Sith Force Tournament

Started by Kotor320 pages
Originally posted by Enyalus
Uh, I'd put Hannibal above Alexander, and Sun-Tzu didn't actually have much first hand experience with being supreme commander of a war effort. Sun Pin, his ancestor, was quite good, though. Ts'ao Ts'ao should be on your list, too. Along with Zhuge Liang.

Enaylus I am surprise at your statement especially since you stated you wrote a report on Alexander. You can put someone on his level but definitely not above. Where others fail he succeeded.

There are other names that belong there also. Something to note is how fast and quickly Alexander accomplish what he did with the odds vastly against him and the effect his conquest has had on the world and on a great empire like Rome.

Originally posted by Enyalus
Uh, I'd put Hannibal above Alexander, and Sun-Tzu didn't actually have much first hand experience with being supreme commander of a war effort. Sun Pin, his ancestor, was quite good, though. Ts'ao Ts'ao should be on your list, too. Along with Zhuge Liang.

It's impossible to put Hannibal and Alexander above or below one another. The person who can be places on a similar level to, or above, Hannibal is undoubtedly Scipio Africanus for the Hispanic campaign-in Zama, Hannibal was so short ended it's unreal/

Alexander was extremely skilled but people need to learn that comparing commanders from totally different eras is nothing short of folly.

No, it doesn't. He lost battles before that, too. It's one talent...or is Bastila Shan a Force God?

Ok the burden of proof is on you then to show where he lost battles. Everything in the game points to Revan wiping the floor with the republic, nowhere does it say that he lost even one battle. Also no one in all the mythos shows the same ability in pre cog that Revan does. Many others show strong ability in battle meditation, and its explicitly stated that battle meditation was a gift in Bastilas case, therefore not necessarily due to mastery of the force.

Oh, do shut up. narrator facts are facts. Period. End story. Your nonsense is based on you not understanding how a third party narrator works. Sorry, but facts stated by the narrator are canon facts APPLYING TO STAR WARS. End story! Chee's said that narration is canon.

*Prove* that you sources operate under an unlimited omniscient view as opposed to a limited one. The burden of proof has always been on you as your the one flaunting your Sidious quotes as proof of Sidious being the most powerful ever. If you cant prove up then drop the point and leave, because your argument is going nowhere.

Prove he does any of the fighting

I believe its stated in Kotor 2 that he wipes out the academy but I dont feel like searching for it since its my least relevent point. You can have this one 😉

And all they are are random quotes without any direct backing. And your attempts to poison the well on other sources is just pathetic

The Kreia quote is a strong indicator that Revans was powerful. Im not arguing any more than that, though your NEC quotes are no more conclusive than Kreias quote.

How do you think Jedi understand every language spoken? They let the Force translate for them.

Proof that Jedi understand every language? And your dancing around the main point, when has a Jedi ever forced a language into somone elses mind?

Yeah, and it needs a LOT OF PEOPLE and isn't a singular effort

True.

Yeah, Malak's untrustworthy here. Are you mad? He was Revan's closest friend and apprentice, if anyone knows, he does.

No your completely wrong here. If Malak is such an accurate gauge on Revans power, why was Malak so cocky in the beginning of the fight? Malak was clearly outmatched. He should of fled with his life if he knew exactly how powerful Revan was. Hes obviously a very fallible source. And how could LS Revan be stronger than DS Revan when DS Revan knew the teachings of Malachor along with god knows what else and LS Revan had forgotten everything?

Yeah, Ludo who can't even block a thrown brick is powerful-FEAR HIM.

Block a thrown brick wtf? And Ludo also waved his hand and destroyed a 50+ foot sith statue.

We've seen the 'highly respected' Dark Lords like Simus and those jokes Horak and Dol. If the Sith council is any indication they're nothing special, and Ragnos can't even take a Padawan with his hugely empowered Sith sword.

Calling the ancient sith jokes is just your invalid opinion. Ragnos ruled with an iron fist, sorry its canon.

Oh, do shut up. Narrators are fact in SW. Except, you're too ignorant to accept the obvious fact your quote applies to that specific time when the Palpatine quotes constantly apply to 'of all time' and you, being insanely biased, refuse to believe that omniscient narrator quotes, even in SOURCEBOOKS-which even MENTION RAGNOS are valid.

Narrators are fact in their own storys, Im not disputing that. But omniscient narrator limited dictates that the narrator is limited to the knowledge of his characters. Therefore no observation about ancient Sith could be valid.

Lemme get this through your insanely thick skull:

Lemme get this through your insanely thick skull:
1. Narrator quotes are made by the omniscient narrator, NOT LIMITED in any way since it's not from a character's POV which is the one limitation to usual third party limitation and takes a God's eye view of the mythos. It declares Palpatine the most powerful.

