Juyo vs Makashi - Maul vs Dooku (lightsaber only)

But I love House...

Keep this civil folks. I'm hearing problems regarding the canonicity of things. I will state things clearly; the films and Lucas are G-Canon, that is irrefutable. And film novelizations, as long as they do not directly contradict the films, are C-Canon, but since this is an EU section, you cannot disregard them.

Nai
A good reason for what, Faunus?

Nai
Of course you need a reason to question a statement first.

Nai
That would be some good reasons to question the judgement of Mace, right?

Nai
Likewise you need a good reason to question the judgement of Mace Windu [...]

Nai
Firstly: I don't think that you have any authority to tell "good reasons" from "bad reasons".

Nai
A good reason for what, Faunus?

Nai
It also helps to have some reading comprehension, which one could use before mindlessly attempting to attack something without understanding it first.

Nai
Secondly: I listed reasons why that statement doesn't automatically have to be right - which doesn't mean I think it's wrong.

Nai
And thanks for not even answering my post but instead continuing with this hilarious line of thoughts.

Nai
Urm. No...[b]it is not. The reason I cited him was that Gideon gave him authority.[/b]

Jesus Christ, Nai.

Nai
"Keep it civil, folks. I will say that, by KMC standards, if the novels do not contradict the films then they hold precidence. [b]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).[/b]

Captain REX
The policy is that, as long as the "interpretations" of authors do not directly conflict with the films or a higher canon source (i.e. Lucas himself), they are considered canon [...].

Eminence
So Nai's wrong, right?

Captain REX
Yes. [...]

Nai
No, Faunus. [b]C-Canon according to LFLs own canon policy.[/b]

Nai
[...] I can attack Stovers interpretation. That it hapens to be in a C-Canon source and given by the narrator doesn't matter.

For the record? You're still wrong. Just because something is C-Canon does not mean it can be held suspect by you if it doesn't contradict a equal or higher canon material. Dooku being hard-pressed doesn't contradict jack shit - I'm sure I'll have to explain to you in full why I'm bringing that up now - so you attacking his "interpretation" is idiotic.

Another thing you apparently fail to understand is that when an author's "interpretation" is published, it becomes canon. You do not have any authority whatsoever to argue with that.

Nai
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?

Nai
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).

Nai
I hate to repeat myself, especially when quoting other people:

"When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves—and only the films." - Chris Cherasi

Nai
So thanks for not reading what you quoted, despite the fact you tossed the very quote at me three times.

I'm fairly sure I win. You should probably stop now.

And just for kicks:

Nai[quote]
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*

Can you destinquish between "forum policy" and "LFL canon policy", Faunus? Apparently you can not.

Can you read Faunus? No. Apparently, you can't do the job.

Can you read, Gideon? Somehow I really doubt it.

Why didn't you give me any credit for that?

'Cause.

So many Ad Hominem attacks it hurts my eyes

Technically, most of those weren't ad hominems. They were insults, yes, but an insult is not a logical fallacy. If he had said 'Gideon, you are stupid and therefore your argument is stupid' then it would be an ad hominem. As it is it is just an aggressive post. Right?

(Incidentally, pointing out other peoples' fallacies can be seen as an ad hominem- you use appeal to the majority ergo you are wrong.)

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Technically, most of those weren't ad hominems. They were insults, yes, but an insult is not a logical fallacy. If he had said 'Gideon, you are stupid [b]and therefore your argument is stupid' then it would be an ad hominem. As it is it is just an aggressive post. Right?

(Incidentally, pointing out other peoples' fallacies can be seen as an ad hominem- you use appeal to the majority ergo you are wrong.) [/B]

Keep this civil folks. I'm hearing problems regarding the canonicity of things. I will state things clearly; the films and Lucas are G-Canon, that is irrefutable. And film novelizations, as long as they do not directly contradict the films, are C-Canon, but since this is an EU section, you cannot disregard them.

Well, I don't have the time to review all the arguments posted since I last posted tonight, but suffice to say that where I'm coming from is that if a piece of EU elaborates on or embellishes part of movie canon, it is subject to discussion and interpretation, not blind rejection. Because I don't rabidly believe that all EU is equal, I'm being misrepresented here as someone who's attempting to redefine canon, and I'm not. I'm strictly using the canon policies set down by LFL to filter my sources and make arguments based closer to the G-canon truth. They're not perfect, but at least I'm not parroting a bunch of other stuff without thinking for myself, right?

