Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Look Glentract, if you're going to use the argument of Illustrious and Janus I won't respond to you anymore. So far all I see from you is repeating everything they say.
When did Janus or Illustrious EVER argue for Sekot.
And btw, most of Janus and Illustrious' arguments I helped come up with. When I argue for the Ancient Sith I'm not rehashing their argument's, much of what I say and what they said I came up with.
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
When did Janus or Illustrious EVER argue for Sekot.And btw, most of Janus and Illustrious' arguments I helped come up with. When I argue for the Ancient Sith I'm not rehashing their argument's, much of what I say and what they said I came up with.
IT doesnt matter who came up with them, they're invalid.
When did Janus or Illustrious EVER argue for Sekot!
Exar Kun>Luke=Wrong
Due to misinformation. We did the best with what we had though.
Ancient sith throwing out stars=wrong
Again, this was before LOTF or DN was written. And even still it might hold true. I recall Lord Darkstar stating that it took the combined strength of the ENTIRE Jedi Order to take him down and that by the time he died he had gotten so powerful that the entire planet shok beneath his feet as he walked.
Exar Kun>Sidious=Wrong
Prove it.
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
When did Janus or Illustrious EVER argue for Sekot![b]Exar Kun>Luke=Wrong
Due to misinformation. We did the best with what we had though.
Ancient sith throwing out stars=wrong
Again, this was before LOTF or DN was written. And even still it might hold true. I recall Lord Darkstar stating that it took the combined strength of the ENTIRE Jedi Order to take him down and that by the time he died he had gotten so powerful that the entire planet shok beneath his feet as he walked.
Exar Kun>Sidious=Wrong
Prove it. [/B]
See NEC, see Dan Wallace and his email, see logical deduction. Oh, and those two argued for Sekot on EOD
See NEC, see Dan Wallace and his email, see logical deduction. Oh, and those two argued for Sekot on EOD
Those aren't good enough sources.
What page of the NEC. What exactly did it state?
What the heck am I supposed to say about an supposed e-mail from Dan Wallace that I've never seen?
Where did they argue for Sekot on EOD. I've had a hand in EVERY argument on EOD concerning SW and I don't remember them ever doing that.
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
[b]See NEC, see Dan Wallace and his email, see logical deduction. Oh, and those two argued for Sekot on EODThose aren't good enough sources.
What page of the NEC. What exactly did it state?
What the heck am I supposed to say about an supposed e-mail from Dan Wallace that I've never seen?
Where did they argue for Sekot on EOD. I've had a hand in EVERY argument on EOD concerning SW and I don't remember them ever doing that. [/B]
LOL!!! Yes Dan Wallace isn't a good enough source.. Thank you for the joke Glentract.
I don't know what page of NEC, it's during the fall of the republi..
LOL.. Sorry what you said was just too funny.
I didn't say that Dan Wallace isn't a good enough source, just that the supposed e-mail from him is unconfirmed and unsubstantiated.
If you want to use the NEC as a source, you HAVE to know the page number. Untill you can tell me the exact page, STFU.
And again, where did they argue for Sekot on EOD. I've had a hand in EVERY argument on EOD concerning SW and I don't remember them ever doing that.
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
[B]I didn't say that Dan Wallace isn't a good enough source, just that the supposed e-mail from him is unconfirmed and unsubstantiated.
If you want to use the NEC as a source, you HAVE to know the page number. Untill you can tell me the exact page, STFU.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
No no, I have a friend that works at aol that looked him up, it is Dan Wallace, and that email WAS confirmed. I double checked it many times.
Prove it to ME.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Try doing some reading yourself..I told you where to look, look around page 45+
That's not how this works. If you want to argue the point, you provide the exact page number.
And again, where did they argue for Sekot on EOD. I've had a hand in EVERY argument on EOD concerning SW and I don't remember them ever doing that.