Originally posted by MutantMessiah
That had nothing to do with the point I was making. The fact that he lacked the precognitive ability, reflexes, and speed to prevent getting hit by the lightning in the first place would suggest a lack of ability.Bastilla =/= Mighella. She's depicted as being an extremely talented Jedi whereas Mighella is depicted as a relative nobody. She has proven abilities that put her far above the insignificant Nightsister.
Making things up now are we? Here's a tip: keep the comic book pages hidden if you're going to blatantly come up with lies about them.
Skilled in the darkside =/= strong in the force, not to mention that he made the reference to the general Nightsister. Fact of the matter is, Mighella has no proven force strength whatsoever, and funnily enough, neither does Maul. Bastilla, on the other hand, displays an extreme level of power (effortlessly overpowering the force defences of two Jedi at once) and logically easily has Maul beat in that department.
I suggested it, I didn't say that you had done it.
Right.
No-Name.
Know what you're talking about.
Originally posted by darthsith19
btw please hurry up and get banned again, noobrais, nobody really wants to "debate" with you.
Your comparison couldn't be more extreme. Luke Skywalker was a being of enormous potential that was almost fully untapped. Luke giving over to his feelings was always going to have an enormous result, however you can't just honour by association. Kenobi had been trained in the use of the lightsaber and the force for two decades, and a far lesser potential, so the effects of giving into his rage would never be quite the same.
Absolute bullshit. The relative magnitude of Skywalker's and Kenobi's potentials is irrelevant; it's not as if this moment of emotional weakness allowed Skywalker to tap into his entire reserves of power -- for he would, at that point, been twice as powerful as Emperor Palpatine himself, and such a being is more than capable of utterly annihilating Darth Vader -- all it did was increase his combat performance. The aggression fueled his strength, speed, and determination. Consider that Skywalker was then able to physically overpower and drive back Darth Vader (imbued with considerable Force power in his own right, not to mention his mechanical limbs), relying primarily on wild strikes, swinging his lightsaber like a baseball bat. Likewise, Kenobi was -- as you are found of saying -- a padawan, so while his potential is nothing that registers to Luke's own, that doesn't mean that it didn't register next to Maul's, and like Skywalker, his potential was largely untapped.
Your comparisons get more absurd by the minute. Vaapad is about enjoying the thrill of battle, and drawing from your opponent's power and reflecting it back at them. It's not even comparable to simply giving into one's rage.
The mindset involves "enjoying the thrill of battle" -- i.e., giving into one's aggressive feelings -- there is a reason why Vaapad is so restricted, Nebaris, why it is referred to as "the most demanding", "the penumbra of the dark side", and why Jedi Knights may only attempt to utilize Vaapad only with Windu's explicit permission.
Actually, it would seem that Darth Sidious may have in fact been in control of Maul's ferociousness the entire time. After Maul's rage had subsided, Sidious is seen with a rewarded smile on his face.
I expect better.
The entire purpose of the staged fight was to bait Darth Maul into using his aggressive feelings to attack Sidious with the intent to kill, and Maul took the bait. Could that, perhaps, be the reason why Sidious has a "rewarded smile"?
Right, because you say so?
Short of Advent popping up, that's generally how it works.
Substantiate the exact degree that Obi-Wan's skill increased because of it. If Maul really was as skilled as you make him out to be, than I really fail to see why he was getting as overpowered as he was by a mere Padawan/Knight, no matter how enraged said Padawan/Knight was, especially considering that as a Sith, Maul would naturally be giving into his rage anyway.
Absurd. Aside from the fact that Darth Maul's primary character trait is that he toys with his opponent, I don't have to substantiate shit. Kenobi went from getting his collective ass kicked (with a partner, while Maul was injured) to solo to suddenly having Maul on the defensive, temporarily.
