Wow, so far you have a nutriding moron in Nebaris who hasn't offered a single useful thing in the past 2 days, which would make him a troll..
And then lightsnake who completely ignores this post, believing he's right without merit. Lightsnake, for you to be right dear, you have to have people backng you up. All you've done is made a fool out of yourself with ridiculous personal attacks in this thread. I realize you're very much into star wars and it hurts you to be wrong, but no need to get angry about it. Escape made this thread for you and Nai to post, and so far you have been useless. Nobody on here expects anything from Nebaris as he's clearly on here for comic relief. Now speak for yourself and shut up, because you clearly are dumb to be calling me "tdtd".
Re: Re: The Antithesis of Ragnos Owns All
Ok let me start as much as I can..
In the future, I'd recommend that you start quoting sections of my argument, like I do yours, that way it is easier to address specific issues.
A. Where in the comics do they show him to be completely power hungry and ruthless?
Both you and Lightsnake and the comics confirmed that Ragnos ruled with an iron fist and pit his enemies against one another. If you are somehow implying that does not make him ruthless or power hungry, I would strongly suggest that you reconsider that opinion before you flunk World History or something similar.
Stalin and Hitler did the same thing. And they are considered to be the most brutal and evil men in recent history.
Where is this imaginary comic Escape? Because Ragnos was dead at the start of GAOTS, so your attempted point is Moot. Moving on.
The comics that even mention Marka Ragnos state as much. And, I owe this point to you and Lightsnake, as you both helped to confirm it. So I am afraid that it is not moot.
Absence of proof isn't proof of absence, I have provided examples of a testament to his power, and because he wasn't shown displaying anything(because he was dead), does not at all mean he had no power.
Yes, but when one says "absence of proof isn't proof of absence" doesn't automatically imply that the proof is there, somewhere. It is an excuse, used more and more by people who cannot reinforce what they say in an argument. I urge you strongly against spouting out that phrase. And, furthermore, I never said - nor implied - that Ragnos was weak. Have I not agreed that he was the strongest of his day?
It is more logical to assume that he had tremendous power because he was described as having "Tremendous physical strength and a frightening grasp of the dark side".
Mm-hmm. Now, quantify "tremendous power" in comparison to all the statements made about Emperor Palpatine's power or Exar Kun's power.
Not to mention his scepter instilled the force into any non force users, which was also equaled by DE Sidious.
Yes, Palpatine was able to something similar, I recall, to his Dark Side adepts and Hands. Now, I wouldn't be able to tell you if it 'gave them the force' but, rather, upgraded their own Force abilities. Either way, I'll consent to the scepter.
B. The ship was a ship, but it was SITH magic that triggered the solar flares in one scan, and in the other it was Sadow clenching his fist as the sun goes bye bye. So you stating that the ship was the power and not Sadow also makes no sense, considering we see otherwise and it is called "Sith Magic" and/or 'Sith Technology. Yes he was a brilliant alchemist and whatever, I don't know if that was a conclusive statement by you or not, but it speaks volumes for his abilities because of how powerful Exar Kun became.. Next..
Key phrase "Sith technology". What do you think the Sith Technology was in that instance? The ship. As well as his amulets.
C. Your point again is moot in the sense that we see Sadow clenching his fist when the star blew up.
You misunderstand. I always argued that the ship gave Sadow the power to do it, but that Sadow could trigger the process at will. Consider him the trigger to a very powerful gun.
You can offer whatever evidence you want but the fact that they used amulets and other talisman should have absolutely no bearing on their abilities.
Yes, it does. It means that they required these artifacts, as I have proven.
There could be hundreds of explanations, through which are all debatable, so that is not a good topic.
Because you can't argue that they didn't need them?
Not to mention we don't see Sidious blasting through walls which doesn't really matter. Palpatine's ability to blow up planets or suck the life force out of planets was completely independant of the Death Star. The Death Star was used for his political motivations, to strike fear into the galaxy. So I'm not debating that. I won't debate his own motivations iwth his political motivations, however it is pretty obvious that Palpatine could not take on the entire galaxy, hence the development of the World Devestators and the Galaxy Gun, or whoever invented them.
