DE Sidious vs Mace Windu (sabers only)

Started by Red Nemesis6 pages

Actually, En, I'm not sure that he is agreeing with you at all. The words are in italics, which sometimes means that someone is not telling the truth. I thought you should know, since I am so often confused by this very practice.

In this case, it seems very likely that TJ is not actually agreeing with you, because it is difficult to tell whether moves look "unpracticed" or "unpolished" in a comic book. The issue is open to interpretation even more than is the film-material, since only snapshots of action can be shown. Outside information becomes much more important in these cases.

Some outside information about Sidious during the time period in question includes:
[list]
[*]He no longer needs to hide his Sith Identity through the Force from the Jedi
[*]He can no longer predict to fight a lightsaber-wielding foe, as most of them have been killed
[/list]
From these data we can draw some conclusions. Some of the conclusions we could draw include:
[list]
[*]Sidious is now free to maintain his martial combat abilities.
[*]Sidious no longer has a motive to maintain his martial combat abilities.
[/list]
It is likely then, that Sidious is is much the same position that he was at during the events of Star Wars Episode Three: Revenge of the Sith; he will continue to be a particularly deadly swordsman, especially when his immense Force Mastery is brought to bear. This can be seen on film; Sidious remains deadly after decades without practice. There is no reason for this to have changed, even though the number of years has increased. However, his technical skill is not likely to have improved. There is no reason for him to continue maintenance on that ability. (I remember one characterization, perhaps by Blank101, that included an active disdain for the weapon as a tool of his now-defeated enemy.)

None of this, however, is enough to conclude that Darth Sidious will be in a weaker position during this fight with Mace Windu than during the aforementioned film. During the fight in the Chancellor's office against Windu, Sidious had the disadvantage of decades away from the blade. This will not have changed substantially, so no decline can be found through this factor. During that fight, Sidious also had to deal with a superior number of combatants. Indeed, the time he took dispatching those other three Masters (scant though it may have been) allowed Windu to "sink into Vaapad" (Ep. III Novelization) and put the Jedi Master in a position to win the battle. Sidious will not have distractions in this fight.

There are other ways in which the DE incarnation of Sidious is actually in a stronger position than his former self. He is no longer burdened with an aging body; vim and vigor have both been restored by way of the clone's youth. This may be incredibly important (or not) depending on how the "superconducting loop" is evaluated. If, as you yourself agreed (several years ago) it only allows Windu to match Sidious' Force Buffs then the physical restoration becomes very important indeed: as Sidious uses less power to become physically able to fight, Mace's unique metaphysical gifts will help him less.

What we are left with, then, is an Emperor restored to the exuberance of youth and freed of the obligation to call on the Force to endure a fight. Though his technical abilities may not have improved, they will not have diminished much since their last usage. These two factors combine to deny Windu his most important advantage: Vaapad's metaphysical superconducting loop. An Emperor with more advantages and fewer disadvantages cannot help but to win this.

see, i often use italics to be facetious. I rarely use them when i'm seriously disparaging someone. In that case, i use bold. In this case, I was trying to make a litty bitty funny.

Actually, En, I'm not sure that he is agreeing with you at all. The words are in italics, which sometimes means that someone is not telling the truth. I thought you should know, since I am so often confused by this very practice.

In this case, it seems very likely that TJ is not actually agreeing with you


Tj, chill out. I was being flippant. Look at this:
[quote]Me
I gave up innuendo to understand the teenage mind, and Sarcasm to better understand Irony.

Me
Sarcasm is a form of irony, therefore giving it up to better recognize irony is ironic in and of itself, granting humor to the statement. Teenagers' minds are occupied with innuendo, so giving that up to understand their minds is contrary to what your expectations of reality would suggest- Irony.

[/quote]
By maintaining that naive viewpoint I am able to point out Enyalus' own use of irony and be a helper at the same time.

It's okay, Eny... I get your humor. sadhug

obviously RN. I was trying to be flippant too by explaining! i wanted to play too!!! and now you hurt my feelings.

sadwalk

I challenge you to a duel.

Also, you aren't a helper anymore, so THERE!!!

Originally posted by truejedi
obviously RN. I was trying to be flippant too by explaining! i wanted to play too!!! and now you hurt my feelings.

sadwalk

I challenge you to a duel.