Apparently you understand exactly how their fight went better than the author of Shadow Hunter himself, as all that the book states that might even hint that as much was a possibility is that both Maul and Anoon released that Maul was the superior fighter within the first few moments of their duel. That still doesn't equate to an obliteration however. The author even goes out of his way to make mention of the fact that even when "doubling his efforts" and "gritting his teeth", Maul was still unable to break through Bondara's defence. And of course, there's also the fact that Maul never actually did manage to defeat the Twi'Lek - rather, Anoon Bondara thrust his lightsaber blade into a speeder bike in the hopes of having both himself and Maul killed from the explosion.
The fact that a Jedi Knight of Bondara's caliber resorted to a suicidal attempt to try to defeat Maul certainly implies a domination on Maul's part. But I'll concede. I was exaggerating.
The fact that you would try to twist what happened into Maul "obliterating" him is laughable.
Certainly not one of my finer moments, but I'm certain the audience finds your routine much more hilarious than my mistakes (given that I make so few of them).
consider that in rotj they didnt have coreography or cgi, otherwise you would have seen lukes mastery of djem so better and he wouldve looked more like rots anakin deuling style wise. so luke in reality wasnt hacking away like a baseball bat as you say unless rots vader was doing the same against kenobi
ok totally bastillas knowledge of most areas of the force by the time she turned to the darkside would make her win. her battle meditation (bm) lol jk... would totally make her a truly "unique" jedi and not just some "sith apprentice" as said before... also, she took out 2 powerful jedis (jolee and "the other cat lady whos name escapes me cause i killed her in most of the times I beat that game"😉 and was chosen by the counsil for the redemption of Lord Revan (which, in most of my games which, I am not claiming are "canon", she failed miserably but apperantly the lightside is cannon so...) and she succeded. she also succeeded in beating revan back for malak to kill him... her involvement in the saving of the republic or the damning of it for the sith (either way whatever u say) and her ability and practice and experience from her entire roundabout that had happened by the time she had turned to the darkside would defenitley make her far more skilled with the force and have good lightsabers. pluss as you may have heard before, maul would be to hesitant to carve up such a beauty 😛
Originally posted by P-Man Jr.
Absolute bullshit. The relative magnitude of Skywalker's and Kenobi's potentials is irrelevant; it's not as if this moment of emotional weakness allowed Skywalker to tap into his entire reserves of power -- for he would, at that point, been twice as powerful as Emperor Palpatine himself, and such a being is more than capable of utterly annihilating Darth Vader -- all it did was increase his combat performance. The aggression fueled his strength, speed, and determination. Consider that Skywalker was then able to physically overpower and drive back Darth Vader (imbued with considerable Force power in his own right, not to mention his mechanical limbs), relying primarily on wild strikes, swinging his lightsaber like a baseball bat. Likewise, Kenobi was -- as you are found of saying -- a padawan, so while his potential is nothing that registers to Luke's own, that doesn't mean that it didn't register next to Maul's, and like Skywalker, his potential was largely untapped.
I'd like to see some proof for all of that, thanks. The fact of the matter is, giving into you rage is essentially tapping into your hidden potential, so it would make sense that the greater amount of potential untapped one has, the greater the effects would be. Now given that you were the one who originally made the point, I'd like for you to prove that the effects on Luke Skywalker would be the same on Obi-Wan Kenobi. None of what you've said changes the fact that you were originally committing the honour by association fallacy, attributing characteristics of one being tapping into their rage to another, without any logical basis in doing so. Start proving up, or concede the point.
The mindset involves "enjoying the thrill of battle" -- i.e., giving into one's aggressive feelings -- there is a reason why Vaapad is so restricted, Nebaris, why it is referred to as "the most demanding", "the penumbra of the dark side", and why Jedi Knights may only attempt to utilize Vaapad only with Windu's explicit permission.
Your comparisons get more absurd by the minute. Vaapad is about enjoying the thrill of battle, and drawing from your opponent's power and reflecting it back at them.
I know it's hard, but try not skipping through my posts.
I also fail to see how "enjoying the thrill of battle" is quite the same as giving into your rage. They're completely different mindsets; one draws strength from something that is positive: enjoying the battle; one draws strength from something that is negative: an uncontrollable fury.