End of story, kindly shut up now.

Your interpretation of what the narrator is limited to is flawed. Prove up that what your saying is true otherwise gtfo, I supplied a link which stated that omniscient narrator limited is the most common rule which fictions novels operate under. And the burden of proof isnt even on me, it has always been on you because your the one claiming that you have conclusive evidence of Sidous > Ragnos and every other Sith.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
It's impossible to put Hannibal and Alexander above or below one another. The person who can be places on a similar level to, or above, Hannibal is undoubtedly Scipio Africanus for the Hispanic campaign-in Zama, Hannibal was so short ended it's unreal/

Alexander was extremely skilled but people need to learn that comparing commanders from totally different eras is nothing short of folly.

I totally disagree. Great minds have always been compare to each other down to our day. The same with fighters from different time periods and so forth. What is true , circumstances and people differ from time periods. This of course is what affects an outcome.

Alexander was great not only for his skilled but his attitude towards his soldiers who he took personal interest in and greatly honor those who died and there families which drew his fighters closed to him and gain him there respect.

In star wars I would have to say Revan reminds me of Alexander. The fanboy said what?

🙄

Originally posted by Enyalus
GV, much as I would love to knock the Sidious fanboys off their high horses, I have a serious question.

You said "Due to the mechanics of Omniscient narrator limited its invalid because the novel in question doesnt include Revan or any other ancient Sith." and invalidated several quotes this way. What is the difference between those quotes and the Tales of the Jedi 'Most powerful of the powerful' quote?

There is no difference, I was mocking their logic. Unfortunately there is no conclusive proof that Ragnos is stronger than Sidious, but the reverse is also true.

Originally posted by Darth Angel
What kind of thought is that? Tell me where or when anyone stated that Sidious' body was degradating since his midichlorian count was low... And as far as I know Yoda was pretty much stated as the jedi with highest midichlorian count from the jedi order of his time by obi-wan (when he states anakins one)... I mean, this isn't even discussible, sidious was stated was the most POWERFUL sith lord ever many times, and even though knowledge helps a lot, it can't make you surpass your potential. And if sidious was so powerful was due to his huge potential...

In the God-awful Dark Empire arc and its two sequals, it was stated that if he had Anakin Solo's body to use as a genetic template for his clones, they wouldn't decay at all. Why? 'Cause Anakin's got Skywalker blood, higher force potential than Jacen or Jaina, thus lots of midichlorians. Much more than Sidious, apparently, if it's enough to stop his decay. Yoda's got a high midichlorian count, yes...but not when compared to Anakin.

Originally posted by Darth Angel
May you state when did his tactics miss? Because as far as I know he was the only sith who truly conquered the republic. And he did that single handed...

That's called grand strategy. An example of his bad tactics: putting himself in a position to be killed by a one-handed Vader in ROTJ.

Originally posted by Darth Angel
Alexander surpassed Hannibal, even hannibal himself stated that. In fact, if you know alexander's battles, then you should know who incredibly good his war tactics war, not only relying in his cavalry as hannibal did, but also a great siege conquer for example, something hannibal was not. I am not denying Hannibal's awesomeness (carthage is one of my favourite ancient civilizations ans cannae was a war masterpiece) but nonetheless alexander surpassed him by his feats.

Everyone in the Ancient world had Alexander envy. Julius Caesar even weeps when he sees a statue of Alexander while in Spain and laments not doing as much as Alexander did by the time he was 20.

Hannibal's battlefield tactics were second to none in the ancient Western world, whereas Alexander's victories were due mainly to the type of personnel he had and the equipment his army was using - something designed by his father, Phillip.

He was also extremely undersupplied and outmanned, in completely hostile territory. And before you go, "So was Alexander," recall that some nations welcomed him as a liberator - See Egypt for an example.

Furthermore, Hannibal had to deal with a very diverse army with no central language for control over. His force consisted of mercenaries from dozens of tribes and nations, which he was able to hold together by his sheer force of will and personality. Yes, Alexander was also a master of PR - but Greeks and Persians were used to believing that deities and gods masqueraded around as mortals. Hannibal convinced the Gauls that he was Odin - no small feat there.

Originally posted by Kotor3
Enaylus I am surprise at your statement especially since you stated you wrote a report on Alexander. You can put someone on his level but definitely not above. Where others fail he succeeded.

See above. Besides, it was presented as my opinion, not absolute fact. I'm not claiming my word is canon on historial military generals.

Originally posted by Advent
That doesn't necessarily indicate someone wasn't hiding up there before. And I wonder how you even figured that out in the first place...

I would have felt it. I mean, come on, just because I live in Kentucky doesn't mean that I have become susceptible to the denizens' habits (anal intrusion).