Also, you aren't a helper anymore, so THERE!!!


Let's D-D-D-D-DDDDDDDDDDDDDUEL

I am too a helper. I am the helpfulest helper on KMC. I promise!

Enyalus
Gideon, I can't believe you're still around. I would've expected you to be a big shot lawyer by now or something, too busy picking apart holes in legal contracts to worry about this. Cool, though.

....You do realize I'm only 19, right? 😐

And therefore has not rid himself of his heart of glass. You need a heart of poly fiber to face the courts.

Originally posted by Galan007
It's okay, Eny... I get your humor. sadhug

Haha, why thank you, Galan. You always understand me. And may I say, I am pleasantly surprised to see you in the SW Forum. I never had the talent to balance reading comics and Star Wars at the same time while maintaining some semblance of a life - I had to choose one or the other.
Originally posted by Gideon
....You do realize I'm only 19, right? 😐

I just think that highly of you. 😮

And even though I realize RN's use of irony and think it particularly amusing, I feel compelled to nitpick and point out that "It is likely then, that Sidious is is much the same position that he was at during the events of Star Wars Episode Three: Revenge of the Sith; he will continue to be a particularly deadly swordsman, especially when his immense Force Mastery is brought to bear. This can be seen on film; Sidious remains deadly after decades without practice" isn't exactly accurate, considering he was training Maul in presumably all seven lightsaber forms less than fifteen years before ROTS unfolds. What does this mean? Well naturally, that:

Eny: 1 - RN: 0.

😄

Actually En, we use plurals when the quantity is more than one. One and a half is more than one. "I have one and a half glasses of human blood in my freezer" requires that the word 'glasses' be pluralized in order to have number-agreement with 'one and a half.'

Eny: -1 RN: 2

I win.

Fourteen years does not constitute 'decades' in a plural sense to me, and English be damned if it says otherwise!

RN
I win.

Actually... you might not win, because I'm not certain that the comparison you provided is sufficient. A decade is defined (through a quick Google search) as "a period of ten years." Therefore, in order for decades to be used, there must be at least twenty years in question. One and a half glasses is not an appropriate comparison because the second glass does not have to be completely full for it to be a glass, whereas a decade must be ten years.

Gideon you are twisting the sense of the unit of measure in question. When someone says that they drink eight glasses of water a day then they are not indicating that eight containers of glass were liquefied and then consumed. Rather, the contents of the glasses is what is in question, so the analogy holds for as far as we need to carry it. Even if it did not, however, my point would still hold as the concept of fractions as plural entities carries into other units of measure. Look:

"One and one half inches " sounds much better than "one and one half inch" when trying to describe the length of a centipede.

I do see how the use of the word "decades" could be seen as excessive hyperbole, so I would be content to restrain myself to "years at a time," which, incidentally, also applies to Ulic Qel-Droma, who maintained exceptional technical skill after a similar number of years.

En: -1 Gid: 0 RN: 2

Another small correction, RN:

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
En: ∞-1 Gid: 0 RN: 2

Fixed.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I am too a helper. I am the helpfulest helper on KMC. I promise!

Liar.

RN
I do see how the use of the word "decades" could be seen as excessive hyperbole, so I would be content to restrain myself to "years at a time," which, incidentally, also applies to Ulic Qel-Droma, who maintained exceptional technical skill after a similar number of years.

no

A decade constitutes a period of ten years; in order for decade to be pluralized adequately, a period of at least twenty years must be in question. Your comparisons are inadequate; one and a half glasses is acceptable because a glass does not have to be completely full of liquid in order for it remain a glass and you clarified with the qualifier "half." The same goes for the inch comparison.

You weren't precise at all with your sentence about Sidious and his decades without practice. "Sidious remains deadly after decades without practice" should have been "Sidious remains deadly after more than a decade without practice."

Your failure is complete.

I must deduct ~1 billion points.

Very well. Negative one billion points are deducted.

En: infinity-1 Gid: 0 RN: 1,000,000,002

I DIDNT SAY NEGATIVE U R A LIAR N I NO LIKE U

prove it.

Originally posted by Gideon
....You do realize I'm only 19, right? 😐

I turned 19 last Sunday! Hurray!