Your comparison is completely false, not to mention that your original point was, as usual, completely unsubstantiated, given that you failed to evaluate the significance behind that one mentioned aspect of Vaapad in respect to how you were describing Windu to be: "one of the greatest duelists of the Old Republic" (ref: The Ultimate Visual Guide), utilizing the "deadliest" and "most demanding" of all the lightsaber forms.
I expect better.
People expect a lot from Gods.
The entire purpose of the staged fight was to bait Darth Maul into using his aggressive feelings to attack Sidious with the intent to kill, and Maul took the bait. Could that, perhaps, be the reason why Sidious has a "rewarded smile"?
Well now you're just subtly committing a Strawman argument. I never denied that was the reason; the point was, that Sidious wouldn't likely have been smiling at the end of the exchange if he had in fact not been in control. There's absolutely nothing that suggests that Sidious was giving it his all, or that he genuinely wasn't in control of Maul's rage augmented ability.
Short of Advent popping up, that's generally how it works.
Right... so, erm, where was she in all of these threads?
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=473588&pagenumber=1
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=474436&pagenumber=1
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=475726&pagenumber=1
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=366164&pagenumber=1
Hiding, was she?
Absurd. Aside from the fact that Darth Maul's primary character trait is that he toys with his opponent, I don't have to substantiate shit.
I'd like to see some proof for that ridiculous claim, thanks.
Kenobi went from getting his collective ass kicked (with a partner, while Maul was injured) to solo to suddenly having Maul on the defensive, temporarily.
Nobody's denying that there was an improvement, Gideon. If you look at my original post on the matter, I fully take into account the fact that Obi-Wan was enraged at the time. The point is, if it's as simple as having a padawan simply be enraged for them to be able to overpower a Sith Lord, they're clearly not as capable as they're set up as being, and I believe that his performance against the enraged Obi-Wan would suggest a level of incompetence that most Sith don't possess.
The fact that a Jedi Knight of Bondara's caliber resorted to a suicidal attempt to try to defeat Maul certainly implies a domination on Maul's part. But I'll concede. I was exaggerating.
No, it doesn't. All that we can know for sure from such an action is that Anoon Bondara simply wasn't sure he could defeat the Sith Lord, and felt that the explosion that would be caused from the speeder bike would be the safer option. It in no way implies domination.
Certainly not one of my finer moments, but I'm certain the audience finds your routine much more hilarious than my mistakes (given that I make so few of them).
Tender ego indeed. Gideon, I can understand that the amount of times losing to me may have been getting to you, but leave these attempts at humour or wit or whatever it's supposed to be for people who get thrills from that stuff (in case you didn't know, that would be Darth Sexy). Believe it or not, I don't come to this forum to engage "intellectuals" in insults.
I'd like to see some proof for all of that, thanks. The fact of the matter is, giving into you rage is essentially tapping into your hidden potential, so it would make sense that the greater amount of potential untapped one has, the greater the effects would be. Now given that you were the one who originally made the point, I'd like for you to prove that the effects on Luke Skywalker would be the same on Obi-Wan Kenobi. None of what you've said changes the fact that you were originally committing the honour by association fallacy, attributing characteristics of one being tapping into their rage to another, without any logical basis in doing so. Start proving up, or concede the point
I'd call your argument "bullshit", again, but it's getting redundant; the only difference between the latest attempt and the last is that the smell is stronger. Once again, I don't have to prove shit -- it is a commonly accepted fact that Force users using aggressive feelings boosts combat performance, however temporary, thus why Emperor Palpatine urged Luke Skywalker to summon his hatred, to make use of it against a vastly more experienced foe with a vastly greater mastery of the Force. You even said it yourself: "giving into your rage is essentially tapping into your hidden potential," -- the same effects would apply for Obi-Wan Kenobi. He was clearly a far cry from his maximum potential, and so his aggressive feelings allowed him to access part of it. It was you who made the unsupported, unaccepted claim that "the more potential you have = a far greater result" -- you have to prove it. Given that Skywalker did not obliterate Vader within the first seconds of its use, one can easily deduce that he didn't tap into the whole damn thing. But since you made the claim, you have to prove it. Perhaps you ought to be more careful when you word your statements?
