Originally posted by Manslayer
And for what reason must malak stun revan?
z0mg, why did Traya instakill those three Jedi masters?
z0mg, why did Count Dooku use Force lightning on Anakin Skywalker?
z0mg, why did Darth Sidious use Force lightning on Yoda?
The fact that he used a Force power is largely irrelevant in regards to how the match went, as in most cases, this means little to jack shit (and since there's no evidence to supports your position (that Malak was getting curbstomped) one can only assume that it isn't the case). But, I noticed that instead of merely saying "u r rite, advent", you have to make an argument.
Why? Saying that Revan "beat Malak no sweat" isn't even logical, based on the evidence, and reasoning presented, much less dialogue and actions in the source material.
Its a possibility that malak couldnt handle revan at all thus why he had to stun him.
Which is also unsupported. If he was dominating the match as you so clearly stated, then this shouldn't have even happened. Even assuming that it did, there'd be no reason to not wait for the effects to wear off, and then destroy Malak.
Yes this is my [completely unsupported] assumption so its not proven but ill concede
"But ill concede"? You act as if you had a choice to begin with, your claim was blatant bullshit!
Maybe not so
Definitely not.
There's only a few select individuals (Gideon, AcStyles, LS, Nai, and myself) who even possess capable reasoning skills. The rest are either quasi intellectuals, or plain morons.
but not till you see what the people in the past typed, Like ragnos wtf pwning DE sidious
I've already reviewed nearly every single line from days past, so I've already seen such things.
So, because they believed X capable of kicking the ever living shit out of Y, they're not more intelligent, use more logic, etc? Because you say so? Don't be ridiculous, Manslayer. One single member of the Antediluvians was able to make a post that was much, much more sound and logical than half the people on this board now combined.
It doesn't matter who they believed to be the greatest (as there wasn't as many sources floating around back then as there is now), because when looking at who won the arguments, they did. It doesn't matter if they're wrong now, because they could make better arguments then. It's that simple.
Anyways, I'm done. This is irrelevant to the point, and off-topic.
Just one thing to add, when carth refered to malak could have killed them he could have refered to the time when malak was going to strike revan down after revan got stunned.
Nonsense, he's clearly saying that in regards to their overall encounter, as he continually says the same thing (and includes "us", not "Revan"馃槈, and to Bastila as well when she goes to confront him in Revan's stead.
The fact is, it's not that what Carth says is absolute or 100% correct, it's the matter that it speaks to the contrary (that Revan "beat Malak, no sweat"馃槈.
Because i dont see how malak is stronger than revan
Except Carth clearly believes he is, as does Bastila. Otherwise her sacrifice would've been needless. Ergo, it speaks contrary to your ridiculous assertion.
Using your nitpicking that passes for logic, I could say ask you why Bastila didn't simply hold off Malak, wait for Revan, and kill him? That would, after all, be the most logical route. He didn't really need to leave the ship if what you're saying was true.
The fact is, it's not that what Carth says is absolute or 100% correct, it's the matter that it speaks to the contrary (that Revan "beat Malak, no sweat"馃槈.
especially if revan could kill malak on the starforge
See above; this means jack shit.