Khan Noonien Singh vs. Palpatine

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
A "no you" that is so dreadfully common. You've back claims never, and I destroyed you in your pathetic attempt when we first met.

Not even remotely. You attempted to hamstring the opposition without even remotely answering the pertinent questions, same as you've always done, and got fisted for it. You don't get to use the rules as a means to hamfist an opinion.

Over how long a time dude? You've not even examined SB anywhere near enough to make that claim, so why don't you try changing the lie, again.

I have answered all questions but bringing in book feats to a movie only thread is trolling.

I've seen the threads and Kmc has a lot more posts than space battles. Sorry, it's true. Better board.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I backed my claim regarding the supernova and the red matter. Zing. 😂

And failed in every other respect, so what?

Originally posted by quanchi112
I have answered all questions but bringing in book feats to a movie only thread is trolling.

Except you used the rule to hamstring the opposition, thus breaking the rule yourself. Reread the rules.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I've seen the threads and Kmc has a lot more posts than space battles. Sorry, it's true. Better board.

You are an outright liar. And you know you are, thus your desperately clinging to the false hope. I pity you.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
And failed in every other respect, so what?

Except you used the rule to hamstring the opposition, thus breaking the rule yourself. Reread the rules.

You are an outright liar. And you know you are, thus your desperately clinging to the false hope. I pity you.

I cited movies only but if that board won't allow that then I guess I won't frequent that board. That's awful.

This coming from a mama's boy. Hilariously sad.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You used the word never and just agreed I did so. Don't use words you don't know the meaning of. You're so easy to mock.

You really are dense. In any serious debate, you keep the dead horse going even when you completely lost, you lack the good grace to man up and leave it be, because you are ever so obsessed with your last word, which you admitted to Bada.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I cited movies only but if that board won't allow that then I guess I won't frequent that board. That's awful.

They do allow it, but not as a means to noose up the opposition. Nor does that line completely nullify wider canon. You can only do that by OP Fiat if you actually intend to debate in good faith. Nor does the movies only exclusion preclude information from other sources as long as they are official and explain things the movies miss. You attempted to make Sauron look weak, by stating he was "just a big dude" and not the Maia he is. Because you don't know what a Maia is, and the reason you don't, is because maia are explained better in the books.

There is no separate canon for the movies and books. Unlike here you can't arbitrarily separate the two.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This coming from a mama's boy. Hilariously sad.

What?

That makes no sense.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
You really are dense. In any serious debate, you keep the dead horse going even when you completely lost, you lack the good grace to man up and leave it be, because you are ever so obsessed with your last word, which you admitted to Bada.

They do allow it, but not as a means to noose up the opposition. Nor does that line completely nullify wider canon. You can only do that by OP Fiat if you actually intend to debate in good faith. Nor does the movies only exclusion preclude information from other sources as long as they are official and explain things the movies miss. You attempted to make Sauron look weak, by stating he was "just a big dude" and not the Maia he is. Because you don't know what a Maia is, and the reason you don't, is because maia are explained better in the books.

There is no separate canon for the movies and books. Unlike here you can't arbitrarily separate the two.

What?

That makes no sense.

So that board won't debate the films only so I guess you just told me I shouldn't post there due to the lack of freedom there. 😂

You said you pity me but live with your ------. I pity you.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I have admitted that to everyone. Unlike you I have a backbone. You're a weak person. You just admitted you backed yourself up. Amazing.

You have a backbone? Really?! Then why can't you admit when you are wrong, or beaten?

Originally posted by quanchi112
So that board won't debate the films only so I guess you just told me I shouldn't post there due to the lack of freedom there. 😂

It's not a lack of freedom, you ninny, it enforces the rules, and the rules state you don't get to rules lawyer a way to troll people the way you do here and everywhere else.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You said you pity me but live with your ------. I pity you.

I live alone these days Quan, and I can no longer work due to not having lower legs so I can no longer walk. I'm willing to bet real money you will mock this particular fact, but there it is. Now, I expect this thread to become a trolling mockery of me. I hope the thought makes you happy.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
You have a backbone? Really?! Then why can't you admit when you are wrong, or beaten?

It's not a lack of freedom, you ninny, it enforces the rules, and the rules state you don't get to rules lawyer a way to troll people the way you do here and everywhere else.

I live alone these days Quan, and I can no longer work due to not having lower legs so I can no longer walk. I'm willing to bet real money you will mock this particular fact, but there it is. Now, I expect this thread to become a trolling mockery of me. I hope the thought makes you happy.

So their rules say you can't make a movie versus if there are books involved ignoring the books. No freedoms there for the thread maker. No wonder the board is slow.

I would never mock you for not having legs. This is just debating and although I talk trash I wish you well if that is true.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I am not wrong nor am I beaten. You were.

You have been wrong, and I've pointed them out, but you never addressed them.

Originally posted by quanchi112
So their rules say you can't make a movie versus if there are books involved ignoring the books. No freedoms there for the thread maker. No wonder the board is slow.

No, like I said, having the OP state it, as long as the REASON for the exclusion isn't just to hamstring the opponent, or used to ignore known factswhen you feel like it.

Sauron is a Maia, not just a big undead dude.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I would never mock you for not having legs. This is just debating and although I talk trash I wish you well if that is true.

I will be frank with you. My lower legs rotted away, and back in Febuary, I had to have them removed as they no longer functioned.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
You have been wrong, and I've pointed them out, but you never addressed them.

