DE Sidious vs ROTS Yoda, Mace, Anakin, and Obi Wan

Originally posted by Faunus
Canon > Publius. Canon makes no mention whatsoever of "disintegration."

First, no. Publius > canon > everyone else. James Spader and Journey are thrown in somewhere with Publius.

Second, that the sourcebook doesn't mention disintegration doesn't mean that it didn't happen. The artwork clearly shows the cooling unit striking Palpatine in the head and then disintegrating against some sort of energy field.

And if artwork takes precedence over narration and character insight, then Exar Kun's hand was never burned by the repeated explosive bursts from his amulet - despite the fact that he says "the flesh is burned... but I feel no pain" - because two panels later, we see no damage on his hand.

Did I say that the artwork takes precedence? If the sourcebook directly contradicted that, you'd have a point, but it doesn't. And is it possible that Kun healed his hand?

Srsly.

As in you're srsly wrong.

James Spader lost the Emmy. James ****ing Spader...

Originally posted by Gideon
First, no. Publius > canon > everyone else. James Spader and Journey are thrown in somewhere with Publius.

Originally posted by Schwarzenegger
Your kidding right?

No.

Not at all. Why would you think that?

Because i support publius > canon. That test of wills stuff just makes sidious even "deeper" and more "baddass", i just don't now how to put it.

Originally posted by Schwarzenegger
Because i support publius > canon. That test of wills stuff just makes sidious even "deeper" and more "baddass", i just don't now how to put it.

It's six jillion times better than that shitfest Dark Empire. Honestly, I really don't associate the two of them anymore, even though ToW is a novelization of it. They need to replace Karen Traviss and/or Leland Chee with Publius.

How many zeros does a jillion have? But to be honest, as much as i like sidious, i hated DE because it is so damn boring but Tow made it far more remarkable and epic.

Yea they should throw leland chee out of the window, i never liked his face anyways, same goes for karen tard.

Originally posted by Gideon

Second, that the sourcebook doesn't mention disintegration doesn't mean that it didn't happen. The artwork clearly shows the cooling unit striking Palpatine in the head and then disintegrating against some sort of energy field.

actually, its not nearly as clear as you would like to think. Why should we assume something like that? no freaking way we should assume he can disintegrate metal if it can't be proven, and the picture isn't clear enough that we agree on what it presents. In fact, there is more evidence (the quote from the sourcebook) supporting a view that it never happened. pictures can't be taken as evidence. can't be. or else i think Galen Marek actually DID crash a star destroyer out of orbit on his own, using only the force, cause that's what the picture looks like, and there is no source saying HE DIDN'T crash that star destroyster some other time, and the only one we hear about is the one that was crashing on its own.

Originally posted by truejedi
actually, its not nearly as clear as you would like to think. Why should we assume something like that? no freaking way we should assume he can disintegrate metal if it can't be proven, and the picture isn't clear enough that we agree on what it presents. In fact, there is more evidence (the quote from the sourcebook) supporting a view that it never happened. pictures can't be taken as evidence. can't be. or else i think Galen Marek actually DID crash a star destroyer out of orbit on his own, using only the force, cause that's what the picture looks like, and there is no source saying HE DIDN'T crash that star destroyster some other time, and the only one we hear about is the one that was crashing on its own.

There is a difference. Kota is the one who recommended that Galen use the force on the star destroyer after it was already falling out of orbit. So why would Kota tell Galen to move the ship if Galen was already doing it?

I think i worded it badly, but i think you get my point.

what i meant was, we can't prove he DIDN'T yank some other star destroyer down from orbit some other time, 0n one of his other missions, (mine was the one worded badly)

Originally posted by truejedi
actually, its not nearly as clear as you would like to think. Why should we assume something like that? no freaking way we should assume he can disintegrate metal if it can't be proven, and the picture isn't clear enough that we agree on what it presents. In fact, there is more evidence (the quote from the sourcebook) supporting a view that it never happened. pictures can't be taken as evidence. can't be. or else i think Galen Marek actually DID crash a star destroyer out of orbit on his own, using only the force, cause that's what the picture looks like, and there is no source saying HE DIDN'T crash that star destroyster some other time, and the only one we hear about is the one that was crashing on its own.