So those are the only two options if you don't understand? *sighs*, his argument is simple: if the narration is limited to the perspective of the character(s) in the sources, then the quotes could be declared invalid. I'm not saying he's right on all accounts or that Sidious isn't the most powerful, only that he has a point. You would have to review the sources itself to determine whether they are actually omniscient or third-person omniscient.

I'm sure some might be from an all-knowing perspective; although, in the case that some aren't, then it raises a question as to how recent the ones that are really are.

I see, I see.

Originally posted by Gideon
Yes, those pesky Sidious fanboys. I mean, it's not like calling the guy who corrupted a planet and enslaved its billions of inhabitants from across the galaxy, manhandled three of the Jedi's greatest swordsmen in seconds, battled the creator of the deadliest lightsaber form to a standstill despite the fact that he hadn't touched a lightsaber in over a decade, as well as stalemated the most powerful Jedi ever, survived an explosion capable of blowing up a tower from an individual capable of ungodly feats, creates Force Storms capable of disintegrating state-of-the-art warships with shields resisting gigatons of energy, and was the imbalance in the Force -- and would rule the galaxy twice -- the greatest and most powerful Sith Lord ever has any merit to it.

Obviously the 3 Jedi that went to arrest Palpatine werent the greatest swordsmen of the order if Mace was so much better than them. He didnt battle Mace to a standstill, he lost the saber battle straight up. Yes he fought Yoda to a standstill, so what? Most powerful Jedi ever doesnt mean a thing in relation to the Sith and its questionable whether Yoda is even the best Jedi.

Yes he *survived* a conflict with GM, your point? And yes force storm is impressive I'll give you that but its hardly enough to prove hes stronger than Ragnos, and if they ever fought it would be in close quarters so he wouldnt even be able to use force storm.

Originally posted by Enyalus
Right. Because I think low enough of you to think you'd be somehow scared off by such a thing.

Well, it's good to know that one of us respects the other. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to give me a reason to reciprocate?

Non sequitur, anyone? Because one is relevant to the other why? And for the record, you must indeed be quite egotistical to think I've conceded every argument we've had.

Because one would imagine that if I can craft invalid arguments in such a manner to eclipse your 'logical' ones, you aren't particularly skilled in comparison to myself. Which casts a pall on your criticisms.

Because I'd think that it matters what you'd think, why?

Easy, sport. Imitation might be the highest form of flattery to some, but not to me. Please leave my patented brand of sarcasm and insults alone and strike for your own originality. If you can't, then I'd suggest not bothering in witty wordplay.

Because it's such a punishment to be on Gideon's ignore list, as though it hurts my pride or makes me less intelligent or less respectable to other KMC members.

You understand at last!

Truly, I could care less and you should've gotten that picture by now if you were able to think dynamically and creatively, instead of spitting sources verbatim like a parrot.

Did I strike a nerve? An indicator, I guess, that you don't like me for the simple fact that I use sources to back up my arguments? You really don't have any concept of logic or debate, do you? That's what you do, sport. If you're into creativity and dynamic over logic, go write fan fiction.

By the way, the phrase you're looking for is "couldn't care less." But I appreciate the concession that you do care about my opinion. Perhaps you'll take this to heart.

As far as creative thinking, you'll find my name under the Project Holocron thread. I kinda created it.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Obviously the 3 Jedi that went to arrest Palpatine werent the greatest swordsmen of the order if Mace was so much better than them.

The Revenge of the Sith novelization and visual guide all refer to the cadre of Jedi who accompanied Windu to confront Palpatine as "celebrated swordsman" and among the "finest bladesbeings the Order had ever produced."

I grow tired of your incessant and lackluster excuses. You're not permitted to bandy about and ignore canon statement after canon statement to suit your own ends. But if that's not enough, please, allow me to go get REX or Ushgarak to explain canon policy to you. If you're going to participate in these debates, understand that mere opinion is nothing in the face of established canon.

He didnt battle Mace to a standstill, he lost the saber battle straight up.

According to the novelization, even after Windu immersed himself in Vaapad, he could only match the Emperor's swordsmanship. It was only through mastery of the shatterpoint charism that he managed to secure a victory; in terms of actual abilities, they are equals at best. This, the master of the deadliest lightsaber form versus a politician who hadn't wielded a lightsaber in over a decade. Not to mention their vast disparity in Force mastery.

Yes he fought Yoda to a standstill, so what? Most powerful Jedi ever doesnt mean a thing in relation to the Sith and its questionable whether Yoda is even the best Jedi.

It really isn't. As stated before, your opinion is insignificant in the face of established canon. If you wish to refute or contest the statement, it is your burden to bring proof.

Yes he *survived* a conflict with GM, your point?

