most powerful Sith Lord. (Though Sidious himself does make an offhanded implication to Anakin that he is, which we can disregard for obvious reasons.)
Anyway, disregarding any possible statement because it may have been neglected upon subsequent-printing is disingenuous. I might as well disregard any statements about Vitiate's power simply because the editor might have forgotten to remove it prior to its publication.
Armchair Cheeing is fun when trolling Neph, but let's get silly here. Do we really want this to devolve into "This is non-canon," "no u r non-canon!"?
DS
What's amusing is that I did not deny I was biased, but hinted at the idea that <b>BECAUSE</b> I could be biased, I stay out of the debates, therefore making myself objective
Not at all. You still favor one side of the debate over the other and you do indeed participate in the form of passive-aggressive sniping. (You never, for example, question, criticize, condemn, nitpick, or seek flaw with pro!Vitiate arguments, but here you are in the Battle Bar taking issue with pencilcrayon's pro!Sidious opinion.) That's your prerogative, of course, and not one I can or will not fault you for as I'm guilty of the same. But you're as much a fanboy as anyone else here and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
Now I can't pretend to understand why you're a fanboy of Vitiate, given that even that some of his other ardent supporters (Nephthys, LeGenD) recognize the tragically deficient writing surrounding the character. At least Nihilus, Palpatine, and others are cool in one respect. If anything, Vitiate stands testament to Palpatine's infinitely greater importance and iconic status in and out-of-universe that the writers feel the need to make Vitiate little more than an imitation rather than take him in a more original direction.
Anyway, all this is to say that you shouldn't let your bias keep you from participating in the debates. At this point, we should be judging people by the strength of their arguments, not condemning them for the strength of their passions.
Don't stop just because you think your bias will get the better of you.
Nephthys
No, it doesn't.Temp. I'm to tired for this shit atm, but I will respond soon.
Feel free, but you don't have to. We're at impasse and I've made my meta-point. The thing I'm really interested in at this point is the proof about Tulak Hord's TK.
Not at all. You still favor one side of the debate over the other and you do indeed participate in the form of passive-aggressive sniping. (You never, for example, question, criticize, condemn, nitpick, or seek flaw with pro!Vitiate arguments, but here you are in the Battle Bar taking issue with pencilcrayon's pro!Sidious opinion.) That's your prerogative, of course, and not one I can or will not fault you for as I'm guilty of the same. But you're as much a fanboy as anyone else here and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
Gideon is a Sidious fanboy, Legend is an ancient sith fanboy
Now I can't pretend to understand why you're a fanboy of Vitiate, given that even that some of his other ardent supporters (Nephthys, LeGenD) recognize the tragically deficient writing surrounding the character. At least Nihilus, Palpatine, and others are cool in one respect. If anything, Vitiate stands testament to Palpatine's infinitely greater importance and iconic status in and out-of-universe that the writers feel the need to make Vitiate little more than an imitation rather than take him in a more original direction.
Anyway, all this is to say that you shouldn't let your bias keep you from participating in the debates. At this point, we should be judging people by the strength of their arguments, not condemning them for the strength of their passions.Don't stop just because you think your bias will get the better of you.
Dexters back tonight. Heres a recap in case everyones forgotten what happened last season:
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Anyway, disregarding any possible statement because it may have been neglected upon subsequent-printing is disingenuous. I might as well disregard any statements about Vitiate's power simply because the editor might have forgotten to remove it prior to its publication.
I agree that as far as continuity goes, it doesn't make sense to question whether or not mistakes were made in the production of the final product (unless we have really good reason to believe that might be the case, e.g. the mention of Vaapad in PoD) as they usually aren't and you could essentially question anything on those grounds as you've pointed out. So basically anything that appears in the final product is canon, at least on initial examination. But the fact remains that the potential for such errors, as well as the fact that we can't be certain if George was making his edits to keep the source exactly in line with his vision in every way, means that I don't think we can attribute his editing with the same credibility that we can with works that originate with him or his own ideas/beliefs/definitive statements. It makes sense that for the most part the source might be closer to his vision than other C-canon sources, aside from the inconsistencies between the novel and film, but it's still a C-canon source and we can't pick and choose what George may or may not have viewed as being the case.
You can even question his statements and beliefs for the most part if they don't appear in the final source, seeing as they are clearly subject to change, and I get the sense that he doesn't always put a lot of thought into exactly how he expresses things to the point where I think there could be potential miscommunications.
