On certain issues, some of your friends have been known to
harbor extreme biases. That's what led to our falling out, Traya. The subject of the Ancient Sith, for example. How Janus regards Tulak Horde as the best lightsaber duelist on EoD, as I remembered before my account was deleted, despite only a single quote labeling him as any good.
You're trying to make it seem that Janus passed off his position as being infallible and so on. He went on to acknowledge that the list was changeable. Here's the quote:
`No, of course not. But seeing as Tulak Hord's lightsaber skills top those of his era as well as those who came before him and a good deal of those who came after him (Up until the KotOR era at least), this makes him exceptionally good and likely in the top ten. Where I put people in my top ten is entirely my own business. I've already noted that it's subject to change and that nothing's definate or dogma. The sooner you realize this, the easier this becomes.`
Janus openly states that `I've already noted that it's subject to change and that nothing's definate or dogma`. He provides reasons for his position, and acknowledges effectively that his list isn't definite or not subject to change. He's not some raging Ushgarak figure who harbours the largest PT bias you've ever seen and who's mind is constantly unfixed when it comes to change.
Furthmore, whether or not Tulak has one quote to his name is irrelevant in terms of where he ought to be put in a personal, mutable list. It's the content of the quote. So please, don't imply that Janus has some raging bias against anything that isn't an ancient Sith. He doesn't.
And, yet, now, when the manner of Palpatine or any of the 'modern' era is brought up, such quotes are "naked" and without any evidence to back them up.
A further irrelevancy and a fairly broad generalisation. My `friends` don't denounce every quote that is brought up regarding the `modern` era, and to suggest so is unashamebly false. Furthermore, you need to disprove `their`arguments before you can denounce them as being false, which was something I didn't see happen.
Then... Dooku > Anakin (isn't the case)...
You're on shaky ground here, Escape. Janus directly acknowledged at the last permutation of EoD that Anakin was indeed superior to Dooku in lightsabre combat, but that Lucas needed to `put down the pipe` or some other insulting comment. Indeed, you're also presuming that this is the widely held view by `my friends` today and that they haven't changed their minds or adopted new views.
Dooku > Sidious (isn't the case)...
You ought to tailor your arguments a little better. The widely held view was that Dooku was equal to Sidious in terms of lightsabre abilities, but that Sidious would tool Dooku overall. Furthermore, this was a widely held view in the past, and not necessarily now.
Dooku > Yoda (isn't the case).
^ See above. The argument was based upon the AotC depiction of the fight and furthmore, it was in terms of lightsabre abilities. In addition, I seem to remember Nai and Faunus opposing the idea. To further drive in my point, it was a widely held view in the past. Do I have to state this over and over again?
There was a time when Count Dooku was the god of power, other than the Ancient Sith Janus, Illustrious, Nai, Sorgo, Faunus - and, if I recall - even yourself. You argued for it, for the most part.
This is a falsehood. I can recall arguments being made about Malak and Dooku being on par and suchlike. You can either give me a reference to such a post[s] or you may want to think before you spout out anything else. I argued for it? I didn't argue that `Count Dooku was the god of power` and I can't quite remember anyone else professing such views or anything along those lines. In all fairness, I think the reason is that it never happened.
You all present your arguments so well that a lot of people ended up adhering to it. In that respect, you all are among the very best debators (in my honest opinion).But you cannot deny that some of what you all argued is a bit ridiculous.
I can say that some of what we argued might have been a little incorrect, but insofar as MORE official sources have come out since then, some of `our` old theories have been shunned off.
You can rail about how Illustrious and Janus are inhibited by bias and such on, but you saying it neither makes it true nor makes it have any semblance of being correct.