'Kay.
I recommend this. Just hand it to him when starts getting feisty; it should make things a little easier.
Originally posted by Gideon
Why not? She hasn't exactly indicated as much expertise with a sword. She has less going for her than Tiin, Kolar, or Fisto, since they have omniscient sources supporting their accolades.
That would be some good reasons to question the judgement of Mace, right? Idiot. 🙄
And you need to go and study some literature, I guess. An omniscient narrator has to demonstrate that he is omniscient. If he doesn't do that, he is just a regular third-person narrator who can be wrong. Idiot².
By your logic, Depa is nothing. We expect a concession any time.
By your "logic" you just claimed that Sidious is nothing. Oh wait? Attack people based on statements you pulled out of your ass is something that doesn't work? Apparently it does in the brightly colored world of Gideon's Logics Special Department *cough*
Now you can go back to whack yourself on the head with a stick - or any other task that matches your IQ. 🙁
Originally posted by Borbarad
That would be some good reasons to question the judgement of Mace, right? Idiot. 🙄
And you need to go and study some literature, I guess. An omniscient narrator has to demonstrate that he is omniscient. If he doesn't do that, he is just a regular third-person narrator who can be wrong. Idiot².
By your "logic" you just claimed that Sidious is nothing. Oh wait? Attack people based on statements you pulled out of your ass is something that doesn't work? Apparently it does in the brightly colored world of Gideon's Logics Special Department *cough*Now you can go back to whack yourself on the head with a stick - or any other task that matches your IQ. 🙁
No, he's using your logic, not his own.
Excuse me, Faunus. According to Leland Chee, the action depicted on screen could happen far faster in the actual SWU. When Anakin sees Mace and Sidious fighting, he can't hardly follow their movements according to the RotS novel. If that's to be taken as a fact, then - obviously - the movie just shows a slow-motion version of the fight, in order to have the audience enjoy it. And if that is the case, the entire "action" might have happened faster than we perceive.Which does make a lot of sense, unless you want to assume that those uber swordsman have the reaction time of dead starfishs and really stand there and watch how the Sith Lord comes flying at them, performs some ridiculous stabbing movements in order to kill them - this all without them moving an inch...
And you would also have to assume that Sidious took some cocaine and was high on stardust when he crossed blades with Yoda and suddenly performed far better than against Mace Windu.
Since Leland Chee's job is to bridge the gap between EU and movie (So as to turn a profit) I can't see his word being binding in this case. The duel between Jango Fett and Obi-Wan, or the battle scenes in RotJ clearly show Jedi moving at normal, believable speeds, with speed bursts being used only briefly to achieve evasive maneuvers. If you start to speculate on the way the media is created instead of what is presents, it's easy to lose focus of the most objective viewpoint. If you begin to make assertions about the movie as being flawed and another version "more true" than even that depiction, you're arguing above G-canon, which means you think you're God or George Lucas's father, your pick. The movies are the ultimate version of canon; you must go by their depictions as most accurate. Speculation on how it appears is irrelevant. If you allow for all Jedi to move at lightning speeds, now you must compensate for all the times that they clearly don't. And you must speed up the bounty hunters, droids, the star ships, etc. It never ends. You end up on a slippery slope of "Jedi are fastur, therefore everything else is too since it's all shown at the same speeds" and you end up nowhere.
So tl;dr, Jedi are not "blindingly fast" in combat any more than Jet Li is or Jackie Chan. Leland Chee is not GL, so his interpretation of Jedi speed is just that - his subjective interpretation. One that doesn't appear to make a lot of sense from where I'm standing.
Originally posted by Lightsnake
Don't be silly, Nai. If you say you can question Mace's judgment of the trio he brought with him-and he gives them all accolades- then that throws any judgment on Depa out of whack.
Am I sorrounded by some sick parade of first grade students here?
Why to you assume that if one questions one statement of a source, he has to question every statement of that source? This is plain and simply idiotic Lightsnake.
So if I give one missjudgement (e.g. "The sky is green"😉 can't agree with a single word I'm saying any longer? Vice versa: If I state something you can agree with, you have to agree with me on every single issue.