You misunderstand the point, once again.
You claimed that Ragnos and Sadow could do all of their own feats without any assistance from their artifacts, and yet you've never seen an instance in which they are performing these things without them.
By that logic, I can say that Palpatine personally possessed the ability to blow up planets or annihilate them at will, but had a logical excuse in that he didn't want to expose himself as a Force user and risk further rebellion.
Not done. Wait 'til I respond to all of it.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Wow, so far you have a nutriding moron in Nebaris who hasn't offered a single useful thing in the past 2 days, which would make him a troll..And then lightsnake who completely ignores this post, believing he's right without merit. Lightsnake, for you to be right dear, you have to have people backng you up. All you've done is made a fool out of yourself with ridiculous personal attacks in this thread. I realize you're very much into star wars and it hurts you to be wrong, but no need to get angry about it. Escape made this thread for you and Nai to post, and so far you have been useless. Nobody on here expects anything from Nebaris as he's clearly on here for comic relief. Now speak for yourself and shut up, because you clearly are dumb to be calling me "tdtd".
Escape seems to be backing LS up, TD. And I have posted useful things to this forum. My Sion theory was badass. You can find it here:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f6/t412163.html
Try disputing that b1tch.
Really?
#1. Stop calling me tdtd, youve already made a fool out of yourself
#2. For you to call someone a shitty debator, would mean you have to be a good one. And by the looks of it you're nothing more than an incessant nutrider, or just an angry little child.
#3. Wtf? Your Sion theory? Why in the hell would I care about your Sion theory? Are you looking for recognition for contributing one valid thing to this forum? Please look up the definiton of forum troll because you continue spewing out nonsense.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
And I can also respond to Nai's argument when Ragnos as a GHOST physically damaged the head of Exar Kun and Uliq Qel Droma crowning them DLOTS and Apprentice respectfully.Ooops my bad
It's also funny how you are completely copying the antediluvians - IKC, Illustrious and Nai in particular. Can't come up with your own arguments dumbass. Well don't worry about, not everyone's original.
1. You're treading on the part where you are defining power. Some would call his power through political cunning and what not, but others would call him a coward. On the other hand you will have people calling Kun powerful because he marched into the heart of the Galactic Republic and shut them all up, yet he was brash, stupid, and arrogant.. Moving on.
Because the point is, the context of the situation implies personal power or Force power. Not political or militaristic. That goes without saying. We already know that Palpatine's Empire could kick the ass of Revan's Empire or Ragnos's Empire.
This is about Force power, in which the statements regarding Palpatine are not ambiguous or vague.
2. I think there are many ways to interpret Palpatine's decay. One would be a testament of his power, one would be that he's fallen down the dark path further than anybody has before him. Understand that the ancient sith didn't have to fall down the dark path, they were dark side practitioners naturally. So Palpatine might have given himself to the darkside more than anybody would have, and I believe this is logical. And yes I remember when Luke cloaked the ship or created the illusion or what not, I forget it's been a while.
That's the ultimate point I am making.
Palpatine's raw power was so intense that it was literally destroying his own body. That is power.
We know that no other Sith Lord or Force user has had that much raw energy that it is literally killing them, which bodes well for Palpatine's raw power - which, once again - is considerable.
3. I believe you are referring to Empire Ends when they said Palpatine gave himself up, fair enough. Next, nobody is denying his power in DE as he has reached his peak in terms of force abilities, but has plummeted in terms of sanity and rationality..
Yes. Palpatine demanded the answer to his salvation from the spirits of these Ancient Sith Lords. Who ultimately gave in and understood when he said 'the galaxy is mine'.
So, if the Ancient Sith (even their spirits) were automatically more powerful than he - why would they give into his request? Why not smite him down?
The point is. The Ancient Sith owns all theory, or 'the older the better' is completely moot.
Now, while it may still apply to Ragnos himself (this thread will determine) it does not apply to everyone who has been called an Ancient Sith.
4. Yes, nobody is arguing Palpatine was the most powerful of his time.
Just as Kun and Ragnos were the strongest of their time.