After becoming one with the Force and deflecting Palpatine's Force energies backward in an explosion that destroyed an entire tower, Galen Marek was lying in the rubble, dead. Palpatine? Standing on both feet and seemingly unscathed. Don't try to shade perspective on someone who has access to all three source materials.

And yes force storm is impressive I'll give you that but its hardly enough to prove hes stronger than Ragnos, and if they ever fought it would be in close quarters so he wouldnt even be able to use force storm.

Are you wanting to prove power or who would win in a fight? They aren't the same thing. You can't even begin to prove that Ragnos is more powerful than Sidious. What we bring to the table will always be greater. I will happily discuss this with you further, but let me be clear: this isn't a soapbox for you to protest the injustices of LFL's approved canon statements and simply go "NUH UH NOT TRUE!" You must provide proof to contest the statements; in absence of that, you have no case.

Originally posted by Gideon
Well, it's good to know that one of us respects the other. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to give me a reason to reciprocate?

Perhaps. I'm so desperate and vain that I need someone I've never met to stroke my ego. 😛

Originally posted by Gideon
Because one would imagine that if I can craft invalid arguments in such a manner to eclipse your 'logical' ones

Only in your own narcissistic mind.

Originally posted by Gideon
Easy, sport. Imitation might be the highest form of flattery to some, but not to me. Please leave my patented brand of sarcasm and insults alone and strike for your own originality. If you can't, then I'd suggest not bothering in witty wordplay.

I wasn't aware it was trademarked, nor that I was imitating you with something I've done for at least a decade.

Originally posted by Gideon
Did I strike a nerve? An indicator, I guess, that you don't like me for the simple fact that I use sources to back up my arguments? You really don't have any concept of logic or debate, do you? That's what you do, sport. If you're into creativity and dynamic over logic, go write fan fiction.

See, I like to support my creativity with logic to support a conclusion. See the DE Sidious argument.

Neither here nor there, I'm writing a dark fantasy novel. So, yes, that is kind of my thing. (No need to poke at this point, simply informing you.)

Originally posted by Gideon
As far as creative thinking, you'll find my name under the Project Holocron thread. I kinda created it.

The fact that you seem to equate Project Holocron with creative thinking proves the point that you apparently don't even understand the concept. As the creator of Project Holocron, you're essentially an archivist. Collecting and ranking information and sources. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that (I like your thread), it simply doesn't qualify as 'creative thinking.'

Enyalus, I'm going to cut the sarcasm aside and be absolutely genuine here. You truly don't seem like a moron. What you are is a smart guy who happens to be cut from the same cloth as Nebaris. Is he a smart guy? Sure. Absolutely. But he's also notorious for shading context and attempting to manipulate circumstance and semantics to further his own arguments. You may accuse me of many things, but double standards isn't one of them. As stated even here with Ivalice, I'm certain that many of those statements for Sidious don't exist, hence why I don't use them. I argued that Vader and Galen, together, had a decent chance of killing the Emperor. As far as Project Holocron is concerned, I came up with the creative and lauded idea. So the notion that I'm without creativity is demonstrably false. If you're upset with the idea that I simply allow my argument to be dictates by sources, that should prove to you that I'm not anything approach a sophist or an illogical fanboy, since most of what I say has the support of canon fact. If you actually read my arguments, I even give Ragnos more credit than most people do around here.

Long story short, if you can't conduct your personal analysis of me correctly, don't bother.

The only argument I have shaded was the DE Sidious one, where I overlooked several statements saying that Palpatine was more powerful; because I believe he wasn't, because there's other evidence that seems to contradict those statements, because some of those 'more powerful in the Dark Side' statements came from fallible sources (like Palpatine himself), and because in a debate you're not supposed to make the other person's argument for them - so I left out several sources which went contrary to my opinion. Generally, I don't shade either.

It's funny what you say about Galen and Vader potentially beating Sidious, because that's one thing that I don't think could happen (and since you know I dislike Sidious, that should speak enough as to my impartiality).

Also, I never called you an illogical fanboy, nor have ever even had the thought.

As a completely unrelated sidenote, I'm planning on writing a piece of SW fanfiction this weekend, taking place directly after TFU's Dark Side non-canon ending. 😉

The Revenge of the Sith novelization and visual guide all refer to the cadre of Jedi who accompanied Windu to confront Palpatine as "celebrated swordsman" and among the "finest bladesbeings the Order had ever produced."

Way to dance around the point. If they were so great and skilled, why were they a joke in comparison to Mace? Obviously they were of a firmly lower tier, so defeating them isnt that impressive.

I grow tired of your incessant and lackluster excuses. You're not permitted to bandy about and ignore canon statement after canon statement to suit your own ends. But if that's not enough, please, allow me to go get REX or Ushgarak to explain canon policy to you. If you're going to participate in these debates, understand that mere opinion is nothing in the face of established canon.