Did the lobotomization hurt much?
No, he's using your logic, not his own.
Whatever you're smoking, you probably want to get rid of the stuff. 🙄
Originally posted by Borbarad
Am I sorrounded by some sick parade of first grade students here?
Why to you assume that if one questions one statement of a source, he has to question every statement of that source? This is plain and simply idiotic Lightsnake.So if I give one missjudgement (e.g. "The sky is green"😉 can't agree with a single word I'm saying any longer? Vice versa: If I state something you can agree with, you have to agree with me on every single issue.
Did the lobotomization hurt much?Whatever you're smoking, you probably want to get rid of the stuff. 🙄
Insults in lieu of arguments. As usual.
NaiThis is what it boils down to; you don't have a good one.
Of course you need a reason to question a statement first.
Nai
Likewise you need a good reason to question the judgement of Mace Windu when it comes to the lightsaber expertise of Depa Billaba in comparison to his own.
NaiThe claims being compared here are about as similar as anything I've ever seen, a key difference being that one has a degree of actual backing in more than one manner and across multiple forms of canon media; the other doesn't.
a) Third person limited narrator. So this statement spawns from the mind of Mace Windu and not an omniscient being. So because Mace, who seems to hype anybody with his thoughts [...] thinks that those are uber swordsman, they are?
NaiIt helps to understand the nature of the source being cited in this case.
Petitio principii is a logical fallacy, Faunus. Hence I don't have to "pick one" in this case. That Ushgarak agrees with me on a single topic (the LFL canon policy) doesn't mean that I have to agree with him on every single topic. That kind of argument is nothing but bullshit. Especially considering that the post of himself I cited makes it clear that I don't have to agree with him (because all comes down to opinion and interpretation).
Ushgarak isn't comparable to the sort of canon material we generally reference around here. Paraphrasing him, his word is absolute. What he says regarding canon is KMC policy on the matter, as far as he is concerned; there is no contradicting him, no holding his word suspect. Think Lucas; whatever he says, goes.
So citing him as a source in this case is a little silly if you're actually going to refuse to accept his judgement on other matters; he bans people for that. It's especially pointless when I have this quote from REX made with this topic in mind:
REX
Keep it civil, folks. I will say that, by KMC standards, if the novels do not contradict the films then they hold precidence. Subject to interpretation or not, whatever they state can be used in the EU forum.
NaiG-Canon, and it matters a lot. The idea that the interpretation of a random audience member has weight comparable to that of published material is arrogant and inane.
That it hapens to be in a C-Canon source and given by the narrator doesn't matter.
NaiYeah, Nai. It doesn't mean conversations happen "far faster" than depicted on screen. It doesn't mean Jedi walk at Mach 4 and the two and half hour movie is really only fifteen minutes.
Excuse me, Faunus. According to Leland Chee, the action depicted on screen could happen far faster in the actual SWU.
NaiNot that it has any relevance here, but that's an indisputably N-Canon scene. Anakin doesn't even walk in until the fight is over.
When Anakin sees Mace and Sidious fighting, he can't hardly follow their movements according to the RotS novel.
Nai... Really, Nai? It's perfectly plausible - no, probable - that every fight we see on screen happens "far faster" in the "actual SWU" - which apparently isn't the "absolute canon" of the movies - because Lucas figured he'd like his audience to actually be able to see a swordfight, but the idea that a battle between two CGI characters could be depicted more impressively than one between untrained fifty five year old men without any relevance to the above is somehow not even an option?
And you would also have to assume that Sidious took some cocaine and was high on stardust when he crossed blades with Yoda and suddenly performed far better than against Mace Windu.
Are you kidding me?
Originally posted by Borbarad
That would be some good reasons to question the judgement of Mace, right? Idiot. 🙄
You haven't provided a reason to question Windu's assessment of Tiin, Kolar, or Fisto. Trying to conjure some of that EoD fighting spirit, you jump into the fray to defend your besieged colleague (he's actually better off without you; his words don't sound nearly as arrogant without your "help"😉 and you're assuming the entirety of his contention. You're not authorized to cherrypick, Nai. Simply saying "lulz they can't beat Sidious!!1!" as means to invalidate their accolades doesn't fly. What's more disturbing is that you turn around to save face from a compliment he gave to his beloved protege. Not to mention, as I said, she has nothing to support Mace's praise; Tiin? Yep. Kolar? Yep. Fisto? Hell yes.