Your comparisons get more absurd by the minute. Vaapad is about enjoying the thrill of battle, and drawing from your opponent's power and reflecting it back at them.I know it's hard, but try not skipping through my posts.
I also fail to see how "enjoying the thrill of battle" is quite the same as giving into your rage. They're completely different mindsets; one draws strength from something that is positive: enjoying the battle; one draws strength from something that is negative: an uncontrollable fury.
Right, Nebaris, because if it were clearly so cut-and-dry, it would not be considered a "dangerous" lightsaber form due to the demands of the technique, the mindset, and how it is the "penumbra to the dark side".
Oh, wait...
Your comparison is completely false, not to mention that your original point was, as usual, completely unsubstantiated, given that you failed to evaluate the significance behind that one mentioned aspect of Vaapad in respect to how you were describing Windu to be: "one of the greatest duelists of the Old Republic" (ref: The Ultimate Visual Guide), utilizing the "deadliest" and "most demanding" of all the lightsaber forms.
That a Jedi making use of aggression allows him to become one of the greatest duelists of the Old Republic, ergo, it's a useful advantage.
People expect a lot from Gods.
And thus, the stress on my life to make the world a better place for my creations.
Well now you're just subtly committing a Strawman argument. I never denied that was the reason; the point was, that Sidious wouldn't likely have been smiling at the end of the exchange if he had in fact not been in control. There's absolutely nothing that suggests that Sidious was giving it his all, or that he genuinely wasn't in control of Maul's rage augmented ability.
Well, now, you're not-so-subtly acting retarded. Sidious is notorious for risking his own neck based on his assessment of people. Once in Revenge of the Sith and Return of the Jedi. Your assumption that Sidious was smiling because "he was in control" rather than pleased that he accomplished his goal, i.e.: baiting Maul, you need to provide proof.
Right... so, erm, where was she in all of these threads?http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=473588&pagenumber=1
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=474436&pagenumber=1
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=475726&pagenumber=1
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=366164&pagenumber=1
Hiding, was she?
It would help if you've provided threads where I've lost. But, humans can't achieve the impossible. 😉
I'd like to see some proof for that ridiculous claim, thanks.
I already did.
Nobody's denying that there was an improvement, Gideon. If you look at my original post on the matter, I fully take into account the fact that Obi-Wan was enraged at the time. The point is, if it's as simple as having a padawan simply be enraged for them to be able to overpower a Sith Lord, they're clearly not as capable as they're set up as being, and I believe that his performance against the enraged Obi-Wan would suggest a level of incompetence that most Sith don't possess.
Could be worse: he could have been electrocuted and nearly put into a coma by his own lack of observation. 😉
Besides, your derisive remarks regarding Kenobi's rank is irrelevant. Qui-Gon Jinn was a respected Jedi Master, and he died. Kenobi won. If Maul's loss or brief dominance by a padawan is somehow less than an accomplished Jedi Master failing where his lesser student succeeds, you let me know.
No, it doesn't. All that we can know for sure from such an action is that Anoon Bondara simply wasn't sure he could defeat the Sith Lord, and felt that the explosion that would be caused from the speeder bike would be the safer option. It in no way implies domination.
Sure it does. Bondara knew he was going to lose, accepted it, and opted for suicide. Maul might have not broke through his defenses, but he was "driving him back". Maul was dominating.
Tender ego indeed. Gideon, I can understand that the amount of times losing to me may have been getting to you, but leave these attempts at humour or wit or whatever it's supposed to be for people who get thrills from that stuff (in case you didn't know, that would be Darth Sexy). Believe it or not, I don't come to this forum to engage "intellectuals" in insults.