Since not all authors and writers can depict GL's characters exactly in the true spirit he does, some of the "blanket statements" or "EU-only assertions" seem out of place.

For example, things like Agen and Saessee being the "Order's finest" and yet they can't muster a proper defense against a straight-forward attack, or Chee's comment about EU-described speeds not being contradictory (Even though this means we now have to justify why Jango Fett can fight at equal speeds with Obi-Wan Kenobi), or even comments like Qui-Gon Jinn stalemated Mace Windu in combat. Instead of taking statements at face value, further examination should be encouraged in a discussion forum which centers about interpretation of fights in the SW universe. If we just rely on blanket statements and absolutes, we're not really making valid use of our time. You may as well link a Wookieepedia article every time a match comes up.

Being a prisoner of EU assertions is silly, because again, not all EU writers are created equally with GL. They don't share his mindset any more then we do; that is, they just interpret the characters based on the movies themselves. If Stover is just applying his own stylistic description of a fight that he didn't see in the movies, how can I say his impressions were more logically sound than that of someone who saw the movies?

Or, to further that line of thinking, the movies themselves are considered the highest level of canon along with other GL-related stuff, but that somehow includes novelizations, even though those novelizations are not based on the final product, and in some places may blatantly contradict it. If we believe that the RotS novel is equally valid with the movie itself, then we have to believe that both Kit FIsto's head was on Palpatine's desk... and yet not. We have to believe that Sidious force pushed Mace into a wall... and yet he did not. We have to believe that Dooku asked for amnesty... and yet did not.

Are we seeing the contradictions there yet? The movies > G-canon material > C-canon material > writing on bathroom stall.

LFL canon policy clearly states that the further you move from the movies themselves, the foggier things get. I just don't see how people can argue the movie battle scenes by ignoring them and focusing on someone else's interpretation of the fights. Should I write my book report on someone else's report of Hamlet? Is my opinion of any note if I simply aped someone else's interpretation of events, not my own? I realize that it's easier to hide behind established EU material instead of thinking outside of the box, but come on.

Why are we debating then, if not to demonstrate our understanding of the subject material and how we see things happening ourselves?

The Lord of the Shricken takes it. Just barely because Mace Winfield is a PIMP.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Well, I don't have the time to review all the arguments posted since I last posted tonight, but suffice to say that where I'm coming from is that if a piece of EU elaborates on or embellishes part of movie canon, it is subject to discussion and interpretation, not blind rejection. Because I don't rabidly believe that all EU is equal, I'm being misrepresented here as someone who's attempting to redefine canon, and I'm not. I'm strictly using the canon policies set down by LFL to filter my sources and make arguments based closer to the G-canon truth. They're not perfect, but at least I'm not parroting a bunch of other stuff without thinking for myself, right?

Since not all authors and writers can depict GL's characters exactly in the true spirit he does, some of the "blanket statements" or "EU-only assertions" seem out of place.

For example, things like Agen and Saessee being the "Order's finest" and yet they can't muster a proper defense against a straight-forward attack, or Chee's comment about EU-described speeds not being contradictory (Even though this means we now have to justify why Jango Fett can fight at equal speeds with Obi-Wan Kenobi), or even comments like Qui-Gon Jinn stalemated Mace Windu in combat. Instead of taking statements at [b]face value, further examination should be encouraged in a discussion forum which centers about interpretation of fights in the SW universe. If we just rely on blanket statements and absolutes, we're not really making valid use of our time. You may as well link a Wookieepedia article every time a match comes up.

Being a prisoner of EU assertions is silly, because again, not all EU writers are created equally with GL. They don't share his mindset any more then we do; that is, they just interpret the characters based on the movies themselves. If Stover is just applying his own stylistic description of a fight that he didn't see in the movies, how can I say his impressions were more logically sound than that of someone who saw the movies?

Or, to further that line of thinking, the movies themselves are considered the highest level of canon along with other GL-related stuff, but that somehow includes novelizations, even though those novelizations are not based on the final product, and in some places may blatantly contradict it. If we believe that the RotS novel is equally valid with the movie itself, then we have to believe that both Kit FIsto's head was on Palpatine's desk... and yet not. We have to believe that Sidious force pushed Mace into a wall... and yet he did not. We have to believe that Dooku asked for amnesty... and yet did not.

Are we seeing the contradictions there yet? The movies > G-canon material > C-canon material > writing on bathroom stall.