You're misunderstanding me entirely. The statement from the sourcebook does not contradict or preclude the idea that Palpatine disintegrated the object. If it did, then of course we would look to the narrative before the artwork. But it doesn't. All it says is that he shrugged off the impact, which is what he did. It hit him, he resisted, and then the artwork shows him disintegrating it.

Originally posted by Gideon
All it says is that he shrugged off the impact, which is what he did. It hit him, he resisted, and then the artwork shows him disintegrating it.

And I've given you the reason it looks like it's disintegrating. Leia ripped it off of the beam. That entire side is torn away.

And my interpretation is just as valid as yours, plus is backed by the Sourcebook - which makes zero mention of any kind of destruction or disintegration of the cooling unit.

Until you have a valid source which states otherwise, you don't have a case on this point.

Enyalus, in the pic when it's falling? It's not broken at all, save at the back.
the 'disintegrating' side is the one striking Palpatine and wasn't damaged at all in the initial pic

When she initially rips it off, we see several pieces flying off with it. We don't know if it is the same side or not, because it's from a totally different POV in the up close image.

And as has been already established, if we take Nai's opinion of the narrator's viewpoint - it's from a fallible and nonomniscient POV. Either Leia or Luke, most probably. The Sourcebook explains more clearly what we're seeing. And it mentions no disintegration. So it doesn't happen. And that's really all there is to it.

Why's it so important to you Sidious fanboys to make this stick? The evidence is not there.

We see several pieces from BEHIND it. Nothing falling apart from it...

Originally posted by Enyalus
Why's it so important to you Sidious fanboys to make this stick? The evidence is not there.

Throwing around that particular pejorative casts an unhealthy pall on my patience. I am not interested in your personal opinions of myself; I'm equally certain that Lightsnake and Nai aren't interested in your assessments of them, either. You were constantly whining and complaining about my sophistry, egotism, and rudeness. My strong suggestion would be to drop all pretenses of anything approaching judgment on the rest of us, unless you'd like to be on the receiving end of such mannerisms; in the grand scheme of things, Enyalus, you're but a 'newbie' as Nai puts it.

And as has been already established, if we take Nai's opinion of the narrator's viewpoint - it's from a fallible and nonomniscient POV. Either Leia or Luke, most probably. The Sourcebook explains more clearly what we're seeing. And it mentions no disintegration. So it doesn't happen. And that's really all there is to it.

Double standards galore. I love how you regularly accuse others of egotism and then presume to dictate terms to us. That the sourcebook does not explicitly mention the disintegration is irrelevant; if it specifically noted that there was no disintegration or contradicted the idea of disintegration, you'd have something of a point. Until then, we are obligated to look at the scan and make judgments.

The facts are thus: the artwork depicts the metal crashing against Palpatine and succumbing to damage against some sort of energy. The sourcebook mentions that Palpatine "shrugged it off" but does not specifically denote that it wasn't disintegrated. Palpatine did, by definition, shrug off the damage; a ton of metal struck him, a man of over eighty years, and he did not suffer any noticeable pain or injury. That is shrugging something off. Which is more impressive, to me, than disintegrating the object in question.

You are not at liberty to tell us that the cooling unit didn't disintegrate simply because the sourcebook doesn't mention it. You must provide proof that contradicts the idea of disintegration.

Originally posted by Gideon
Throwing around that particular pejorative casts an unhealthy pall on my patience. I am not interested in your personal opinions of myself; [blah blah blah]...

