Originally posted by jollyjim311
I've read it. It says nothing as far as him using the force goes. Only that he knows how, and has notes.
Well being the most powerful jedi ever until Luke, being noted to be able to lift a landing pod (I think it was that, not sure) with one hand when Windu couldn't move it at all, having most likley the highest Midichlorian count in the whole PT except for Anakin, plus having a defence against every single technique and 800 years of studying.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
On par means equal, in the same league means they're in the same category of superiority, yet one is better than the other. Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan are in the same league, but NOT on par with each other
1. On par means close to equal, not exactly equal.
2. Jordan and Kobe are not in the same league, Jordan >>> Kobe. Kobe ain't quite in the big leagues just yet.
HAHAHA hell yea!! Jordan pwns Kobe!!!! No, but if youre on par, i means your are in fact equals though right? Is there a way to check? Ill check real quick.
EDIT:
Main Entry: 1par
Pronunciation: 'pär
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, one that is equal, from par equal
1 a : the established value of the monetary unit of one country expressed in terms of the monetary unit of another country using the same metal as the standard of value b : the face amount of an instrument of value (as a check or note): as (1) : the monetary value assigned to each share of stock in the charter of a corporation (2) : the principal of a bond
2 : common level : EQUALITY -- usually used with on <judged the recording to be on a par with previous ones>
3 a : an amount taken as an average or norm b : an accepted standard; specifically : a usual standard of physical condition or health
4 : the score standard for each hole of a golf course; also : a score equal to par
- par adjective
- par for the course : not unusual : NORMAL
now number 2 shows equality, even capitalized (i didnt do that), so on par means equals, not close to, equals.
And i really dont want to hear that SW has its own definitions away from the actual english language. Thats a cop out.
Originally posted by kamikz
Well being the most powerful jedi ever until Luke, being noted to be able to lift a landing pod (I think it was that, not sure) with one hand when Windu couldn't move it at all, having most likley the highest Midichlorian count in the whole PT except for Anakin, plus having a defence against every single technique and 800 years of studying.
Haha. I was talking about Revan.
If Yoda is the most powerful up until Luke (making his better than Revan, of course), and Mace is on par with Yoda ( [ First line ]his inferior, true, but close), then why is it that Mace needs to be proved stronger than Revan and not the opposite? We actually have seen displays of power from Mace, and we know specifics, and, to be frank, they're damn good. It would look like it begs the question "Why is Revan as powerful as Mace?" and not "Why is Mace as powerful as Revan?"
Originally posted by jollyjim311
Haha. I was talking about Revan.If Yoda is the most powerful up until Luke (making his better than Revan, of course), and Mace is on par with Yoda ( [ First line ]his inferior, true, but close), then why is it that Mace needs to be proved stronger than Revan and not the opposite? We actually have seen displays of power from Mace, and we know specifics, and, to be frank, they're damn good. It would look like it begs the question "Why is Revan as powerful as Mace?" and not "Why is Mace as powerful as Revan?"
because im starting to think that the Yoda statement was an in universe statement.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
That means it doesn't hold water.
Is that right?
The movies and novelizations, unfortunately, are canon. EU works are not, if they contradict with canon sources. Perfect example: Apparently, Sirak (a fighter from Revan's time) was said to have been versed in Vaapad (which was invented by Mace Windu). This statement in PoD doesn't change a damn thing.
Mace invented Vaapad, meaning Sirak didn't know it, despite PoD saying as such.
Movies > EU works.
The novelization, stated by the omniscient narrator, said that Yoda was the most powerful foe of the Darkness, ever. This is a fact. The EU must adhere to it.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
"omniscient narrator" means it's an opinion, not fact.
No, it does not.
It isn't a character speaking, or an in-universe source. It is the work itself, speaking.
Omniscience means "all knowing", anyways. So, even if it were an "omniscient in-universe source", it would still apply.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I was told by the likes of Illustrious and Janus that these random statements are in universe, and therefore hold no water over EU.
Consider the source, DS. The line about Yoda, to my knowledge, was not in universe, and I own the novelization. It wasn't a character saying that "Yoda was the most powerful Jedi ever". It was the work itself dictating it.
And, on the subject of Illustrious and Janus, please. Having Yoda reign supreme would ruin their idea of the PT sucking, and the older Jedi/Sith ruling/owning all.
These were the guys that said that "Yoda could not defeat the most powerful Sith Lord ever" was a reference to political power...