I'm not ignoring anything. I simply pointed out that there are sources that disagree with you and you not only disregarded those out of hand, but also the circumstances surrounding Luke's confrontations with Abeloth.
DS
Well, I find it Ironic that you ignore the KOTOR comics.
Freedon Nadd was in KotOR comics?
Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
I'm not ignoring anything. I simply pointed out that there are sources that disagree with you and you disregarded them out of hand.
Freedon Nadd was in KotOR comics?
Freedon Nadd Uprising, DLOTS.
I don't have the comics and you didn't offer to provide any evidence from them. 😬
DS
I disregarded them because I was looking at the comics, so those sources must be either obsolete or invalid.
Er... not at all. That Nadd was able to project his essence to another location doesn't preclude the notion that was bound to his remains. Marka Ragnos was bound to his sarcophagus on Korriban and still appeared before Exar Kun and Ulic Qel-Droma on Cinnagar.
Originally posted by Turr_PhennirHe didn't project his essence. He led Kun to Korriban, appeared on Dxun many times, and appeared on Yavin to test Kun. You'd have to prove he was bound to his remains because the opposite seems to be the case.
I don't have the comics and you didn't offer to provide any evidence from them. 😬Er... not at all. That Nadd was able to project his essence to another location doesn't preclude the notion that was bound to his remains. Marka Ragnos was bound to his sarcophagus on Korriban and still appeared before Exar Kun and Ulic Qel-Droma on Cinnagar.
DS
He didn't project his essence. He led Kun to Korriban, appeared on Dxun many times, and appeared on Yavin to test Kun.
And this means he didn't project himself why?
DS
You'd have to prove he was bound to his remains because the opposite seems to be the case.
I offered. You declined.
DS
I dont need sources,
Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
And this means he didn't project himself why?
I offered. You declined.
Citing a source that comes into contradiction with the comics isn't proof.
DS
Ragnos needed the amulets to project himself, and he was limited to only his message.
Source?
Are you referring to the amulet Kun used?
DS
Nadd needed no such things. He did not appear bound by anything.
The operative word being 'appear'.
DS
It's your job to prove otherwise.
[quote]Me
I offered. You declined.
DS[/quote]
I dont need sources,
DS
Citing a source that comes into contradiction with the comics isn't proof.
facepalm
Wouldn't any "proof" then be automatically disregarded out of hand by you since it contradicts your interpretation of the comic?
Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
Source?
The operative word being 'appear'.
Wouldn't any "proof" then be automatically disregarded out of hand by you since it contradicts your interpretation of the comic?
If it's a contradiction, then it's not "proof".
For the final time, I offered to provide the evidence and you dismissed it entirely out of hand. You weren't interested.
So demanding a different kind of proof is a little absurd, when my entire argument contradicts yours and, by your own admission, you'll disregard anything of the sort.
So explain to me what sort of proof will satisfy you.
Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
For the final time, I offered to provide the evidence and you dismissed it entirely out of hand. You weren't interested.
So demanding a different kind of proof is a little absurd, when my entire argument contradicts yours and, by your own admission, you'll disregard anything of the sort.So explain to me what sort of proof will satisfy you.
DS
Maybe you have been out of this for a long time
Says the guy whose contributions to this forum for the past two years feature a stunning range of calling people anything from "gay" to "psuedointellectual"? 😂
DS
but stating a source isn't evidence, especially if it contradicts another source. But you can continue playing that game.
DS
One that confines Nadd to a certain place or through certain sith artifacts.
Me
Multiple sources ranging from The Jedi Academy Sourcebook to The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia disagree. If you want the passages and pages, I can provide them.
DS
I dont need sources,
👇
Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
[B]Says the guy whose contributions to this forum for the past two years feature a stunning range of calling people anything from "gay" to "psuedointellectual"? 😂
Now unless you have something substantial, you can admit defeat and move on to something else.
Here's what I have thus far, from sources off the top of my head. I'll hunt for more if you need them, N.
The Dark Side Spirit section of The Jedi Academy Sourcebook, page 118.
The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia, Volume II, page 355
Nadd managed to preserve his spirit, locked away in the tomb with the Sith artifacts he worked to obtain.
The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia, Volume III, page 157
Sith sarcophagus A traditional Sith burial chamber. These typically contained the physical remains of a Sith sorcerer, but could also be the final resting place of the spirit: One example was the tomb of Freedon Nadd on Dxun.
The Essential Guide to the Force, page 20
To prevent Freedon Nadd from ever again exercising his power from beyond the grave, I have transferred his sarcophagus to a great tomb on another world.
N.
That first one seems pretty clear on the subject. No hunting needed.
I'm not sure what the issue is [with DS, that is]. That Nadd's spirit, and those of other Sith Lords, were able to temporarily transport themselves to places beyond the confines of their tombs does not preclude the fact that they were inevitably anchored there. That is one of the reasons why so many Sith seek to restore themselves to their physical forms.
DS
Says the guy who's been sarcastically propping himself up on a pedestal for two years. Pot. Kettle. Black
facepalm
Your use of the pot and kettle expression indicates you have no idea what it really means; it is intended to indicate that there are no real differences between two parties despite what one or more party may believe.
In this case, the expression is inappropriate and nonsensical and I'll give you a walkthrough as to why:
DS
Maybe you have been out of this for a long time[...]
^ This was your initial smartass remark, intending to convey the idea that I didn't understand the burden of proof because I haven't been debating in a while.
Me
Says the guy whose contributions to this forum for the past two years feature a stunning range of calling people anything from "gay" to "psuedointellectual"?
^ My response turns your insult around on you, and has the added benefit of being true. In recent times, the vast majority of your posts have been dedicated to randomly insulting people on their perceived sexual orientation, political affiliation, or religious views. Now, most of us tend to take this just fine, since it's part of your charm. But the reality is that it isn't productive or insightful and so the idea of you lecturing anyone on losing competence due to a lack of activity in the realm of sophisticated debate is enough to make most of us who know you make with the lulz.
So whether or not I've been sarcastically placing myself on a high pedestal has absolutely nothing to do with the chain of smartass comments you initiated and, QED, the pot and kettle expression is both inappropriate and irrelevant. Completely.
But I forgive you anyways. 😍
DS
Now unless you have something substantial, you can admit defeat and move on to something else.
facepalm