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Gideon
Double standards galore. I love how you regularly accuse others of egotism and then presume to dictate terms to us. That the sourcebook does not explicitly mention the disintegration is irrelevant; if it specifically noted that there was no disintegration or contradicted the idea of disintegration, you'd have something of a point. Until then, we are obligated to look at the scan and make judgments.

The facts are thus: the artwork depicts the metal crashing against Palpatine and succumbing to damage against some sort of energy. The sourcebook mentions that Palpatine "shrugged it off" but does not specifically denote that it wasn't disintegrated.

You are not at liberty to tell us that the cooling unit didn't disintegrate simply because the sourcebook doesn't mention it. You must provide proof that contradicts the idea of disintegration.

There are no double standards here. The Sourcebook explains that his power and durability were being amped because of being on Byss. It explains exactly what he does to Leia's lightsaber. And it explains what happens to the cooling unit. The fact that it mentions nothing about it disintegrating, yet explains that it does hit him and he shrugged it off is the evidence. If it were anything other than that, the writer would have added it in - exactly as he does with Leia's "shattered" lightsaber. If Palpatine had shattered the cooling unit with his power, the author would have notated it.

Originally posted by Enyalus
There are no double standards here.

Yeah, there are. Hence the 'egotism' comment I mentioned. If you don't like people throwing their intellectual weight around to you, don't be an idiot and do the same thing. Makes you a hypocrite.

The Sourcebook explains that his power and durability were being amped because of being on Byss.

I'll do two things: refer you to Nai's argument and remind you that all of Byss's dark side energies were the calculated result of Palpatine's presence and will. He was labelled a dark side nexus and, in turn, transformed Byss into one as well. It's not up for debate.

It explains exactly what he does to Leia's lightsaber. And it explains what happens to the cooling unit. The fact that it mentions nothing about it disintegrating, yet explains that it does hit him and he shrugged it off is the evidence. If it were anything other than that, the writer would have added it in - exactly as he does with Leia's "shattered" lightsaber. If Palpatine had shattered the cooling unit with his power, the author would have notated it.

Do you seek to confuse the issue with a great number of words? You've wasted precious time on what can be sumed up succinctly: your stance is hinged on the Sourcebook not mentioning the disintegration. That's not an argument.

Originally posted by Gideon
Do you seek to confuse the issue with a great number of words? You've wasted precious time on what can be sumed up succinctly: your stance is hinged on the Sourcebook not mentioning the disintegration. That's not an argument.

And your stance is hinged on a bad piece of artwork which the writer of the Sourcebook chooses not to support. That's not an argument, either.

Originally posted by Gideon
You're misunderstanding me entirely. The statement from the sourcebook does not contradict or preclude the idea that Palpatine disintegrated the object. If it did, then of course we would look to the narrative before the artwork. But it doesn't. All it says is that he shrugged off the impact, which is what he did. It hit him, he resisted, and then the artwork shows him disintegrating it.

i'm just saying that the artwork can be intepreted more than one way. to be honest, i just saw it as a special effect in the picture. not disintegration. we could also figure that the metal was shattered when it hit him. That would be another perfectly legit explanation. But lets say it is disintegrating. For the sake of the point, we could say, LEIA disintegrated it after palpatine shrugged it off. Its very hard to base an argument on a picture. Too many different interpretations of the same thing. (seen Vantage point? ) excellent movie.

Originally posted by truejedi
i'm just saying that the artwork can be intepreted more than one way. to be honest, i just saw it as a special effect in the picture. not disintegration. we could also figure that the metal was shattered when it hit him. That would be another perfectly legit explanation. But lets say it is disintegrating. For the sake of the point, we could say, LEIA disintegrated it after palpatine shrugged it off. Its very hard to base an argument on a picture. Too many different interpretations of the same thing. (seen Vantage point? ) excellent movie.

The thing with that is, the writer specifically tells us that Palpatine shattered Leia's lightsaber. But for the cooling unit? He "shrugged" off the "impact." No disintegration. No shattering. No argument. It's perfectly clear cut.