Provide a means to question the judgment or move on. We won't ask again.
And you need to go and study some literature, I guess. An omniscient narrator has to demonstrate that he is omniscient. If he doesn't do that, he is just a regular third-person narrator who can be wrong. Idiot².
You seem to have this crazy idea that my source is limited to the Revenge of the Sith novel.
By your "logic" you just claimed that Sidious is nothing. Oh wait? Attack people based on statements you pulled out of your ass is something that doesn't work? Apparently it does in the brightly colored world of Gideon's Logics Special Department *cough*
I think you meant "Special Logics Department." Seriously, Nai, I'm willing to overlook your seriously compromised English on account of the fact that it's not your native language; but spare us your "razor sharp wit" if you can't be bothered to actually make it witty.
No one finds you funny. At least, as far as your jokes are concerned.
Now you can go back to whack yourself on the head with a stick - or any other task that matches your IQ. 🙁
LOL GO ORBIT A PLANET - OR ANY OTHER TASK THAT MATCHES YOUR WEIGHT, FATASS.
Hell, that was even wittier.
Originally posted by Lightsnake
You're trying to cast doubt on one statement of the man in regards to the same subject. Mace has trained and fought with all four of the people he's given accolades. But somhow, for SOME reason, he's only right about one of them? No, these are double standards. Play and simpleInsults in lieu of arguments. As usual.
What in the holy name of "You killed what, St. George?" is it, that you don't get into your head. I see, I have to start at the very beginning here. I was talking about logic here: Premises and conclusions. In this very case, my argument looks like that:
Premise A: Everything not being G-Canon can be questioned.
Premise B: Everything not coming from Lucas directly is not G-Canon.
Conclusion: Everything not coming from Lucas directly can be questioned.
Now. Refute one of the premise or the conclusion. Anything else does not belong here. There goes your "logic", unless you want to at an "al" and some "fallacies" behind that word. Got that now? Yes? Give me a call when you need a picture to grasp the concept.
You are again trying to argue content, when I just followed the above mentioned premises to demonstrate something - I didn't argue the statement itself. I just said that it can be questioned and listed reasons why that is the case. And what did you do?
a) You didn't read.
b) You didn't even care about the actual point I was trying to make (the premises and conclusion you can find above)
c) You apparently were just trying to use "ad hominem" because you can't argue what I presented.
And before you start asking: "Ad hominem, Nai? I didn't insult you?" I may also explain that for the not-educated part of the forum: When examinating the validity of an argument, all that matters is the argument itself. "But you said something different five minutes ago", is not a valid attempt to refute the argument, it's an ad hominem, trying to discredit the argument by attempting to discredit the one who made it.
@Faunus:
This is what it boils down to; you don't have a good one.
A good reason for what, Faunus?
Firstly: I don't think that you have any authority to tell "good reasons" from "bad reasons".
Secondly: I listed reasons why that statement doesn't automatically have to be right - which doesn't mean I think it's wrong. Can you refute any of the reasons I stated? Apparently not, given that you didn't even try to do it. So what are you trying to argue here? Obviously nothing that is related to the topic at all. *shrugs*
It helps to understand the nature of the source being cited in this case.
It also helps to have some reading comprehension, which one could use before mindlessly attempting to attack something without understanding it first.
Ushgarak isn't comparable to the sort of canon material we generally reference around here. Paraphrasing him, his word is absolute. What he says regarding canon is KMC policy on the matter, as far as he is concerned; there is no contradicting him, no holding his word suspect. Think Lucas; whatever he says, goes.
Can you destinquish between "forum policy" and "LFL canon policy", Faunus? Apparently you can not. Ushgarak's words in regular debates is not absolute. It just is, when the policy of this board here is touched. If you question Ushgaraks words on a fictional topic like "Luke vs Sidious", you have the right to do so. If you question Ushgaraks words in regards to the forums policy, he can / might / will ban you. And thanks for not even answering my post but instead continuing with this hilarious line of thoughts.