I don't have to attempt humor or wit, Nebaris. I'm considered funny and witty. You're considered funny as well, it's just nothing intentional on your part. Amazingly, has it ever occured to you that by frequently referring to DS as "Darth Repetitive" and pointing out "how repetitive" he is, you're being repetitive and unoriginal yourself?
Self-ownage ftw.
I'd call your argument "bullshit", again, but it's getting redundant; the only difference between the latest attempt and the last is that the smell is stronger. Once again, I don't have to prove shit -- it is a commonly accepted fact that Force users using aggressive feelings boosts combat performance, however temporary, thus why Emperor Palpatine urged Luke Skywalker to summon his hatred, to make use of it against a vastly more experienced foe with a vastly greater mastery of the Force. You even said it yourself: "giving into your rage is essentially tapping into your hidden potential," -- the same effects would apply for Obi-Wan Kenobi. He was clearly a far cry from his maximum potential, and so his aggressive feelings allowed him to access part of it.
As usual, this entire passage of text = pointless on your part. Nobody was denying that he was clearly receiving benefits from his uncontrollable fury; I explicitly made it clear that I knew this was the case throughout this thread. The point is, you're attempting to attribute the exact benefits that Luke Skywalker gained from using his rage to Obi-Wan Kenobi, with no proof that the effects would be the same, and thereby honouring by association (there's a reason it's a logical fallacy Gideon, it essentially means that your debating style sucks Publius penis).
It was you who made the unsupported, unaccepted claim that "the more potential you have = a far greater result" -- you have to prove it.
It's simple: for the very same reasons that force users with greater levels of untapped potential possess greater improvement rates, as can be seen constantly with figures such as Anakin Skywalker, Darth Bane, Luke Skywalker, and Exar Kun etc. No matter how temporary the improvement is when a being taps into their rage, the improvement is still of the same nature, meaning that Luke Skywalker would logically receive far greater benefits from doing so than the unremarkable Obi-Wan Kenobi, given his far greater level of untapped potential.
Given that Skywalker did not obliterate Vader within the first seconds of its use, one can easily deduce that he didn't tap into the whole damn thing. But since you made the claim, you have to prove it.
...and here you go again with the Strawman Argument (that would be another logical fallacy Gideon). Nobody claimed that Luke would be tapping into his entire untapped potential, so please quit making shot up.
Perhaps you ought to be more careful when you word your statements?
Perhaps =/= a question word. Perhaps one day you'll learnt that.
Right, Nebaris, because if it were clearly so cut-and-dry, it would not be considered a "dangerous" lightsaber form due to the demands of the technique, the mindset, and how it is the "penumbra to the dark side".Oh, wait...
How so?
The point is, you're treating the effects of one aspect of Vaapad and the effects of giving into your rage as being exactly the same, despite the different motives behind the mindsets, when you have no logical basis in doing so. Aside from that, you're being extremely vague in your argument, and failing to evaluate the significance of the mindset as part of what made Windu as good as he became.
That a Jedi making use of aggression allows him to become one of the greatest duelists of the Old Republic, ergo, it's a useful advantage.
Again, your point means little until you can evaluate the significance of what you mentioned as part of how accomplished Mace Windu had become.
And thus, the stress on my life to make the world a better place for my creations.
Would this be an example of the humour and wit that you're apparently so well known for? I'd suggest sticking to the copycat stuff Gideon, your original material seems to be getting giggles from one person, and one person alone, and I'll let you guess who that one person is.
Spoiler:
Here's a hint: his name begins with a "D."
Well, now, you're not-so-subtly acting retarded. Sidious is notorious for risking his own neck based on his assessment of people. Once in Revenge of the Sith and Return of the Jedi. Your assumption that Sidious was smiling because "he was in control" rather than pleased that he accomplished his goal, i.e.: baiting Maul, you need to provide proof.