LFL canon policy clearly states that the further you move from the movies themselves, the foggier things get. I just don't see how people can argue the movie battle scenes by ignoring them and focusing on someone else's interpretation of the fights. Should I write my book report on someone else's report of Hamlet? Is my opinion of any note if I simply aped someone else's interpretation of events, not my own? I realize that it's easier to hide behind established EU material instead of thinking outside of the box, but come on.

Why are we debating then, if not to demonstrate our understanding of the subject material and how we see things happening ourselves? [/B]

I know I sound like a grovelling shrew, and Gideon will wish me blind, but still... awesome.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
*points* What he said. Right there. There! See it?

I know I sound like a grovelling shrew, and Gideon will wish me blind, but still... awesome.

No, just assume that you are blind. But you're correct about the shrew.

The problem is that you're basically agreeing that the entirety of canon, the movies, the Expanded Universe, and even the statements of George Lucas should be subject to review by Janus Marius. Or, failing that, by a small group of people who can't even come to a consensus. That suggests a blatant and deep rooted arrogance that I won't assume; Project Holocron interpreted canon statements, events, and facts in a logical manner and that was supported by other canon; we did not simply discard that which we didn't like.

In our most recent argument, Janus concluded that Masters Tiin, Kolar, and Fisto were clearly not some of the Order's finest swordsmen (despite multiple sources confirming and demonstrating such) simply because they failed to take on Palpatine. How can either of you defend that contention or the failed logic to get there? The fact that they were blitzed by a Force user whose powers, experience, and attunement exceeded their own by miles is a sign that they are inept? I rebutted with the fact that if we use the same standards, Yoda's reputation as a wise sage, an experienced Jedi master, and an all around bright character is null and void; after all, he was manipulated by Palpatine easily for years and -- in a moment of spectacular stupidity -- somehow managed to not acknowledge the Emperor raising his hands to during the opening salvo of their duel in the Rotunda, resulting in his prompt electrocution and subsequent unconsciousness. Or the great Count Dooku, Lord of the Sith and powerful Jedi Master was equally inept, somehow missing the fact that his Master would betray him and leave him to die for the chance at securing a more powerful tool.

I can assure you that Janus will naturally take issue with this stance when it suits his agenda or effects characters that he likes. He'll always mitigate the "damage" taken to them; there's a predictable, but thin excuse, for why Yoda and Dooku are somehow not inept and yet the likes of Tiin, Kolar, and Fisto are.

That's the problem I have. This newfound outlook is one of deliberate cherrypicking. Because if he really were a believer in this crock, he'd have no choice to conclude that everyone in the prequel trilogy this side of Sidious is a complete moron.

Originally posted by Gideon
No, just assume that you are blind. But you're correct about the shrew.

The problem is that you're basically agreeing that the entirety of canon, the movies, the Expanded Universe, and even the statements of George Lucas should be subject to review by Janus Marius. Or, failing that, by a small group of people who can't even come to a consensus. That suggests a blatant and deep rooted arrogance that I won't assume; Project Holocron interpreted canon statements, events, and facts in a logical manner and that was supported by other canon; we did not simply discard that which we didn't like.

In our most recent argument, Janus concluded that Masters Tiin, Kolar, and Fisto were clearly not some of the Order's finest swordsmen (despite multiple sources confirming and demonstrating such) simply because they failed to take on Palpatine. How can either of you defend that contention or the failed logic to get there? The fact that they were blitzed by a Force user whose powers, experience, and attunement exceeded their own by miles is a sign that they are inept? I rebutted with the fact that if we use the same standards, Yoda's reputation as a wise sage, an experienced Jedi master, and an all around bright character is null and void; after all, he was manipulated by Palpatine easily for years and -- in a moment of spectacular stupidity -- somehow managed to not acknowledge the Emperor raising his hands to during the opening salvo of their duel in the Rotunda, resulting in his prompt electrocution and subsequent unconsciousness. Or the great Count Dooku, Lord of the Sith and powerful Jedi Master was equally inept, somehow missing the fact that his Master would betray him and leave him to die for the chance at securing a more powerful tool.

I can assure you that Janus will naturally take issue with this stance when it suits his agenda or effects characters that he likes. He'll always mitigate the "damage" taken to them; there's a predictable, but thin excuse, for why Yoda and Dooku are somehow not inept and yet the likes of Tiin, Kolar, and Fisto are.

That's the problem I have. This newfound outlook is one of deliberate cherrypicking. Because if he really were a believer in this crock, he'd have no choice to conclude that everyone in the prequel trilogy this side of Sidious is a complete moron.