No, like I said, having the OP state it, as long as the REASON for the exclusion isn't just to hamstring the opponent, or used to ignore known factswhen you feel like it.

Sauron is a Maia, not just a big undead dude.

I will be frank with you. My lower legs rotted away, and back in Febuary, I had to have them removed as they no longer functioned.

I have never read the books and Peter Jackson's version from what I hear completely changes things around so,it's silly to say use the books whenever you want despite them being two different versions.

Titles alone are meaningless. A man killed him with a broken magical sword.

How did they rot away ?

Originally posted by quanchi112
What, was I wrong about ?

Do I have to repeat myself yet again? I've already answered this no less than 3 times in the last 24 hours. This is another sandbagging tactic...

Originally posted by quanchi112
I have never read the books and Peter Jackson's version from what I hear completely changes things around so,it's silly to say use the books whenever you want despite them being two different versions.

No, it really doesn't.

The books, especially the Simarilion explains the very nature of the beings involved. I would request you study the Wiki, but I don't know if you even care enough to do so.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Titles alone are meaningless. A man killed him with a broken magical sword.

Except he didn't die. Maia are immortal, he just lost his power and his corporeal form. If he did die, then the Nazgul and the ring would cease to be. To make a more accurate phrase, Isildur defeated Sauron. But Sauron endured, much as Morgoth still does.

Originally posted by quanchi112
How did they rot away ?

Degenerative muscular problem in my shins and calves. Basically my skin rotted off, followed by the muscular structure, and finally my bones just gave out.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Do I have to repeat myself yet again? I've already answered this no less than 3 times in the last 24 hours. This is another sandbagging tactic...

No, it really doesn't.

The books, especially the Simarilion explains the very nature of the beings involved. I would request you study the Wiki, but I don't know if you even care enough to do so.

Except he didn't die. Maia are immortal, he just lost his power and his corporeal form. If he did die, then the Nazgul and the ring would cease to be. To make a more accurate phrase, Isildur [b]defeated Sauron. But Sauron endured, much as Morgoth still does.

Degenerative muscular problem in my shins and calves. Basically my skin rotted off, followed by the muscular structure, and finally my bones just gave out. [/B]

Titles again carry no meaning. Films don't care or make a distinction for the term. The nazgul in some scenes seemed quite formidable but then other scenes Aragorn beat them with a torch. He did die. His immortal soul was able to return to life but he was dead.

well best of luck adjusting. I mean that sincerely.

Originally posted by quanchi112
So nothing specific. Just as I thought.

Incorrect. I've already pointed this out to you 3 times in less than a day. Stop sandbagging.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Titles again carry no meaning. Films don't care or make a distinction for the term. The nazgul in some scenes seemed quite formidable but then other scenes Aragorn beat them with a torch. He did die. His immortal soul was able to return to life but he was dead.

They do, even if you don't see it.

That doesn't even make sense, and lacks the context that the books actually give.

Originally posted by quanchi112
well best of luck adjusting. I mean that sincerely.

Alright.

Palpy rapes. Any half trained force user rapes.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Incorrect. I've already pointed this out to you 3 times in less than a day. Stop sandbagging.

They do, even if you don't see it.

That doesn't even make sense, and lacks the context that the books actually give.

Alright.

You have to prove the titles based off feats and or portrayals to justify a certain power level.

The movies are separate and should be tested as such. Books rely on flowery language and no real time actions unless in the rarest sense they were quantified.

Originally posted by RJ 2.0
Palpy rapes. Any half trained force user rapes.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I have already defended myself in those threads at that time. I always do and feel free to disagree.

I disagree and have already proven why.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You have to prove the titles based off feats and or portrayals to justify a certain power level.

Which is exactly what the books do.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The movies are separate and should be tested as such. Books rely on flowery language and no real time actions unless in the rarest sense they were quantified.

Why? It's not like the movies (And not just the Peter Jackson ones) aren't based off of the books. They aren't separate canon, and the movies often rely on the audience having a working knowledge of the lore to work, otherwise things like Legolas's reference to Morgoth means nothing.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I disagree and have already proven why.

Which is exactly what the books do.

Why? It's not like the movies (And not just the Peter Jackson ones) aren't based off of the books. They aren't separate canon, and the movies often rely on the audience having a working knowledge of the lore to work, otherwise things like Legolas's reference to Morgoth means nothing.

They are only based off the books. The director has made them different in a variety of ways. They are separate.

A good movie doesn't reference or need a viewer to read something it's all self contained.

Originally posted by quanchi112
They are only based off the books. The director has made them different in a variety of ways. They are separate.

Explain how that disregards history and lore? The Audience who actually wants to learn more about the background of the show they watch obviously reads the books. Peter Jackson certainly did.

Originally posted by quanchi112
A good movie doesn't reference or need a viewer to read something it's all self contained.

But LOTR did reference past events. And no, the viewer is not required to read nothing, but if they want the larger context behind the events, then yes, they do.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Explain how that disregards history and lore? The Audience who actually wants to learn more about the background of the show they watch obviously reads the books. Peter Jackson certainly did.

But LOTR did reference past events. And no, the viewer is not required to read nothing, but if they want the larger context behind the events, then yes, they do.

The events have been changed here and there. It isn't an exact copy so again they are different.

Sidious wins with ease here. Look at the evidence and the polls. Both say Sidious.