Is it "See how many Logical Fallacies you can commit" day in Kentucky or something? Seriously, your record's getting scarily close to Darth Sexy's and that's some serious shit. As usual, your comparison is false. With the incidents that you're referring to, Darth Sidious was risking his life based on his judgements of the motives behind the individuals, with which he had been using his masterful manipulative ability to be near fully in control of (not to mention that with the second incident, he knew that he could have simply returned into one of his clone bodies, s he had done before; meaning, you're essentially claiming that Sidious is notorious for something, with only one example to support that). That's a completely different ballgame to simply judging the martial capabilities of an individual, with which when you take into account the unpredictable result of having the mentioned individual enter a bloodthirsy rage, is a judgement with which Palpatine could never be quite so certain on.
Now what you need to understand is that you originally formed the comparison, meaning it's up to you to substantiate it. I never undeniably made any firm claim, I was simply open to the possibility that Palpatine had in fact been in control the entire time, as it would seem unlikely that he would be genuinely laughing after having a situation truly reach out of his hands like it would have done. Either way, it's not my job to undermine your unsubstantiated points, though you do make it rather easy.
It would help if you've provided threads where I've lost. But, humans can't achieve the impossible.
Coming from the person who admits to someone having, and I quote "kick[ed your] ass across these forums?" Clearly we shall have to take whatever you say on the matter with a pinch of salt. Clearly indeed.
I already did.
For your claim that Darth Maul's primary character trait is that he toys with his opponent? No, you didn't. Get to it.
Could be worse: he could have been electrocuted and nearly put into a coma by his own lack of observation.
Besides, your derisive remarks regarding Kenobi's rank is irrelevant.
No, they're not. The fact that Kenobi was at such an early stage of his development, yet still be in a position of superiority over the Sith Lord, no matter how enraged he was, speaks a lot for a lack of ability on Maul's part.
Qui-Gon Jinn was a respected Jedi Master,
Irrelevant Misdirection, Logical Fallacy. Jedi, of the peaceful early PT era, weren't respected for their martial prowess, making this irrelevant in this context.
and he died.
That's great, and this is the same guy who was stated to be far past his prime, and who has no proven great ability in combat whatsoever.
Kenobi won. If Maul's loss or brief dominance by a padawan is somehow less than an accomplished Jedi Master failing where his lesser student succeeds, you let me know.
Well done, you managed to prove that Maul performed better than a past-his-prime Jedi Master with no proven skills (your assertion that he was accomplished, in this context, lacks evidence, and how respected he was certainly doesn't change that).
Sure it does. Bondara knew he was going to lose, accepted it, and opted for suicide. Maul might have not broke through his defenses, but he was "driving him back". Maul was dominating.
It's possible that you might have drawn such a conclusion from descriptions of the fight, but your original argument was that Bondara sacrificing himself in order to destroy Maul implies that he was being dominated. You've yet to explain how that is the case. At best, all that we can know for sure was that Anoon Bondara believed that the explosion caused from the destruction of the speeder bike stood more of a chance of destroying Maul than he did, in combat. That's all. That in no way necessarily implies domination. You're reaching a false conclusion (that would be another logical fallacy there).
I don't have to attempt humor or wit, Nebaris. I'm considered funny and witty
Lol. By people on these forums? News to me. If anything, you're occasionally witty, but even then, it's - at best - copy-cat material, and - at worst - sh1t that you try way too hard on that usually comes out odd anyway. In terms of your funny factor, I've personally yet to see it. Perhaps it would come out more if you didn't try so hard at being clever, and tried harder at identifying the things that people naturally find amusing.
You're considered funny as well, it's just nothing intentional on your part. Amazingly, has it ever occured to you that by frequently referring to DS as "Darth Repetitive" and pointing out "how repetitive" he is, you're being repetitive and unoriginal yourself?Self-ownage ftw.
No, it would be self ownage if I referred to him as such on the constant, as that really is how frequently he uses the same sh1t over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Though, I will say I have gotten way too repetitive in one aspect: making you look like a idiot. It happens constantly. Now, and I'm not baiting you when I say this, is this actually the 47th consecutive time you've been owned by the N-Man?