Count Dooku vs. Kyle Katarn

I like the interpretation part, but only if it's backed up by something.

so where does it say that Drillig was more skilled than Yoda again? Bondara was more skilled than the both of them.

Apparently Cin is more 'technically' skilled because he was the battlemaster of the temple.

um, being battlemaster alone doesn't mean that.

It means he had time to teach while Yoda was busy,i don't know, LEADING THE ORDER. Ditto for Luke and Katarn.

The quotes would need to say that drillig was more skilled than Yoda, and Katarn was more skilled than Luke before it would be true.

Originally posted by truejedi
um, being battlemaster alone doesn't mean that.

It means he had time to teach while Yoda was busy,i don't know, LEADING THE ORDER. Ditto for Luke and Katarn.

The quotes would need to say that drillig was more skilled than Yoda, and Katarn was more skilled than Luke before it would be true.

not directed at anyone really. whoever it was that said Drillag was more skilled than yoda. I will need proof. That he was battlemaster is not proof. that is all.

Originally posted by truejedi
not directed at anyone really. whoever it was that said Drillag was more skilled than yoda. I will need proof. That he was battlemaster is not proof. that is all.

Originally posted by Gideon
It's quite possible that formal knowledge of the seven forms died with Order 66. Battlemasters, btw, (according to the Wizards of the Coast entry in the Jedi Academy Miniatures) are the most skilled swordsmen in the Order. Drallig and Katarn are specifically mentioned, though Dooku was "the Temple's most agile instructor" (LoE).

So, Wizards of the Coast entry in the Jedi Academy Miniatures, say that.

Originally posted by mattatom
So, Wizards of the Coast entry in the Jedi Academy Miniatures, say that.

tell me mattatom, do you believe the wizards of the coast entry in the jediacademy miniatures? i don't know if i believe it to be canon or not. especially since it is contradicted by other sources.

Originally posted by truejedi
tell me mattatom, do you believe the wizards of the coast entry in the jediacademy miniatures? i don't know if i believe it to be canon or not. especially since it is contradicted by other sources.

and i thank you! i hope someone has a better source than that though. That's like saying the instruction manuel for my star wars stratego game is canon. And in it, it says that a 4 always beats a 5, and so on, so it could make our entire forum quite obsolete pretty quickly.

Originally posted by truejedi
and i thank you! i hope someone has a better source than that though. That's like saying the instruction manuel for my star wars stratego game is canon. And in it, it says that a 4 always beats a 5, and so on, so it could make our entire forum quite obsolete pretty quickly.

no. i talked about a bunch of topics. And so when people discuss them, our forum will leap back into beautiful full bloom.

Hence the Doom & Bloom.

Wizards of the Coast publishes all of the RPG books and ect. It's canon unless someone can find a blatant contradiction.

Accept it and move on.

the anoon bondara is a direct contradiction. Since HE was the most skilled jedi in the order, drillag, the battlemaster, could NOT have been the most skilled.

Originally posted by truejedi
the anoon bondara is a direct contradiction. Since HE was the most skilled jedi in the order, drillag, the battlemaster, could NOT have been the most skilled.

truejedi
the anoon bondara is a direct contradiction.

no

truejedi
Since HE was the most skilled jedi in the order,

#1. Anoon Bondara wasn't the most skilled Jedi in the Order. It was retconned by the Jedi Academy Sourcebook. He is one of the most skilled now.

#2. He died.

Truejedi
drillag, the battlemaster, could NOT have been the most skilled.

He was, according to this.

Seriously Gideon, you're being ridiculous. Some of us actually want to debate and enjoy the forum. There is no reason we can't use logic to form arguments. It really doesn't matter what some obscure quote somewhere says if there are reasonable arguments against it.

Darth_Glentract
Seriously Gideon, you're being ridiculous. Some of us actually want to debate and enjoy the forum. There is no reason we can't use logic to form arguments. It really doesn't matter what some obscure quote somewhere says if there are reasonable arguments against it.

No, Glentract, you're being ridiculous. Seriously. Your definition of debate consists of "picking which 'obscure statements' we like and don't like." For example, I don't see you dropping that 'obscure statement' that Marka Ragnos was the most powerful of the ancient Sith anytime soon, despite the fact that there is nothing to corroborate it. If we dropped obscure statements entirely, then the likes of Ragnos, Nihilus, Sion, Revan, et al. would be eliminated from the discussion completely.

You want to debate? Apply the statements into a logical process and go from there. There is wiggle room, but that requires a cogent, well-articulated argument that is backed up by sources. That's where the debate comes from.

The days of cherrypicking ended with Lightsnake, just in case you missed the memo.

Originally posted by Gideon
No, Glentract, you're being ridiculous. [b]Seriously. Your definition of debate consists of "picking which 'obscure statements' we like and don't like." For example, I don't see you dropping that 'obscure statement' that Marka Ragnos was the most powerful of the ancient Sith anytime soon, despite the fact that there is nothing to corroborate it. If we dropped obscure statements entirely, then the likes of Ragnos, Nihilus, Sion, Revan, et al. would be eliminated from the discussion completely.

You want to debate? Apply the statements into a logical process and go from there. There is wiggle room, but that requires a cogent, well-articulated argument that is backed up by sources. That's where the debate comes from.

The days of cherrypicking ended with Lightsnake, just in case you missed the memo. [/B]

QFT(wtf does it mean anyways?)