I have nothing against canon, but your understanding of what is canon and what is not is flawed.

According to the novelization, even after Windu immersed himself in Vaapad, he could only match the Emperor's swordsmanship. It was only through mastery of the shatterpoint charism that he managed to secure a victory; in terms of actual abilities, they are equals at best. This, the master of the deadliest lightsaber form versus a politician who hadn't wielded a lightsaber in over a decade. Not to mention their vast disparity in Force mastery.

Shatterpoint is a valid complement to Maces lightsaber skills. A win is a win. And stop going off on irrelevent tangents about Sids being handicapped, if he was out of practice then it was his own damn fault. Its a weakness that can be exploited just like any other if he was actually going to fight Ragnos.

It really isn't. As stated before, your opinion is insignificant in the face of established canon. If you wish to refute or contest the statement, it is your burden to bring proof.

Yes, but then we arent necessarily talking about canon here. Prove up that the ROTS novel operates with a narrator that has complete omniscient knowledge of the mythos and not just the characters involved.

After becoming one with the Force and deflecting Palpatine's Force energies backward in an explosion that destroyed an entire tower, Galen Marek was lying in the rubble, dead. Palpatine? Standing on both feet and seemingly unscathed. Don't try to shade perspective on someone who has access to all three source materials.

Actually the explosion didnt destory the entire tower, it was still there when the fight was over. If you played the game that much is obvious. And yes Palpatine survived his own energies fired back at him...your argument isnt proving anything.

Are you wanting to prove power or who would win in a fight? They aren't the same thing. You can't even begin to prove that Ragnos is more powerful than Sidious. What we bring to the table will always be greater. I will happily discuss this with you further, but let me be clear: this isn't a soapbox for you to protest the injustices of LFL's approved canon statements and simply go "NUH UH NOT TRUE!" You must provide proof to contest the statements; in absence of that, you have no case.

Who would win in a fight is more important than raw power. Nihilus may or may not have more raw power than Sidious but his life drain technique would still secure a victory if Palpatine didnt have the necessary knowledge to defend against it. And you havent proved that Sidious has more raw power than Ragnos either. Yes Im aware Ragnos has no feats to his name but absence of proof isnt proof of absence, and his implied power is tremendous.

And prove up your claims about the Sidious quotes being proper canon, otherwise you dont have any ground to stand on.

Thank you for demonstrating why you're not worthy of my patience. This will be the very final time I'm going to say this to you, so my suggestion would be to comprehend.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Way to dance around the point. If they were so great and skilled, why were they a joke in comparison to Mace? Obviously they were of a firmly lower tier, so defeating them isnt that impressive.

READ.

Your premise: "Obviously the 3 Jedi that went to arrest Palpatine werent the greatest swordsmen of the order if Mace was so much better than them."

My premise: The Revenge of the Sith novelization and visual guide state, quite explicitly, that all four Jedi are "celebrated swordsmen." The narrator praises the abilities of both Windu and Kolar, and Obi-Wan Kenobi refers to all four of them as some of the greatest bladesbeings ever.

Conclusion: That Windu performed better against the Sith Lord does not mean that the other Jedi were not fine swordsmen.

Score: Gideon - 1, GV - 0.

I have nothing against canon, but your understanding of what is canon and what is not is flawed.

I don't really know what to say here. A total loss for words. How you can accuse me of flawed perception of canon is just laugh-inducing.

Shatterpoint is a valid complement to Maces lightsaber skills. A win is a win.

READ.

Your premise: Mace Windu is the better swordsman.

My premise: According to the narrator of the Revenge of the Sith novelization, immersed in Vaapad, Windu was only able to stalemate the Sith Lord; it was only his mastery of the shatterpoint charism that enabled Windu to win.

Common sense: if Windu was "teh uberz!!1!" and the better swordsman initially, he would have been able to destroy Sidious in their initial clashes, since he has the advantages of preparation and numbers as well as your proposed superiority. Yet... that didn't happen.

Conclusion: Skill-to-skill, immersed in Vaapad, Windu is only Sidious's equal. No one denied that he's overall the better duelist.

Score: Gideon - 2, Great Vengeance - 0.

And stop going off on irrelevent tangents about Sids being handicapped, if he was out of practice then it was his own damn fault. Its a weakness that can be exploited just like any other if he was actually going to fight Ragnos.

No one is "LOLZ GOING OFF ON TEH TANGENT", you moron. I'm simply telling you the facts: Sidious hadn't touched a lightsaber in over a decade. Windu remained a highly active Jedi Master and saw frontline duty in the Clone Wars. Who do you think is going to have superior experience? That it hurts your argument that Sidious was still able to keep up with Windu when he was out of practice doesn't give you permission to accuse me of going off on irrelevant tangents. What I said is completely relevant.