Tiin, Kolar, and Fisto were D List Jedi.

They never made any kind of noise outside of the EU.

Originally posted by Lord Tyranus
Tiin, Kolar, and Fisto were D List Jedi.

They never made any kind of noise outside of the EU.

They were never featured outside the EU (other than the obvious scene in Revenge of the Sith).

Originally posted by Gideon
They were never featured outside the EU (other than the obvious scene in Revenge of the Sith).

Would they have attracted enough attention though?

Originally posted by Lord Tyranus
Would they have attracted enough attention though?

Based on what?

Lightsaber skills or importance? Logically, they'd have shit for screen time; the prequels were about three people: Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Palpatine. To a lesser extent, Padme, Yoda, Qui-Gon, and Mace. To an even lesser extent, Nute Gunray, Count Dooku, Darth Maul, General Grievous.

This is to say that even if Lucas wanted to establish them as badass duelists in the movie, they're still insignificant characters and would thus have little to no time to do it in. Thus why the EU exists: the Expanded Universe, to elaborate on that which the movie cannot or does not.

You know, I think a lot of these problems can be explained by Lucas being a crappy writer who spawns contradictions in his own work.

Sidious needs to appear like a badass, so everyone who opposes him suddenly gets dumb or pathetic. Yoda turns into a fool, the Jedi suddenly suck and Dooku is made an idiot. All signs or very poor writing. In short, SW is loaded with an exorbitant amount of PIS.

lol don't get me started on the downhill slide that Grievous took in RoTS.

Originally posted by Gideon
No, just assume that you are blind. But you're correct about the shrew.

The problem is that you're basically agreeing that the entirety of canon, the movies, the Expanded Universe, and even the statements of George Lucas should be subject to review by Janus Marius. Or, failing that, by a small group of people who can't even come to a consensus. That suggests a blatant and deep rooted arrogance that I won't assume; Project Holocron interpreted canon statements, events, and facts in a logical manner and that was supported by other canon; we did not simply discard that which we didn't like.

In our most recent argument, Janus concluded that Masters Tiin, Kolar, and Fisto were clearly not some of the Order's finest swordsmen (despite multiple sources confirming and demonstrating such) simply because they failed to take on Palpatine. How can either of you defend that contention or the failed logic to get there? The fact that they were blitzed by a Force user whose powers, experience, and attunement exceeded their own by miles is a sign that they are inept? I rebutted with the fact that if we use the same standards, Yoda's reputation as a wise sage, an experienced Jedi master, and an all around bright character is null and void; after all, he was manipulated by Palpatine easily for years and -- in a moment of spectacular stupidity -- somehow managed to not acknowledge the Emperor raising his hands to during the opening salvo of their duel in the Rotunda, resulting in his prompt electrocution and subsequent unconsciousness. Or the great Count Dooku, Lord of the Sith and powerful Jedi Master was equally inept, somehow missing the fact that his Master would betray him and leave him to die for the chance at securing a more powerful tool.

I can assure you that Janus will naturally take issue with this stance when it suits his agenda or effects characters that he likes. He'll always mitigate the "damage" taken to them; there's a predictable, but thin excuse, for why Yoda and Dooku are somehow not inept and yet the likes of Tiin, Kolar, and Fisto are.

That's the problem I have. This newfound outlook is one of deliberate cherrypicking. Because if he really were a believer in this crock, he'd have no choice to conclude that everyone in the prequel trilogy this side of Sidious is a complete moron.

Janus has a point: taking everything at face value contradicts some stuff, making it that much more difficult to discern what's true and what's not. Statistically speaking, an enraged Luke with like a month of training took down a man who's 80% of the best-of-the-best, all the while swinging his saber like a club. Inter-movie contradiction ensues when comparing that to the grace of the PT Jedi. Judging by what we see on-screen, there is NO way RoTJ Vader could take even TPM Obi-Wan---the comparative speed of the two is just that different.

In all sanity, Agen Kolar WAS a moron---he was looking the other way when he was stabbed. That's justified by making Sidious "that fast" and "it's slowed down for the audience's benefit." How do we work with that?! The same can be applied to any scenario in the movies, e.g. Jango either moves as fast a Jedi or Obi-Wan just blows.

I dunno.