Originally posted by GM Nebaris
It's also funny how you are completely copying the antediluvians - IKC, Illustrious and Nai in particular. Can't come up with your own arguments dumbass. Well don't worry about, not everyone's original.
I realize you're probably the dumbest human being on this forum with the debating skills of a rabid wolverine, so I'm going to say this only once to you so you can avoid ridicule.
Reading Comprehension.. I credited the argument to NAI. I'm going to assume you are illiterate. Now when you bring something useful to this forum, you can respond, either way stay out and let me and Escape argue this and lightsnake when he gets out of his "i'm full of shit" stage.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Really?
#1. Stop calling me tdtd, youve already made a fool out of yourself
#2. For you to call someone a shitty debator, would mean you have to be a good one. And by the looks of it you're nothing more than an incessant nutrider, or just an angry little child.
#3. Wtf? Your Sion theory? Why in the hell would I care about your Sion theory? Are you looking for recognition for contributing one valid thing to this forum? Please look up the definiton of forum troll because you continue spewing out nonsense.
1. You are TD.
2. You are a shitty debater. You are just using the same arguments from the older, original more able members that were proven false months ago.
3. Well you said that I provided nothing for this forum. That proves you wrong. Oh yeah, and my theory was original. A word that you should maybe look up.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I realize you're probably the dumbest human being on this forum with the debating skills of a rabid wolverine, so I'm going to say this only once to you so you can avoid ridicule.Reading Comprehension.. I credited the argument to NAI. I'm going to assume you are illiterate. Now when you bring something useful to this forum, you can respond, either way stay out and let me and Escape argue this and lightsnake when he gets out of his "i'm full of shit" stage.
As you wish TD. But just so you know, I wasn't referring to a particular argument when I called you unoriginal. I was referring to all of your arguments.
Originally posted by Escape81
Because the point is, the context of the situation implies personal power or Force power. Not political or militaristic. That goes without saying. We already know that Palpatine's Empire could kick the ass of Revan's Empire or Ragnos's Empire.This is about Force power, in which the statements regarding Palpatine are not ambiguous or vague.
That's the ultimate point I am making.
Palpatine's [B]raw power
was so intense that it was literally destroying his own body. That is power.We know that no other Sith Lord or Force user has had that much raw energy that it is literally killing them, which bodes well for Palpatine's raw power - which, once again - is considerable.
Yes. Palpatine demanded the answer to his salvation from the spirits of these Ancient Sith Lords. Who ultimately gave in and understood when he said 'the galaxy is mine'.
So, if the Ancient Sith (even their spirits) were automatically more powerful than he - why would they give into his request? Why not smite him down?
The point is. The Ancient Sith owns all theory, or 'the older the better' is completely moot.
Now, while it may still apply to Ragnos himself (this thread will determine) it does not apply to everyone who has been called an Ancient Sith.
Just as Kun and Ragnos were the strongest of their time. [/B]
Yea I know Palpatine demanded the answers, and they basically laughed at him and told him to shut up, while the other one said "Palpatine gave himself to the dark side a long time ago, let him have what he wants". I understand that part, why was it brought up?
I do not use "the older the better" theory with the ancient sith. Nor did I say it applied to everyone but Ragnos and Sadow. If you judge by their force abilities, or at least Sadows, you can logically deduce that he was indeed more powerful than at least Kun. I know you think it's illogical to speculate Ragnos' power based on Sadow, but you have to take into effect that an uber powerful force user maybe as good as Palpatine or better or worse, never attempted to dethrone Ragnos, even on his death bed.
Originally posted by GM Nebaris
1. You are TD.
2. You are a shitty debater. You are just using the same arguments from the older, original more able members that were proven false months ago.
3. Well you said that I provided nothing for this forum. That proves you wrong. Oh yeah, and my theory was [b]original. A word that you should maybe look up. [/B]
#1. Again with the ridicule.. You are humorous..
#2. A shitty nutriding troll has no business calling anyone a shitty "Debater". Debator rather, but very nice atempt.
