Revan versus Yoda and Mace Windu

You are missing the point. It is stated in the book and it's clear as day. Who are YOU to interpret it to fit your argument? You can't pick and choose what you want to interpet, that's not logical debating.

I agree with Adas... It was a statement that could refer to Yoda's conviction. Until it is defined as strength in the substansive sense(ie., Yoda was the most potent Jedi force user ever) , I see no reason to interpret it as such. It could just as easily mean strength of convictions. As such, it is not an intelligent point to bring up to support an argument.

Besides, there is a flaw in the quote anyways. It fails to regard future generations of Jedi such as Luke, and as such should be retconned. The quotation itself is never defined to include only those Jedi before the PT.

Originally posted by zephiel7
Besides, there is a flaw in the quote anyways. It fails to regard future generations of Jedi such as Luke, and as such should be retconned.

Excuse me? That quote was made during RotS. Luke wasn't even born by the time Sidious and Yoda faced off. It doesn't need to acknowledge future generations.

"Finally, he saw the truth.

This truth: that he, the avatar of light, Supreme Master of the Jedi Order, the fiercest, most implacable, most devastatingly powerful foe the darkness had ever known..."

Oh, yes. That is a BLATANT reference to conviction...

Originally posted by Escape81
Excuse me? That quote was made during RotS. Luke wasn't even born by the time Sidious and Yoda faced off. It doesn't need to acknowledge future generations.

If you chose to apply it in the Star Wars universe in general, then you would also have to apply it to future generations, because the author himself does not specify. I was merely stating that even if the reader choses to interpret the quote as strength in the substansive sense, then if it were to refer to every Jedi outside the PT (which the writer himself does not clearly distinguish), it is retconned by Luke, and thus holds no water.

In any case, the quote is purposefully ambiguous and cannot be taken seriously. A "naked quote" that is ambiguous and interpretive in nature is not something that I would view seriously, regardless to whom it applies to.

Can we agree that it is a non-valid point in an argument, Escape?

(Btw, I consider anything like that non-valid in an argument).

(Btw, I consider anything like that non-valid in an argument). [/B]

I agree

It's a perfectly valid arguement. Had ever known doesn't include future generations, and since the only Jedi who are close to Yoda in power by that point are Odan, Vodo, and maybe one or two others there is no problem with it.

If you chose to apply it in the Star Wars universe in general, then you would also have to apply it to future generations, because the author himself does not specify.

"that he, the avatar of light, Supreme Master of the Jedi Order, the fiercest, most implacable, most devastatingly powerful foe the darkness had ever known..."

This quote was made regarding the battle between Sidious and Yoda. At this time, Luke and Leia were still residing in Padme's stomach - and were not born.

The quote is plainly obvious, Zephiel. At that time, Yoda was the most powerful "foe the darkness had ever known", but only at that time - when Luke began to become more powerful, such as in DE and NJO - he surpassed Yoda, if on panel evidence is sufficient enough to dictate anything.

By RotS (by Revenge of the Sith), Yoda was the most powerful Jedi ever. That means his power supercedes all before him. Doesn't say a damn thing about anyone after.

And, this quote is still stated by an out-of-universe canon authority.

It applies.

Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
It's a perfectly valid arguement. Had ever known doesn't include future generations, and since the only Jedi who are close to Yoda in power by that point are Odan, Vodo, and maybe one or two others there is no problem with it.

Hmmm, perhaps, but I am still waiting to see that it actually means strength in the substansive sense. I believe Wallace stated that such "naked quotes" were not always 100% accurate.

This was made with regards to the claim that by ROTS Palpatine was the "most powerful Sith Lord ever.." (from NEC)

One could state that "Napolean was the greatest conqueror this world had ever known" and imply it to future generations as well. I still don't see it holding water.

No it wouldn't. If it said something like "Napolean was the greatest conqueror this world had ever" or "Napolean was the greatest conqueror this world has ever known" then it would. It doesn't, so it does not.

So, it is a valid point or no?

Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
It's a perfectly valid arguement. Had ever known doesn't include future generations, and since the only Jedi who are close to Yoda in power by that point are Odan, Vodo, and maybe one or two others there is no problem with it.

Jesus christ Glentract, get off of your TOTJ high horse. Odan and Vodo are NOT close to Yoda. Get it through your skull.. And once again, Escape is right. The quote is conclusive in terms of #1 at that point. The end.

Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
[b]One could state that "Napolean was the greatest conqueror this world had ever known" and imply it to future generations as well. I still don't see it holding water.

No it wouldn't. If it said something like "Napolean was the greatest conqueror this world had ever" or "Napolean was the greatest conqueror this world has ever known" then it would. It doesn't, so it does not. [/B]

I know, I already edited the post, it seems you were quick to reply 😛

Hmmm, perhaps, but I am still waiting to see that it actually means strength in the substansive sense. I believe Wallace stated that such "naked quotes" were not always 100% accurate.

This was made with regards to the claim that by ROTS Palpatine was the "most powerful" Sith Lord ever.." (from NEC)

Originally posted by zephiel7
I know, I already edited the post, it seems you were quick to reply 😛

[b]Hmmm, perhaps, but I am still waiting to see that it actually means strength in the substansive sense. I believe Wallace stated that such "naked quotes" were not always 100% accurate.

This was made with regards to the claim that by ROTS Palpatine was the "most powerful" Sith Lord ever.." (from NEC) [/B]

RotS novelization = canon.

The quote = out of universe statement detailed in the past tense. It indicates only that, by RotS, Yoda was the most powerful foe of the Dark Side in history (RotS on back).

Nothing about future generations.

It applies.

So Escape says it's a valid point, right?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Jesus christ Glentract, get off of your TOTJ high horse. Odan and Vodo are NOT close to Yoda. Get it through your skull.. And once again, Escape is right. The quote is conclusive in terms of #1 at that point. The end.

You'll have to excuse Glentract, DS. He's from some of the guys who think that because Vodo taught Kun, he obviously equates to sheer uberness.

If I may:

"Dooku > Sidious for the win!"

Originally posted by Escape81
You'll have to excuse Glentract, DS. He's from some of the guys who think that because Vodo taught Kun, he obviously equates to sheer uberness.

If I may:

"Dooku > Sidious for the win!"

It's not that, its that he's copying the arguments of Janus and Illustrious VERBATIM. It's retarded.

Originally posted by Escape81
RotS novelization = canon.

The quote = out of universe statement detailed in the past tense. It indicates only that, by RotS, Yoda was the most powerful foe of the Dark Side in history (RotS on back).

Nothing about future generations.

It applies.

I am willing to conceed to this

BUT

I am waiting for an explanation that it is power in the substansive sense...

From Wallace with regards to the "obvious" quote that by ROTS Sidious "is the most powerful Sith Lord in history."

From Wallace.

a) As it turns out, Palpatine was only the "most powerful" when it came to political maneuvering, not ghost-ass-kicking

I [don't think Lucasfilm is ever going to publish "power charts" or something like that indicating who could beat who,

Pray tell, by what Wallace states, would that influence your bearing to interpret the quote as a reference to substansive strength? Or interpret it as strength of convictions...

Until I know this information, I see it as unfair to interpret the quote as "substansive power." They said they would not print "power charts," as a result, implying that these "naked quotes" are "power charts" mean very little...

I haven't cited that tNEC quote in a while, ever since Wallace responded to Lightsnake's emails.

I use Dark Empire quotes and quotes from other sourcebooks.

What I said, though, is this. When that quote was made, Illustrious savagely argued that the quote was referring to Sidious's political power.

The quote itself is:

"Yoda could not defeat the most powerful Sith Lord in history."

Because the context of the situation was a fight, I don't see how it could be a reference to political power. But such is Illustrious's thinking on regards to characters that he doesn't like.

Originally posted by Escape81
I haven't cited that tNEC quote in a while, ever since Wallace responded to Lightsnake's emails.

I use Dark Empire quotes and quotes from other sourcebooks.

What I said, though, is this. When that quote was made, Illustrious savagely argued that the quote was referring to Sidious's political power.

The quote itself is:

"Yoda could not defeat the most powerful Sith Lord in history."

Because the context of the situation was a fight, I don't see how it could be a reference to political power. But such is Illustrious's thinking on regards to characters that he doesn't like.

Um Excuse me, it was MY emails that brought Dan Wallace to these forums, hell it was MY topic with the NEC quote, don't give LS credit for my shit....thats all.

Originally posted by xxXAcStylesXxx
Um Excuse me, it was MY emails that brought Dan Wallace to these forums, hell it was MY topic with the NEC quote, don't give LS credit for my shit....thats all.

Whoops.

He told me that he sent his own emails, too.

Chill.