Frankly I feel Lucas kinda f/ucked we nerds over by some of his declarations.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Which is exactly why I like it. Personally I've always had a problem with the PT Jedi and Sidious being the best there ever was. If the EU didn't exist, I wouldn't care, but the stuff we see the likes of Bane and Revan and Nihilus do etc.... Movie-Sidious just doesn't show he's capable of that. Lol, it's actually only until Sidious is pushed in to the EU that we see it. But if the movies are the highest form of canon then one has to wonder as to just how we ARE supposed to rationalize why the movie-incarnations pale in comparison to the EU.

Janus has a point: taking everything at face value contradicts some stuff, making it that much more difficult to discern what's true and what's not. Statistically speaking, an enraged Luke with like a month of training took down a man who's 80% of the best-of-the-best, all the while swinging his saber like a club. Inter-movie contradiction ensues when comparing that to the grace of the PT Jedi. Judging by what we see on-screen, there is NO way RoTJ Vader could take even TPM Obi-Wan---the comparative speed of the two is just that different.

In all sanity, Agen Kolar WAS a moron---he was looking the other way when he was stabbed. That's justified by making Sidious "that fast" and "it's slowed down for the audience's benefit." How do we work with that?! The same can be applied to any scenario in the movies, e.g. Jango either moves as fast a Jedi or Obi-Wan just blows.

I dunno.

Frankly I feel Lucas kinda f/ucked we nerds over by some of his declarations.

The EU expands of over 100 novels, comics, and graphic novels. Of course we are gonna see more of what the force is capable of. The movies focus mostly on the story of Anakin, and not so much the force. Most of the action we see in the movies come from average force users. When we do see extreme force users in action in the movies, we see a heavily damaged arena of destroyed, vehicle sized senate pods.

If you leave out all of Sidious's force achievments from the EU, you would still have an uber force user. If you just name only his achievments in the movies, you still have him dimishing the jedi order's ability to use the force, and cloud their visions. You have him being able to foresee just about everything. And as far as his battle oriented powers, you have him ripping out vehicle sized senate pods from their durasteel restraints, and throw them around like frisbies, and of course the lightning. That alone is more than most sith from the EU.

If you go strictly how it is shown in the films, then that means Sidious really did throw his fight with Windu. He is fighting like an old man with Windu, but with Yoda he fights with superhuman speed. So that means he was giving Yoda his best with a saber, and not Windu.

I see, nothing has changed here in the last days. I was busy with work so, excuse my absense...

Originally posted by Eminence
...Ringing any bells?

So you did know what I was referring to. Makes you look like a moron for asking.

Impressive, young padawan. You've clearly mastered the art of straw manning through an entire argument. Let me make it clear for the unsuspicious audience.

Me: "A statement in a source doesn't automatically have to be right. One can question it, if having a good reason to do so."

Faunus interpretations:
1)"Nai wants to ignore the entire EU."
2)"Nai wants to question all statements he doesn't like"
3)"Nai wants to question the canon without reason."

This is astonishing. Really. The same guy that quotes the "good reason" line multiple times somehow manages to forget it just seconds after doing so. Isn't that wierd? So either Faunus does possess the attention span of a housefly, or he's trying to attack my argument via a straw man. So...is he stupid, or simply using a logical fallacy because refuting the original argument is beyond his intellectual abilities? More important: Does it even matter, as nothing of that touches the original point?

^ I was planning on saving that 'till the end in the interest of not making an anticlimactic post, but it fits just fine. There's enough ownage to go around.

I'm astonished by that level of ownage, Faunus. I think we can add an "argumentum ad verecundiam" next to "straw man" on the list of logical fallacies you're commiting here. I may give you a hint: Such kind of argument only works, when your opponent accepts the authority you're listing. In this special case, though, he doesn't, which could have been noted on further comments regarding Ushgaraks thoughts on topics not belonging to the "forum rules" department.

So Rex doesn't agree with me [mind you: he apparently didn't want you to make that one public]? I wonder what he doesn't agree with: The things I said, or your special version of it? Not that it matters, since this also doesn't defeat the argument. Try again.

I think the absurdity of that line is evident enough that I don't have to highlight or laugh at it.

For the record? You're still wrong. Just because something is C-Canon does not mean it can be held suspect by you if it doesn't contradict a equal or higher canon material. Dooku being hard-pressed doesn't contradict jack shit - I'm sure I'll have to explain to you in full why I'm bringing that up now - so you attacking his "interpretation" is idiotic.

Another thing you apparently fail to understand is that when an author's "interpretation" is published, it becomes canon. You do not have any authority whatsoever to argue with that.

And kaaaaziiiiing...
Welcome to the wonderful world of interpretation. You host is Eminence the Wise, Keeper of the Holy Grail of Interpretation, Analysis and Canon.