So citing him as a source in this case is a little silly if you're actually going to refuse to accept his judgement on other matters; he bans people for that. It's especially pointless when I have this quote from REX made with this topic in mind:
Urm. No...it is not. The reason I cited him was that Gideon gave him authority. I didn't use Ush as "backup" for the content of my argument. Because there is nothing that Ush could backup there. Gideon and I were debating the LFL canon policy, I handed in quotes from an LFL official. There was nothing to dispute.
And the quote from Rex. Can you read Faunus? No. Apparently, you can't do the job. May I point your attention to the bold letters:
"Keep it civil, folks. I will say that, by KMC standards, if the novels do not contradict the films then they hold precidence. Subject to interpretation or not, whatever they state can be used in the EU forum."
Where, in the blue hell, does it say, that the novelizations can not be questioned, Faunus? Oh right. That quote doesn't contain a statement like that, because this would be ridiculous. It just makes clear that additional information from the novels not appearing in the movies can be used (hence the explicit reference to the EU forum). Nothing beyond that. In fact it even allows the idea that the novels are subject to interpretation (meaning Rex also apparently agrees with my statement). So thanks for not reading what you quoted, despite the fact you tossed the very quote at me three times.
G-Canon, and it matters a lot. The idea that the interpretation of a random audience member has weight comparable to that of published material is arrogant and inane.
No, Faunus. C-Canon according to LFLs own canon policy.
"G-canon is George Lucas Canon; the six Episodes and anything directly provided to Lucas Licensing by Lucas (including unpublished production notes from him or his production department that are never seen by the public). Elements originating with Lucas in the movie novelizations, reference books, and other sources are also G-canon, though anything created by the authors of those sources is C-canon"
Emphasis mine. Unless you can prove that something in the novel comes from Lucas himself (and no, it does not matter if he gave his okay to it, according to himself he "didn't read any novel"😉 - which means it must appear in either the movies or anything else directly coming from Lucas - it is C-Canon. End of story.
... Really, Nai? It's perfectly plausible - no, probable - that every fight we see on screen happens "far faster" in the "actual SWU" - which apparently isn't the "absolute canon" of the movies - because Lucas figured he'd like his audience to actually be able to see a swordfight, but the idea that a battle between two CGI characters could be depicted more impressively than one between untrained fifty five year old men without any relevance to the above is somehow not even an option?
You are aware of the fact, that I was just trying to find an in-universe explanation for the obvious differences we see on screen, Faunus?
And no. The Movies are not the "absolute canon" of the SWU - they are just what comes closest to Lucas own vision of the SWU (which would be the absolute canon). According to the CW Cartoon DVD Commentary, Lucas imagined the action more like it happened in those cartoons but wasn't able to make the movies that way. So, apparently, in some details, the movies are also not 100 % accurate, according to Lucas himself. They are just what comes closest to his own vision (the "original SWU"😉 in general.
Originally posted by Gideon
You haven't provided a reason to question Windu's assessment of Tiin, Kolar, or Fisto. Trying to conjure some of that EoD fighting spirit, you jump into the fray to defend your besieged colleague (he's actually better off without you; his words don't sound nearly as arrogant without your "help"😉 and you're assuming the entirety of his contention. You're not authorized to cherrypick, Nai. Simply saying "lulz they can't beat Sidious!!1!" as means to invalidate their accolades doesn't fly. What's more disturbing is that you turn around to save face from a compliment he gave to his beloved protege. Not to mention, as I said, she has nothing to support Mace's praise; Tiin? Yep. Kolar? Yep. Fisto? Hell yes.Provide a means to question the judgment or move on. We won't ask again.
Can you read, Gideon? Somehow I really doubt it. Let me just quote myself:
They are "some of the finest swordsmen in the Order" based on WHAT? I may again point it out: A statement isn't automatically true because it pops up in a SW related source. In this case:
[...]
