Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Ignoring the truth doesn't make it any less true, Advent. Your fanboyism can't change reality...
1. Back up your claim that she is a fanboy or "girl" for that matter. Creating a logical argument for a character doesn't make one a fanboy.
2. Refute her argument.
If you can't do both 1 and 2, then don't type because your accusations are unwarranted.
I already did both.
she's a fanboy because she supports Maul in situations where logic dictates that he has no chance of winning, says stupid things about Maul beating the "best Jedi evar!!11!!," and has admitted to agreeing with Nebaris' idiocy on many occasions.
Vader has already beat Maul in a canon story. That means this fight has already occurred, and Vader was the winner. Arguing otherwise is arguing against canon.
I suggest you look at Advent's arguments from a while back. I would say that I would show more fanboyism at times than I have ever seen from Advent. And if you read the comic you would know that it was not said i it was the real Maul and Sidious's expression or what I would say a lack of surprise does not entirely rule out the possibility of Sidious's own involvement in it.
Originally posted by fascistcrusader
[Bshe's a fanboy because she supports Maul in situations where logic dictates that he has no chance of winning, says stupid things about Maul beating the "best Jedi evar!!11!!," and has admitted to agreeing with Nebaris' idiocy on many occasions.
[/B]
She never said the he beat the best jedi ever. She said Maul defeated a jedi who' saber skills were described as second to none. Plus that was before TPM. And Nebaris can construct good arguments whether they go against canon or not. and she never said that she bought into Nebaris's views rather she hold him in higher regard (or respect him) than other people here. Plus she never actually said that "Maul wins or Vader loses"
Regardless of how highly she regards him, she said she agrees with him a lot, and he rarely agrees with canon.
And she has been implying very heavily that Maul wins, when we know that Vader did win this fight. I just hate arguments that go against canon. Regardless of whether or not you think Maul would beat Vader, Vader won. Regardless of whether you think Yoda could pwn Sidious, Sidious won. regardless of whether or not you think Qui Gin could beat Maul, Maul won.
Arguments like those are a pet peeve of mine. Its one thing if its a complete hypothetical like Revan vs Vader, but if we already know the outcome of a certain battle why fight canon?
Originally posted by fascistcrusader
I already did both.she's a fanboy because she supports Maul in situations where logic dictates that he has no chance of winning. I am an idiot.
Bullshit. Show me this supposed logic. I've explained numerous times why you're wrong and clearly demonstrated my point, simply because you refuse to concede due to your stubbornness and apparent mental retardation doesn't mean that I'm a "fanboy".
says stupid things about Maul beating the "best Jedi evar!!11!!,". I am an idiot.
Originally posted by Advent
Uh, how doesn't it make sense? Mace Windu had progressed by a large margin during the period in between TPM and ROTS. Logically since Yoda has ALWAYS been regarded as his superior, Yoda must have improved greatly as well. Which means that Anoon Bondara doesn't necessarily have to be on par with ROTS Yoda.
You were saying? The only one exaggerating here is you. Also, how is commenting on the fight between Maul and Anoon - who is confirmed by canon to be a more skilled duelist than TPM Yoda - "stupid"? You've yet to explain that one.
and has admitted to agreeing with Nebaris' idiocy on many occasions. I am an idiot.
This statement alone proves your idiocy. You claimed that I was a 'fanboy'. How would me agreeing with Nebaris (when he's right) support your claim? It wouldn't.
Vader has already beat Maul in a canon story. That means this fight has already occurred, and Vader was the winner. Arguing otherwise is arguing against canon.
Originally posted by Advent
You cannot conclusively prove that it was equal to or greater than the actual Darth Maul. Ergo, [b]it is meaningless. Is the concept of logic that hard to grasp for you?[/B]
Its no use arguing with you. Some people can never admit when they're wrong, even when canon says they are.
Translation: I cannot provide sufficient evidence to back up my claim and prove that the Darth Maul witnessed in Resurrection was equal to that of its movie counterpart. Therefore, I will rely on the subtle tactic of trying to deceive people by twisting what I'm doing onto you rather than risk looking like a complete moron and attempting to refute your posts.
No what canon says is Vader beat "resurrection" Maul not TPM Maul and since there is not enough information on what the "resurrection" Maul is it can't be completely determined. It could be a clone,could have been created with sith alchemy or it could have been the real Maul with a healed body or the "spirit" of the real Maul in a new body.
Clone, spirit in a new body, etc, it doesn't matter. Vader still beat Maul. A clone of Maul or a new body for Maul doesn't change Mauls's skill level or knowledge of the force, and Vader beat it. This means V ader did beat Maul.
Your argument is like saying that no one beat Palpatine in Dark Empire because it was just Palpatine's spirit in a clone body.
