Originally posted by Lightsnake
Hm, where was it said Yoda taught Dooku Makashi? Yoda couldn't really use much else besides Ataru
Considering Yoda was Dooku's master I believe? What, Dooku learned Makashi by himself? Lol.. And Yoda did know all the saber forms, including Vaapad I think.. Doesn't mean he had to use them.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
No, that DOESNT mean without the amulets there would have been nothing of what you describe, unless you are willing to quantify their power with and without the amulets. That's like saying "Well Exar Kun would have been a weakling without the amulets". An argument like that doesn't exist since we've never seen it, so it is an invalid argument saying "They were weaker without it" or "They couldn't do it without it".
Wrong, it is a completely valid argument because we know that they never did these things without the amulets. Never. Not once. Not a single time.
Your argument is moot.
WRONG, then you would be saying Exar Kun is a nobody because he used his amulet and sith teachings. Your argument is moot because you're trying to use absence of PROOF as validity to support your argument, thinking the fact that they didn't do it meant they can't, is more logical than they didn't do it for other reasons.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
WRONG, then you would be saying Exar Kun is a nobody because he used his amulet and sith teachings. Your argument is moot because you're trying to use absence of PROOF as validity to support your argument, thinking the fact that they didn't do it meant they can't, is more logical than they didn't do it for other reasons.
No. I am saying that Kun (like Sadow) couldn't have created the blasts without the amulets. Doesn't make him a nobody, as Kun has done more impressive things than just blast through walls.
As I told you before, the "absence of proof is not proof of absence" isn't a shield in an argument. Just because you say that doesn't mean that my supported opinion doesn't unravel. It in fact, confirms that you have no proof (ie: absence of proof)
Fact: Kun nor Sadow were ever seen blasting through walls without the amulets.
Fact: Sith Lords were still ruthless then. Why would Sadow create artifacts that, in another's hand, could ultimately be a weapon for his enemy?
Fact: Why would Sadow create these items, if he did not need them in the first place.
Fact: If he wanted future generations to have them, what's that mean? He still used them in combat, and wasn't seen replicating the same feats without them.
Originally posted by Escape81
No. I am saying that Kun (like Sadow) couldn't have created the blasts without the amulets. Doesn't make him a nobody, as Kun has done more impressive things than just blast through walls.As I told you before, the "absence of proof is not proof of absence" isn't a shield in an argument. Just because you say that doesn't mean that my supported opinion doesn't unravel. It in fact, confirms that you have no proof (ie: [B]absence of proof
)Fact: Kun nor Sadow were ever seen blasting through walls without the amulets.
Fact: Sith Lords were still ruthless then. Why would Sadow create artifacts that, in another's hand, could ultimately be a weapon for his enemy?
Fact: Why would Sadow create these items, if he did not need them in the first place.
Fact: If he wanted future generations to have them, what's that mean? He still used them in combat, and wasn't seen replicating the same feats without them. [/B]
Absence of proof is not a shield, but you claim I don't have an argument while you are using that exact argument to try to prove your point..
I understand the amulet blasts through walls because it channels your hate exponentially through the amulet, hence my point about the amulet channeling and augmenting your abilities, which is fine. You'll never see Palpatine blasting through walls either...
You are saying the didn't create amulets and talismans to be passed down? Weird, what did we see in the fight between Kun and Qel Droma? Oh yes, the long dead spirit of Ragnos coming back, explaining them the past, etc... So again it is very logical to assume those items were used to pass down as I have provided proof.
Absence of proof is not a shield, but you claim I don't have an argument while you are using that exact argument to try to prove your point..
You don't have an argument. You yourself said "absence of proof is not proof of absence". You have no proof, so therefore, you rely on this as an excuse.
It doesn't work.
I understand the amulet blasts through walls because it channels your hate exponentially through the amulet, hence my point about the amulet channeling and augmenting your abilities, which is fine.
That is my point. When something channels or augments, that means it focuses it and makes it stronger. Meaning that without the object that augments it, you couldn't perform the trait.
Perfect example.
Lasers can cut through diamond, the hardest substance on the planet. But what are lasers? Just light. Light that is augmented and focused. But if you plop a diamond out in the middle of your yard in the hottest, most brightest day - nothing is going to happen.
Point: Light can't cut through diamond unless it is focused and augmented by a machine.
Point: Sadow can't blast through walls unless he's focused and augmented by his amulets.
You'll never see Palpatine blasting through walls either...
I never said that he could do it in the first place. Poor argument.
You are saying the didn't create amulets and talismans to be passed down? Weird, what did we see in the fight between Kun and Qel Droma? Oh yes, the long dead spirit of Ragnos coming back, explaining them the past, etc... So again it is very logical to assume those items were used to pass down as I have provided proof.