1) Faunus is commiting the straw man #2, by – basically – repeating the first. He ignores the "good reason" thought once again, while having quoted it just minutes before and multiple times. Or to make it clear: I don't think that anything in a C-Canon source can be contested without reason, which is what Faunus does assume here. With the exception of interpretations of other sources appearing in those C-Canon sources (e.g.: the novel interpreting the movie).

2) Faunus commiting another argumentum ad vericundiam, this time trying to pass down the interpretation of a source as fact. Hell. Every damn kid that graduated from elementary school should be able to tell "fact" from "interpretation", especially after I explicitely pointed out the difference in courtesy of the argument Faunus is trying to refute. If somebody needs a reminder:

Fact: Qui-Gon Jinn met a stalemate with TPM Mace Windu when they practiced fighting.
Interpretations: Qui-Gon must be equal to TPM Mace in terms of lightsaber mastery. A younger Qui-Gon could possible have bested TPM Mace Windu.

There is, noteably, room to question the "interpretations" while arguing the "facts" can be quite a problem. Faunus also ignores that difference, I mentioned, commiting straw man #3. Further problem with Faunus idea: He thinks the interpretation an author gives of a canon source (e.g. the movies) must be canon, because what the author writes becomes canon. Here Faunus is commiting a nice pertitio principii – he's arguing in circles. He assumes that the author must be automatically right in his interpretation, in order to proof that the interpretation of a G-Canon in a C-Canon source must always be right. Funny.

But, of course, Faunus has left us with a nice example for this branch of "logic":

Dooku being hard-pressed doesn't contradict jack shit

If Dooku is hard-pressed because of having a table thrown at him, having sword strikes missing him by milimeters (burning through his clothes), and being attacked by the duo with acrobating teamwork manouvers - yet none of it happens in the movie (read: the higher level canon) - one has to ask why Dooku should be hard-pressed ? One can't remove the cause of something and assume that, despite of it, the consequence does remain. That's a fairly easy concept. If I poke you in the eye, the result is pain. According to Faunus it works like this: If I was thinking about poking you, but then decided it's wrong to do so, your eyeballs will still hurt - without any poking going on!

Shall we go on with that fun stuff? Sidious office has a balcony now – it's just invisible in the movie where his window apparently leads directly into bottomless darkness. Kit Fisto has two heads now, one being attached to his dead body and the other lying on Sidious desk after being cut off. And Dooku is hard pressed because of invisible furniture getting force pushed at him and lethal teamwork manouvers, that Anakin and Obi-Wan performed against him, while the observer in the shape of the camera man was just having a break.

Let me ask you a question, Faunus: What is more accurate here. My observations [read: interpretation] of the stuff happening on screen, or the C-Canon interpretation of Stover, which blatantly contradicts the movie? Right. I accept your concession.

But, Jesus Christ, we have ignored the original topic for quite a long time now, didn't we? I might still refer to the "good reason" statement, Faunus has managed to quote 200 times, while either not understanding or ignoring it. I think that I don't have to point out that ommitting parts of an arguments just equals a straw man again. So the question would be: What does qualify as a "good reason"? Let's have a look at the examples of - uh, let's say, myself:

Third person limited narrator. [...]

Reason I: Form
If a statement spawns from the thoughts or words of a character, it's always subject to interpretation and falsification. Characters aren't omniscient and therefore, they don't have to be right. If you don't think I'm right here, you have to take any character quote literally from here on. I'd love to see that happening.

There is evidence that we could use to put an entire league of duellist above those combatants. So are they top 10? Top 100? Of the PT era? Ever? No answer.

Reason II: Other sources
Notice: Faunus has attempted to straw man the "other sources" out of my argument (straw man #4). I wonder why? And, fun stuff, he then even attempted to lecture me on the need of other sources in order to question a statement. That kind of brillance makes the sun look like a small light bulb. If Faunus head explodes, his room will be covered in bort.

Reason III: Inaccuracies
It makes a difference if "some of the best" means "some of the top ten" or "some of the 10,000 best out of 10,000". If a statement doesn't make things clear, it requires interpretation - if it does require interpretation, it can't be used to proof anything.

The movie and the novel both have the two dying without reaction to Sidious attack.

Reason IV: Higher Level Canon
Yes people. I directly listed that in the "good reasons" department. Faunus, brilliant fellow that he is, states that you need a higher level source contradicting the lower level in order to question it. I listed it – he ignored it. Straw man #5.