Red Nemesis
The Blind Critic
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
So, tell me as you didn't prove a damn thing with this post of yours.
This is not a sentence. Was it supposed to be insulting or cast doubt on my position?
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Let me focus on the main point of the argument...
That would be nice.
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
You absolutely could say... Kenobi managed to not die at the hands of Anakin. You see, just because he tried to use adjectives to get the point across that he barely won and really shouldn't have one doesn't change in any way how you could use that sentence.
So you are just arguing semantics. Telling us that could have saved us a
lot of time. It is considered common courtesy to give some indication that you are
intentionally making no argument, rather than forcing us to divine your inadequacy from the repeated failure to support your assertions.
There is a certain level of dishonesty required to argue such a point. Ignoring the intent and twisting meaning of a line by taking it out of context shows only your desperation. I bet Gideon's pepost seems massive when you're getting rappwnd as thoroughly by him as you just were but it is probably best if you just stop trying. You've done a poor job and now that the intent
Spoiler:
bait
of your posts is clearer you might want to go back to whatever it is that you do.
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Lets break that sentence down because clearly you need help in understanding the English language.
This is coming from someone that used the word "pretensious" and considers ellipses appropriate replacements for periods.
😐
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
"managed to survive and not die at the hands of ___ blank" Even if better than somebody that doesn't change the fact that I could say I managed to beat(survive) and not lose to (die) ___. Any saber duel in history could use that same exact sentence. Just because Gideon tried to use it to discredit Kenobi's skill doesn't change in any way how that sentence can be used or interrupted. If you survive a duel, it doesn't matter if your better or worse YOU MANAGED TO SURVIVE and NOT DIE AT THE HANDS OF ___. I'm unclear how basic reading comprehension/vocabulary alludes you, and you can't see this. It certainly can be used in such a way to describe any duel, whether he was using that way or not, doesn't disprove my point that it can be.
Alludes:
-
verb1. to refer casually or indirectly; make an allusion (usually fol. by to):
He often alluded to his poverty.2. to contain a casual or indirect reference (usually fol. by to):
The letter alludes to something now forgotten.I need to learn English? I suggest that you learn what the words you are (mis)using actually mean before lobbing accusations or insults about ability.
Your point about the universal application of the statement is, again, an exercise in semantics. Moreover it is a faulty one. "...[M]anaged to avoid dying at the hands of [Maul]" is very different from "he managed to survive without being killed."
The former is the quote in question. The latter is your misquoted version of the line.
For someone whose pride in their linguistic abilities is eminently vast, I am surprised that you have failed to understand the distinction between the two. Luckily, I am willing to moonlight as a teacher, well endowed in the gift of patience (among other things).
The primary difference that you fail to note is that the connotation of the sentence Gideon provided is explicitly minimalist. It suggests that dying was imminent and that the avoidance thereof is noteworthy. It was presumably difficult too.
"Managed to survive without being killed" contains none of this sophistication. It is the laughable mutation of "survived against [someone]" into the tautological "survive without being killed" that so undermines your argument; where the original version of the line contrasts vastly different skill levels your new incarnation merely affirms the character's level of post-combat vitality. Assuring us that your new line can be applied to "every fight" in the mythos may not necessarily be technically incorrect but it does nothing to further your argument against the original line.
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Furthermore, the best proof of skill in dueling is.... drum roll.... dueling!! Ya know what the best measure of who is a better duelist.... drum roll.. actually dueling between A & B. You see, in life and death situation and in direct dueling situation we see who comes out on top. On KMC we go by feats and direct combat situations. Yes we also go by narration but as you know that can be filled with hyperbole and not substantiation of narration. However, when we see a duel between Kenobi and Maul.. we don't need narration to know who came out on top and is a better duelist. They fought and Kenobi won, period. You can give me x,y and z of why but in the end Kenobi proved to be the better duelist. You can't argue with cannon battles and choose to look at hyperbole instead which is the mistake you and Gideon make. Just because you don't like the outcome or feel Maul was better.. Well sorry, he wasn't better.
Clearly the issue of canon is an important one for you. Please allow me to direct you to our rules thread. The canon policy for this board includes this helpful little nugget:
2. As far as the EU section is concerned, the films are the most important canon. The rest of the canon is rated in-house as part of an ongoing continuity effort by the makers and as much as it can be, that can be treated as the way of things here. Generally speaking, books are very canon, computer games aren’t, but it’s not quite as simple as that. Ask around and you shall find out.
This means that we have two main sources to examine. The books and the movies. Luckily for me, someone has provided an
excellent case already. Allow me to direct you to the illustrious
Advent and her airtight presentation of why you are factually incorrect:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=506413&pagenumber=3You are dismissing out of hand a large portion of our data by refusing to examine narration. Narration is canon. To use your own phrase against you, "You can't argue with canon." So your (unsupported) assertions that the results of duels are more important than evaluation of those duels falls flat.
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
In conclusion.. I posed a very simple question... Name me the people Cin and Anoon beat and we'll compare that list to who Kenobi has beat. You ask for proof and I've given examples of who Kenobi has beat to make him a better duelist than those 2. So, please provide me with a list of who they beat. I don't want narration and hyperbole I want feats in duels. We aren't talking potential this is THE BEST DUELIST. Hmmmm what is the best way to see and rank who is better than who... Ooooo that's right... If they fought and beat the other.. They are better. So, please let me see the actually dueling feats of Cin and Anoon and lets see how they stack up against Kenobi and Anakin.
This paragraph made my eyes bleed. If you want to be a prick about language please make an effort to project an image, at the very least, of basic competence.
Then learn to make an argument that consists of more than "BUT THIS THING THAT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING YOU SAID IS DUMB" and "ABC ARGUMENTS ARE THE ONE AND ONLY THING I CAN USE."
Do it for the children.