Originally posted by Nephthys
Force power isn't candy. If you're sharing a baseball bat with your brother you can take the bat from him if you want.
True, and if only the word "share" was used I would agree that it is arguable. But then, when you take into account the word "infused", it becomes clear that they aren't drawing power from Vitiate rather he filled them with it.
Quick! Stealth Moose, vote for the HoT!
Originally posted by ares834
True, and if only the word "share" was used I would agree that it is arguable. But then, when you take into account the word "infused", it becomes clear that they aren't drawing power from Vitiate rather he filled them with it.
They can be filled with something and still be sharing it with him in the sense that he can draw on it. I think the correct interpretation is the one that incorporates both word instead of only one.
Originally posted by Nephthys
They can be filled with something and still be sharing it with him in the sense that he can draw on it. I think the correct interpretation is the one that incorporates [b]both word instead of only one. [/B]
Except there is absolutely no evidence that he can draw on their powers.
And I agree, the interpretation that fits both words is the one to go with. Of course, that interpretation would be mine.
It fits the definition of "infuse" and the definition of "share" specifically this definition:
"the part allotted or belonging to one of a number owning together property or interest"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/share
Your interpretation does not fit the fact that they are "infused" with the Emperor's power.
Originally posted by ares834
Except there is absolutely no evidence that he can draw on their powers.And I agree, the interpretation that fits both words is the one to go with. Of course, that interpretation would be mine.
It fits the definition of "infuse" and the definition of "share" specifically this definition:
"the part allotted or belonging to one of a number owning together property or interest"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/share
Your interpretation does not fit the fact that they are "infused" with the Emperor's power.
Except for the part where they are 'sharing' the power with him. It also says they are sharing a portion of his thoughts, I suppose they alone have access to that too, huh? 😉
No, its mine. >_<
I don't understand that sentence.
It totally does allow for them to be infused with it too. He has placed a portion of his strength in their body, but that does not mean that he cannot access that portion, sharing it with them. It fits in with both words.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Except for the part where they are 'sharing' the power with him. It also says they are sharing a portion of his thoughts, I suppose they alone have access to that too, huh? 😉No, its mine.
I don't understand that sentence.
It totally does allow for them to be infused with it too. He has placed a portion of his strength in their body, but that does not mean that he cannot access that portion, sharing it with them. It fits in with both words.
Here is a simpler definition which means the same thing:
1. To have a share or part
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/share
Except, once again, it does not state he has access to the power he has placed within him. At all. The word "share" could simply mean he gave them a portion of his own power which, incidentally, is further substantiated by the fact that "children are infused with the Emperor’s strength".
Edit:
Also, "His Children, individuals infused with part of his being."
http://www.swtor-spy.com/codex/the-first-son-consular/1154/
Game, set, match
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Dolos, you're being rather intolerant and combative. Kind of like a Sorgo clone. Or maybe you're the Sorgo's Voice or one of his hundreds of children?
no your doin it wrong you have to capitalise Children thats just how it is done geez
Originally posted by ares834
Here is a simpler definition which means the same thing:1. To have a share or part
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/share
Except, once again, it does not state he has access to the power he has placed within him. At all. The word "share" could simply mean he gave them a portion of his own power which, incidentally, is further substantiated by the fact that "children are infused with the Emperor’s strength".
Edit:
Also, "His Children, individuals [b]infused with part of his being
."http://www.swtor-spy.com/codex/the-first-son-consular/1154/
Game, set, match [/B]
Ok. But there are other definitions. You don't get to pick and choose which one you want it to mean.
Except, once again, I ONLY said it was a possibility and was ambiguous. It "could" mean it as you're arguing it, or it "could" mean it as I am arguing it. Both are equally possible. It is not substantiated by that fact, its only substantiated by a manner in which you are interpreting that quote. Quit acting as if your interpretation is the only valid one. Both are possible.
Game, set, match nothing. 😬 That proves nothing other than repeating a statement we are already discussing. It isn't relevant at all.
No, its ambiguous only because the word 'infused' was used. Geez get it right. 🙄
Er, yes we already knew that. It says they share a measure of his thoughts and power i.e. his being. Thats not news to anyone. Thats precisely why I think he could possibly draw on the power. A portion of his being connects them to him. 😬
Yeah, I'm bored already anyway... Probably my last post on the subject.
Originally posted by Nephthys
No, its ambiguous only because the word 'infused' was used. Geez get it right. 🙄Er, yes we already knew that. It says they share a measure of his thoughts and power i.e. his being. Thats not news to anyone. Thats precisely why I think he could possibly draw on the power. A portion of his being connects them to him. 😬
Yes, a separate portion of his essence.
Ultimately, your argument relies on a specific reading of a rather ambiguous use of the word "share". Mine relies on all the other ways it has been stated which have the children be "infused" or "filled" with his power and fits a specific use of the word "share" as well.
And both interpretations differ from your original theory which had you claiming they draw upon Vitiate like the guards. *shrug* That is, after all, what I was initially arguing against, the idea that the Children draw upon the Emperor.
It isn't a separate portion of his essence though. They are connected to him. That's why he could so easily possess Kira at the end of the JK Act I.
No it doesn't. 😬 To share something with someone almost always means that you're both possessing it at the same time. Even if you share something with someone, to 'share' it still means that you own it and can take it back if you want. Otherwise you'd be 'giving' it to them. For them only to be in possession of it would mean that he 'gave' it to them instead of 'sharing' it with them.
I was only using the guards as an example. I said in the next sentence that Vitiate would be drawing on 'their' power.
Originally posted by The_TempestShouldn't the versus forum be about bringing to light who is actually more powerful.
Your efforts are ultimately working against my efforts to undermine Vitiate. It will behoove you to cease and desist, else I'll shove my proton torpedo down your exhaust port swiftly and without mercy.
That's the reason Neph is vexxing me, she only gives a shit about her hard on for an unnamed character who has very vague and unquantifiable feats and victories. Actually no feats as the only text written about demonstrations power that exist for the character, outside of the N canon sequence in game-play, are in SWTOR: Encyclopedia - which doesn't give enough to go off of.
Yea, a gifted Jedi kills a lot of Temple Guards and goes on to defeat The Emperor as his plans crumble around him. Sounds a lot like Luke from DE - who got stomped by Exar Kun's spirit.