Score: Gideon - 3, Great Vengeance - 0.

Yes, but then we arent necessarily talking about canon here. Prove up that the ROTS novel operates with a narrator that has complete omniscient knowledge of the mythos and not just the characters involved.

Since Stover's writing is constantly interjected with diatribes in between events directly from the omniscient narrator to describe the characters themselves, one would think that it is obvious. Omniscient forces are aware of things in the past? Go figure.

Actually the explosion didnt destory the entire tower, it was still there when the fight was over. If you played the game that much is obvious. And yes Palpatine survived his own energies fired back at him...your argument isnt proving anything.

Excuse me. Destroyed the tower, but not disintegrated the structure itself. Obviously if the whole thing was gone, Palpatine would be floating about in space.

Who would win in a fight is more important than raw power. Nihilus may or may not have more raw power than Sidious but his life drain technique would still secure a victory if Palpatine didnt have the necessary knowledge to defend against it. And you havent proved that Sidious has more raw power than Ragnos either. Yes Im aware Ragnos has no feats to his name but absence of proof isnt proof of absence, and his implied power is tremendous.

Welcome to the real world. We put greater faith in statements, proven power, and implied power of one person than just implications from another.

And prove up your claims about the Sidious quotes being proper canon, otherwise you dont have any ground to stand on.

Anything contrary to the straightforward interpretation carries the burden of proof. I give you the quotes and put them into perspective. It's your burden to disprove.

Stop being so obtuse. That you ignore the source material for your own agenda is unforgivable, and I have no tolerance for it.

Taking it all into consideration, I'm going to be making an apology to a couple of people for my attitude. My argument, of course, remains valid, but I'm being unnecessarily impatient and aggressive. Faunus is corrupting me beyond belief. My Master, the Great Publius, would be ashamed.

But for a sincere apology, you'll need to wait for after Homecoming tonight.

Thank you for demonstrating why you're not worthy of my patience. This will be the very final time I'm going to say this to you, so my suggestion would be to comprehend.

Rofl its amusing when you try to sound like a badass.

READ.

Your premise: "Obviously the 3 Jedi that went to arrest Palpatine werent the greatest swordsmen of the order if Mace was so much better than them."

My premise: The Revenge of the Sith novelization and visual guide state, quite explicitly, that all four Jedi are "celebrated swordsmen." The narrator praises the abilities of both Windu and Kolar, and Obi-Wan Kenobi refers to all four of them as some of the greatest bladesbeings ever.

Conclusion: That Windu performed better against the Sith Lord does not mean that the other Jedi were not fine swordsmen.

Score: Gideon - 1, GV - 0.

Again your dancing around the point. They may have been fine swordsman, but if they were joke compared to Mace than they were not the orders best swordsmen like you said. Mace and Yoda would be above them at the very least. And the disparity of power is so great that I doubt they were the next 3 in line but either way being among the best of the PT Jedi order means nothing in comparison to Ragnos.

I don't really know what to say here. A total loss for words. How you can accuse me of flawed perception of canon is just laugh-inducing.

You dont know what to say because apparently you arent capable of understanding the simple logic of omniscient narrator limited.


READ.

Your premise: Mace Windu is the better swordsman.

My premise: According to the narrator of the Revenge of the Sith novelization, immersed in Vaapad, Windu was only able to stalemate the Sith Lord; it was only his mastery of the shatterpoint charism that enabled Windu to win.

Common sense: if Windu was "teh uberz!!1!" and the better swordsman initially, he would have been able to destroy Sidious in their initial clashes, since he has the advantages of preparation and numbers as well as your proposed superiority. Yet... that didn't happen.

Conclusion: Skill-to-skill, immersed in Vaapad, Windu is only Sidious's equal. No one denied that he's overall the better duelist.

Score: Gideon - 2, Great Vengeance - 0.

Dont put words in my mouth. My premise was that Palpatine lost the saber duel, which is quite obvious. Your premise was that Palpatine fought Mace to a standstill. Palpatine may have equal saber skills to mace which I never denied, but like you said Mace is the better overall duelist and Palpatine lost fairly.

No one is "LOLZ GOING OFF ON TEH TANGENT", you moron. I'm simply telling you the facts: Sidious hadn't touched a lightsaber in over a decade. Windu remained a highly active Jedi Master and saw frontline duty in the Clone Wars. Who do you think is going to have superior experience? That it hurts your argument that Sidious was still able to keep up with Windu when he was out of practice doesn't give you permission to accuse me of going off on irrelevant tangents. What I said is completely relevant.

No its not relevent. Lack of practice is a weakness just like any other weakness, it doesnt excuse Palpatine from losing the duel. This is getting tiresome, bring valid arguments to the table or go home.