You miss the point.
Even if they did, it still doesn't excuse the fact that Sadow actively used these items in combat.
You are right but YOU were saying they were using these amulets and what not because they were either weak or couldn't perform certain feats. Again I will remind you that Ragnos marked Kun and Qel Droma as a 1,000 year old spirit..
And IM saying that whether they COULD or COULDNT perform those feats, meaning it could go either way meaning there's no conclusive evidence on either except absence of proof, they used those amulets as multipurpose tools. Items that could use the force and be passed down. You can't tell me that my argument is wrong because it's assumption is just as valid.
Originally posted by Lightsnake
Except Yoda says Dooku was always his most frustrating and difficult student. We know Dooku was a radical and nothing ever mentions Yoda used Makashi...Yoda is PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of using anything but Ataru
More excuses
#1. Prove Yoda was physically incapable, considering he knew all of the forms except obviously vaapad.
#2. Calling dooku frustrating and what not doesn't warrant the fact that Yoda most obviously taught him Makashi, and is a weak excuse for a poor argument.
#3. Regardless if Dooku was frustrating, he was still Yoda's student and didn't join the sith til after Qui Gon's death..
Please provide a better argument.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
You are right but YOU were saying they were using these amulets and what not because they were either weak or couldn't perform certain feats. Again I will remind you that Ragnos marked Kun and Qel Droma as a 1,000 year old spirit..
And IM saying that whether they COULD or COULDNT perform those feats, meaning it could go either way meaning there's no conclusive evidence on either except absence of proof, they used those amulets as multipurpose tools. Items that could use the force and be passed down. You can't tell me that my argument is wrong because it's assumption is just as valid.
I can tell you, which you've confirmed, is that I have more proof backing me than what you do. You only have your "absence of proof".
Like I told you before about the laser anology. Without the machine that focuses and augments the it, light itself cannot burn through diamond, the hardest substance on Earth.
Hell, even when light can burn grass - it requires extremely dry circumstances - or a magnifying glass, which provides the same anology. A magnifying glass in a hot day can be used to burn grass. But it is because the glass itself magnifies the sun's own energy.
Are you understanding?
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
More excuses
#1. Prove Yoda was physically incapable, considering he knew all of the forms except obviously vaapad.
#2. Calling dooku frustrating and what not doesn't warrant the fact that Yoda most obviously taught him Makashi, and is a weak excuse for a poor argument.
#3. Regardless if Dooku was frustrating, he was still Yoda's student and didn't join the sith til after Qui Gon's death..Please provide a better argument.
I'd like to interrupt by saying "knowing" something and "using" it is all together two fundamentally different things.
1. Find me one source saying he did. yoda's always been an ataru user. Mace, in the ROTS novelization said Yoda needed to use Ataru to compensate for his age and size...Yoda's POV in Dark Rendevous mentions Dooku always being willful and learning things outside from him...
2. Dooku wasn't Yoda's student anymroe when Qui-Gon died...by about fifty years
Originally posted by GM Nebaris
The thing is, it's definitely clear that he was once at this site under another username. He keeps in hinting it, such as 'Lightsnake you're just getting pwned like you did 4 months ago by IKC'. It's definitely clear that he is very much in favour of Ragnos. It's also definitely clear that he has some sort of problem with you. TDTD is the only person who it could possibly be. God I truly am smart for being the first person figure it all out and tell everyone, huh.
Don't get cocky. Generic Hero was the first to voice his opinion about it, and I've already had the situation taken care of.
Back off.
Originally posted by Lightsnake
1. Find me one source saying he did. yoda's always been an ataru user. Mace, in the ROTS novelization said Yoda needed to use Ataru to compensate for his age and size...Yoda's POV in Dark Rendevous mentions Dooku always being willful and learning things outside from him...
2. Dooku wasn't Yoda's student anymroe when Qui-Gon died...by about fifty years
1. So Yoda was teaching Ataru to all the younglings? There's a difference between teaching a form and using a form for yourself lightsnake, you out of all people should know that.
Mace saying what Yoda used is irrelevant to the fact that Yoda can steal teach forms.
2. You're always asking for a specific source when you are wrong in an argument or offer a weak argument. And I'm using logical deduction in the case that Yoda was Dooku's master, Dooku learned Makashi from Yoda. Unless you can provide BETTER Logic or evidence, this makes more sense.. Anyways I will be back later.
Originally posted by Escape81
Don't get cocky. Generic Hero was the first to voice his opinion about it, and I've already had the situation taken care of.Back off.
Thank you.. You guys can really IM me on aim, maybe we can take care of this argument privately so I don't have to waste too much time on here..