Now you have the important part in bold letters. I didn't say, that the statement is wrong. I just said that it isn't automatically right. You understand the difference? Apparently you don't, hence you're trying to attack me for your own lack of comprehension and ability to reason.
You seem to have this crazy idea that my source is limited to the Revenge of the Sith novel.
You seem to have this crazy idea, that I was arguing the quote when I just pointed out how it's not automatically true just because it appears in the RotS novel. Your further informations weren't even part of this argument. Technically the content of the quote also wasn't part of the argument as I was, as I told Faunus before, arguing form and not content. I just used that quote as an example for purpose of demonstration. So, again, you're attacking me because of your own lack of comprehension.
I think you meant "Special Logics Department." Seriously, Nai, I'm willing to overlook your seriously compromised English on account of the fact that it's not your native language; but spare us your "razor sharp wit" if you can't be bothered to actually make it witty.
Seriously, Gideon. Does "LSD" ring a bell?
No one finds you funny. At least, as far as your jokes are concerned.
Oh, the mighty appeal to the non-existant majority again, which myself wouldn't even care about if it was the truth. Can I try it, too?
No one takes your serious, which might spawn from the fact that pubescent, hormone driven teenagers are about as useful as smoke detectors in hell. I know that, I was one myself. Your absolute belief in the written word, possible spawning from your religious education, is laughable. Your ability to grasp certain logical and philosophical concepts is non-existant. This limits your "debating skills" to tossing quotes in to threads and screaming "look - teh canon", without any thinking going on during that process, with the exception of "it's written down, so it must be the truth". The best, one could say about you, is that you are capable of compiling many quotes into one big picture, when it comes down to "Sidious is the most powerful". Which is probably the only part of your actions here, a trained monkey couldn't replicate.
With that in mind, I will just threat you like any other teenager from now on, or, to be more precise, like every other adult my age will usually threat you if you should try to reason with them in reallife (which you probably won't even attempt). Which means: I will simply ignore you, kid. You aren't somebody special, you repeat yourself ad nauseam, you can't grasp the most basic concepts, you aren't smart and you aren't funny. Thus you're not worth 5 seconds of my free-time any longer. Have a nice life.
Originally posted by Nai[/i]
With that in mind, I will just threat you like any other teenager from now on, or, to be more precise, like every other adult my age will usually threat you if you should try to reason with them in reallife (which you probably won't even attempt). Which means: I will simply ignore you, kid. You aren't somebody special, you repeat yourself ad nauseam, you can't grasp the most basic concepts, you aren't smart and you aren't funny. Thus you're not worth 5 seconds of my free-time any longer. Have a nice life.
Originally posted by Nai
Firstly: I don't think that you have any authority to tell "good reasons" from "bad reasons".
Kind've funny, innit? You lecture on someone lacking the authority to proclaim good reasons from bad and then assume authority to decide who isn't smart. Please. This would be another example of your limitless reservoir of hypocrisy.
All of this is to say that I happily accept your concession.
Edit: And yes, we all did notice you rehashing my patented "you're not funny" line. Originality is not one of your (limited) virtues.
Originally posted by Borbarad
Can you read, Gideon? Somehow I really doubt it.
Seriously, Gideon. Does "LSD" ring a bell?
Oh, the mighty appeal to the non-existant majority again, which myself wouldn't even care about if it was the truth. Can I try it, too?
Your absolute belief in the written word, possible spawning from your religious education, is laughable. Your ability to grasp certain logical and philosophical concepts is non-existant. This limits your "debating skills" to tossing quotes in to threads and screaming "look - teh canon", without any thinking going on during that process, with the exception of "it's written down, so it must be the truth". The best, one could say about you, is that you are capable of compiling many quotes into one big picture, when it comes down to "Sidious is the most powerful". Which is probably the only part of your actions here, a trained monkey couldn't replicate.
Which means: I will simply ignore you, kid. You aren't somebody special, you repeat yourself ad nauseam, you can't grasp the most basic concepts, you aren't smart and you aren't funny. Thus you're not worth 5 seconds of my free-time any longer. Have a nice life.
hence you're trying to attack me for your own lack of comprehension and ability to reason.
So, again, you're attacking me because of your own lack of comprehension.