Since Stover's writing is constantly interjected with diatribes in between events directly from the omniscient narrator to describe the characters themselves, one would think that it is obvious. Omniscient forces are aware of things in the past? Go figure.

No is denying that the narrator has an omniscient awareness of his own characters. That you would even bring up this point is evidence that you really dont understand what your arguing.

Excuse me. Destroyed the tower, but not disintegrated the structure itself. Obviously if the whole thing was gone, Palpatine would be floating about in space.

Umm....the structure is the tower. The blast didnt destroy the tower at all, stop being dense.

Welcome to the real world. We put greater faith in statements, proven power, and implied power of one person than just implications from another.

This isnt even relevent to what I was saying.

Anything contrary to the straightforward interpretation carries the burden of proof. I give you the quotes and put them into perspective. It's your burden to disprove.

*Your* interpretation is not the straightforward interpretation. Ive explained the mechanics of omniscient narrator limited endless times, and provided a source to back up my claims, and no one has provided the proof that your sources operate under different rules. The ball is in your court. Prove up.

Just got back from homecoming (whereupon I got first runner up!); excuse the delay.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Rofl its amusing when you try to sound like a badass.

You lost me at 'Rofl its amusing....' Originality is leaving something to be desired with you. And as if I have to try... I exude badassery.

Again your dancing around the point. They may have been fine swordsman, but if they were joke compared to Mace than they were not the orders best swordsmen like you said. Mace and Yoda would be above them at the very least. And the disparity of power is so great that I doubt they were the next 3 in line but either way being among the best of the PT Jedi order means nothing in comparison to Ragnos.

Don't accuse me of point dodging, please. You look like a big enough ass already. You're the one who attempted to undermine the credibility and reputation of Masters Tinn, Kolar, and Fisto. The cold, dark truth to the matter is that you're not in a position to. The novelization and visual guide laud the abilities of those three swordsmen; your opinion is nothing in the face of that. But, please, do continue. Your inherent egotism that directs you to defy canon only with your opinion is something that all of us are enjoying. With each post, you prove that -- no matter what people might say -- I'm not the most arrogant person around here.

By the way, please prove that Marka Ragnos is more powerful than those three Jedi. 😉

[see, when I lose all generosity, I can throw out points like that and effectively stall your entire argument]

You dont know what to say because apparently you arent capable of understanding the simple logic of omniscient narrator limited.

When you can prove that the omniscient narrator is limited, we'll readdress this. Until then, don't bring this up again.

Dont put words in my mouth. My premise was that Palpatine lost the saber duel, which is quite obvious. Your premise was that Palpatine fought Mace to a standstill. Palpatine may have equal saber skills to mace which I never denied, but like you said Mace is the better overall duelist and Palpatine lost fairly.

No one denied that Palpatine lost the duel. But Palpatine, skill-to-skill, fought Windu to a standstill, hence my point. Though I do appreciate the backhanded concession; seems to be prominent practice these days.

No its not relevent. Lack of practice is a weakness just like any other weakness, it doesnt excuse Palpatine from losing the duel. This is getting tiresome, bring valid arguments to the table or go home.

It is relevant. No one is proclaiming that it is a weakness. The only weakness here is your comprehension of basic linguistics. The point is that Palpatine managed to demonstrate lightsaber prowess equal to that of Mace "I-invented-the-deadliest-lightsaber-form-and-was-the-youngest-member-of-the-Jedi-High-Council-ever" Windu despite the fact that he hadn't practiced in years. I bring this up only to highlight his skills. It's relevant; deal with it.

No is denying that the narrator has an omniscient awareness of his own characters. That you would even bring up this point is evidence that you really dont understand what your arguing.

Again, I'm rather insulted with the idea of you lecturing me on anything. If I need tips on the quickest methods by which to gain weight or social isolation, I'll come to you. In the interim, do keep your advice to yourself, sir.

Umm....the structure is the tower. The blast didnt destroy the tower at all, stop being dense.

Hmm. The interior is ruined, the glass was shattered, people were dead, machines were obliterated, the lights were out. The tower was effectively destroyed. Deal with it.

This isnt even relevent to what I was saying.

It is. Put down the chips and pick up a book, sir. All you have for Ragnos is implications of power. I have feats, statements, and implications for Palpatine. When you put them on the table, I'll always come out with the better hand. You're not going to change that. 😉

*Your* interpretation is not the straightforward interpretation. Ive explained the mechanics of omniscient narrator limited endless times, and provided a source to back up my claims, and no one has provided the proof that your sources operate under different rules. The ball is in your court. Prove up.

My interpretation is the correct one. Anything contrary to the straightforward interpretation carries the burden of proof. For example, the statement: "Palpatine is the most powerful Sith Lord ever" in the context of a duel with Yoda. Should you wish to contest that, it's your burden to prove.