#3. The fact that you needed to provide a useless and irrelevant topic to flex nuts says a lot about your personality and your personal life, so I suggest you stay off of the computer for an X amount of time, and get your shit in order.
1. You have to take into account that it is very possible that the EU is not even included in this debate, as it probably shouldn't be since the NEC is not an EU source, or at least I don't think so. And if it's not, then it doesn't matter.
The NEC is an EU source. It is the most-up-to-date reference tool of the Expanded Universe. Therefore, it is a source.
2. I disagree with the fact that you think newer information necessarily takes precedent over older information.
That's the ultimate point. The TotJ comics are no more important than the NEC.
3. Calling Ragnos THE Dark Lord, should also be considered as a testament of his power. If not that, at least the fact that HE crowned Exar Kun, and HE had the final say about Exar Kun on Korriban.
He crowned Exar Kun, yes. He had the final say, yes.
Why?
Because Kun nor Uliq were "inherited" Dark Lords of the Sith. They weren't raised and trained in the Dark Side, so someone had to come in and explain the basics to them.
Ragnos.
4. You are using absence of proof in the case of Ragnos not using the force storm. I can counter that saying Why did they need a force storm during their golden age?
You were the one who said that Ragnos probably suffered a few rebellions, and cut them down.
5. Some of the roleplaying books or games state Ragnos' power, I'd have to get the source for you.
But be advised, you'll open up a can of worms. If the RPG books count for Ragnos, they will apply to Sidious as well.
6. I have looked at the email and I am going to state again that it is completely ambiguous, and shows absolutely nothing about Palpatine being superior to Ragnos. Firstly Lightsnake conveniently shows only the text, not to who or from it was, regardless of whether it is real or not. Then he proceeds to say "Well I asked him these questions and he also told me this that and that which isn't in the email". In this case the emails are inconclusive and you don't seem like an idiot so you must see that..
I'm not going to get started on the subject of the emails. We've already argued before about it.
7. I never stated that Sadow's amulet blasts were more impressive, I stated that his ability to destroy planets was equally as impressive as the Force storm, or maybe not.
No, I'm pretty sure you said that. I'll look on both threads sometime today and see if I can fetch it.
8. Again, unsupported opinions. You can say Sidious didn't need amulets, I can say he didn't know how to create them or channel his abilities through them, like the ancient sith.
Um . . .
We already have proven that Palpatine is a master of Sith alchemy and magics. We've already proven that he's trained several Dark Side adepts to be skilled in that art.
So, here's the kicker.
I do know that Palpatine didn't need amulets or items. Why? Well, firstly, he wasn't seen wearing any, and secondly - if he didn't have the knowledge to build them, that there proves that he didn't need them.
I could also say the ancient sith were masters of sith alchemy and they were constantly experimenting with it, hence the amulets, which is also a logical assumption for why they were used, if not for the fact that in their time it was common. This isn't a blow to Palpatine nor the Ancient Sith.
Like I said. You cannot say that Sadow could blast through walls without his amulets or make two stars go supernova without his ship. You have no proof for either, and common sense prevails that if he didn't need them, he wouldn't have used them.
Yea I know Palpatine demanded the answers, and they basically laughed at him and told him to shut up, while the other one said "Palpatine gave himself to the dark side a long time ago, let him have what he wants". I understand that part, why was it brought up?
No. They attempted to reprimand him. And then they gave in to his request.
If the Ancient Sith's spirits were WTFpowerful, they wouldn't have backed down to Palpatine. But they did and gave him what he wanted. Like I said, the Ancient Sith owns all theory is no longer a valid one.
I do not use "the older the better" theory with the ancient sith. Nor did I say it applied to everyone but Ragnos and Sadow. If you judge by their force abilities, or at least Sadows, you can logically deduce that he was indeed more powerful than at least Kun. I know you think it's illogical to speculate Ragnos' power based on Sadow, but you have to take into effect that an uber powerful force user maybe as good as Palpatine or better or worse, never attempted to dethrone Ragnos, even on his death bed.
Sadow isn't as powerful as Palpatine himself, like I said, considering how dependant he was on his own items.