Difference is that we know what DE Sidious is and that DE Sidious is greater than any other previous incarnation. We know it was Sidious's spirit in a new body. We don't know if this was a clone had the original Maul's spirit in it or if it was its own being based on Maul. Plus you would have to prove that resurrection Maul>TPM Maul. To simply say that Vader killed ressurection Maul does not mean he automatically beats TPM Maul which I think is one of Advent's points.
And on another note I notice that no one has brought up the point that this vader is that of ROTJ not resurection if anyone has any thoughts on this.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Advent, how is "his skills with a blade are second to none" implying that he is better than Yoda? For all you know, Yoda is also "second to none" and they are equals.
Oh, please. Do you even know what an implication means? It means that it leads one to believe something even if its not outright stated. Saying that he's "second to none" implies that he is above all others. The same novel also refers to Yoda's skills as "second to none on the Jedi Council" shortly thereafter, so the author gives us an obvious outline: that Anoon's skills are second to none in the Jedi Order and Yoda's skills are second to none on the Jedi Council (the Jedi Order as a whole includes the Jedi Council obviously).
That not withstanding, your assumption would depend upon the extremely unlikely and asinine idea that they are SHEER EQUALS, that they are on the exact same level. Which is pretty stupid if you ask me.
That not withstanding, your assumption would depend upon the extremely unlikely and asinine idea that they are SHEER EQUALS, that they are on the exact same level. Which is pretty stupid if you ask me.
According to the Revenge of the Sith novelization, Darth Sidious and Mace Windu achieved this state of absolute parity once Windu had submerged himself in Vaapad; while it is unlikely that Master Yoda and Anoon Bondara were precise equals with a lightsaber, one cannot rule the possibility out. Especially when one's argument seems to be based on, in one's own words, an "implication".
Originally posted by Advent
Oh, please. Do you even know what an implication means? It means that it leads one to believe something even if its not outright stated. Saying that he's "second to none" implies that he is above all others. The same novel also refers to Yoda's skills as "second to none on the Jedi Council" shortly thereafter, so the author gives us an obvious outline: that Anoon's skills are second to none in the Jedi Order and Yoda's skills are second to none on the Jedi Council (the Jedi Order as a whole includes the Jedi Council obviously).That not withstanding, your assumption would depend upon the extremely unlikely and asinine idea that they are SHEER EQUALS, that they are on the [b]exact same level
. Which is pretty stupid if you ask me. [/B]
Don't lecture me on the definition of "implication", because I am well aware. If you're going to claim that "second to none" means that Bondara is superior to Yoda, that's your opinion. However, it doesn't make much sense since Maul bet Bondara, which would mean that Maul is at least in Yoda's league, where that's not the case. Did you forget that to beat Palpatine (who was considerably more powerful than Maul), you need to be Yoda or Mace.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Don't lecture me on the definition of "implication", because I am well aware.
Obviously not if you don't believe that it doesn't imply he is above all others, especially considering the two other things I mentioned.
If you're going to claim that "second to none" means that Bondara is superior to Yoda, that's your opinion.
No, its a logical deduction based on what's written in the book and the fact that Yoda and Anoon would have to be on completely equal footing in terms of skill.
However, it doesn't make much sense
You're absolutely right - your position doesn't make much sense.
since Maul bet Bondara, which would mean that Maul is at least in Yoda's league, where that's not the case.
Why? Because you typed it out?
Did you forget that to beat Palpatine (who was considerably more powerful than Maul), you need to be Yoda or Mace.
You're leaving out two essential details that render this point void:
Originally posted by Advent
Mace Windu had progressed by a large margin during the period in between TPM and ROTS. Logically since Yoda has ALWAYS been regarded as his superior, Yoda must have improved greatly as well.
That, and Yoda and Mace (Yoda, especially) are much more gifted Force users meaning they are much more well-equipped to handle Darth Sidious.
That, and Yoda and Mace (Yoda, especially) are much more gifted Force users meaning they are much more well-equipped to handle Darth Sidious. [/B]
Lucas' statement could mean that Yoda and Mace are good enough to handle Sidious with a saber, or it could mean they are good enough with the force. You can't make the claim that it was because they were better equipped with the force because the statement is as open to interpretation as the Vanity Fair statement..
But you're basically saying that Yoda was progressing at a normal rate for 800 years, and suddenly in a 10 year span, he surpasses everybody else. Does that make much sense to you Advent?
Originally posted by Advent
Whatever you undermining jackass. Instead of these types of "LOL MAUL IS BEST! ADVENT TOLD ME!" posts when discussing anything about Maul, why don't you add something useful to the discussion?In what way exactly? Although, I do agree, elaborate on what you mean in reference to this thread.
😂
Classical. I really do get an enjoyment out of your presence.
Mace stating that Depa's bladework had surpassed his own.
Kenobi stating in ROTS that Anakin is a FAR better Jedi than he could ever hope to be.
See what I mean SW just happends to be full of them.
The book was published in 2001. How would the author know of Yoda's saber abilitied seeing as to how he first ignited a lightsaber in 2002.