Again, we're not going through this again. I've taken enough time to wade in through your idiocy and attempt to establish a mental bridge from my world (the real one) to your land of fiction and egotism where everything you say is fact. Failure to comply will destroy this bridge and I'm doing this out of charity since, believe me, I'm not obligated to prove Palpatine's superiority. We've been through it all before.

It really isn't. As stated before, your opinion is insignificant in the face of established canon. If you wish to refute or contest the statement, it is your burden to bring proof.

Is the ROTS novelization the only source that states Yoda as the "most powerful"? Assuming it is, then GV does have a point again. I haven't read the book in its entirety for some time, but browsing through, the book appears to be a case of a limited narrator. Some passages might come from an omniscient stance, but that doesn't speak for it as a whole since you can switch back and forth between the two, as long as it's done consistently.

For instance, take a look at what it says on Anakin Skywalker being called the strongest Jedi of his generation, it even goes so far as to say "perhaps of any generation" along with many other extraordinary claims that seem outrageous. If the narrator in ROTS is omniscient, then how can you explain the discrepancy since Yoda is cited as the most powerful? You can't write it off as hyperbole, and there's about six or so of those "This is" segments.

Now, the line about Yoda is clearly coming from Yoda, it's his perspective:

"It came when the avatar of light resolved into the lineage of the Jedi; when the lineage of the Jedi refined into one single Jedi. It came when Yoda found himself alone against the dark. In that lightning-speared tornado of feet and fists and blades and bashing machines, his vision finally pierced the darkness that had clouded the Force.

Finally, he saw the truth.

This truth: that he, the avatar of light, Supreme Master of the Jedi Order, the fiercest, most implacable, most devastatingly powerful foe the darkness had ever known... just-didn't-have it.

He'd never had it. He had lost before he started. He had lost before he was born."

Take a look at the underlined phrase, where it notes that this is "his vision". What is called the 'truth' is clearly a realization coming from Yoda's viewpoint; this is clear without even pointing anything specific out. Essentially meaning that it's subjective and an illogical thought.

Originally posted by Advent
Is the ROTS novelization the only source that states Yoda as the "most powerful"? Assuming it is, then GV does have a point again. I haven't read the book in its entirety for some time, but browsing through, the book appears to be a case of a limited narrator. Some passages might come from an omniscient stance, but that doesn't speak for it as a whole since you can switch back and forth between the two, as long as it's done consistently.

For instance, take a look at what it says on Anakin Skywalker being called the strongest Jedi of his generation, it even goes so far as to say "perhaps of any generation" along with many other extraordinary claims that seem outrageous. If the narrator in ROTS is omniscient, then how can you explain the discrepancy since Yoda is cited as the most powerful? You can't write it off as hyperbole, and there's about six or so of those "This is" segments.

The statement regarding Anakin is thus:

"This is Anakin Skywalker: the most powerful Jedi of his generation. Perhaps of any generation."

The statement regarding Yoda, as you supplied, refers to him as "the most devastatingly powerful foe the darkness had ever known." First, the narrator provides the conditional 'perhaps.' Second, Mace Windu also refers to Skywalker as the most powerful Jedi alive. In a manner of speaking, they're correct. As Yoda would later make a similar conditional in Dark Rendezvous, "greatness" and "power" can be defined in more than one way: he refers to Dooku and Skywalker each as the greatest of the Temple's students with separate conditions. In terms of raw potency, raw energy, and a primal connection to the Force -- Skywalker is the most powerful Jedi ever. He just doesn't have access to his full measure of power.

Now, the line about Yoda is clearly coming from Yoda, it's his perspective:

"It came when the avatar of light resolved into the lineage of the Jedi; when the lineage of the Jedi refined into one single Jedi. It came when Yoda found himself alone against the dark. In that lightning-speared tornado of feet and fists and blades and bashing machines, his vision finally pierced the darkness that had clouded the Force.

Finally, he saw the truth.

This truth: that he, the avatar of light, Supreme Master of the Jedi Order, the fiercest, most implacable, most devastatingly powerful foe the darkness had ever known... just-didn't-have it.

He'd never had it. He had lost before he started. He had lost before he was born."

Take a look at the underlined phrase, where it notes that this is "[b]his vision". What is called the 'truth' is clearly a realization coming from Yoda's viewpoint; this is clear without even pointing anything specific out. Essentially meaning that it's subjective and an illogical thought. [/B]

The omniscient narrator refers to Yoda as being an "avatar of light" that encompassed "the lineage of the Jedi" before it can be construed that Yoda referred to himself as the most powerful foe of the darkness. That it continues to refer to Yoda's realization as the truth suggests that there is no discrepency.

Unless you're suggesting that Yoda -- in his great epiphany -- was overcome by narcissism and referred to himself as the best there ever was.