EDIT: this part didn't get posted for some reason -
You still don't understand how to analyze things in a meaningful way. You still make awkward and cringe-worthy posts about how somebody has "amazing" powers or "wizard-like" skills. Let me try to give you an example:
Lord Scourge had become a proper Sith Lord and gained combat experience prior to meeting Darth Nyriss:
- And an excellent swordsman:
What does "excellent" mean exactly? What does "combat experience" tell us? Is he 1 in 1000? 1 in 100,000? Is he comparable to Kit Fisto or Caedus?
Your utter lack of analytical skills seems even more befuddling when these quotes don't even engage with what you were responding to:
Me: Good for him. He's still described as being a top student at his academy, but hardly a prodigy on the level of, say, Mace Windu, who was basically nothing next to Palpatine before he sunk into vaapad.
What's this? I literally told you that Scourge is an exceptional duelist, but not on the level of the characters we were talking about. You refute me...by pointing out that he's an excellent swordsman. It's like you honestly don't understand the simple elements of the English language.
I'm beginning to think that you have a learning disability. I've tried to explain to you how cringe-worthy your obsession with meaningless adjectives over real analysis is, and you don't even come up with flimsy excuses to this - you don't even acknowledge these complaints or seem to register what I'm trying to say at all.
The second issue with your intellectual failures is your inability to draw substantive comparative analysis between set A and set B. You are intelligent enough to find quotes and videos on the internet and give a superficial description of them in broken English, but you cannot figure out how to explain what this means relative to the opposing character. Take a look at this gem:
Revan's feat of one-shotting Darth Nyriss is a legitimate demonstration of his raw power in the works during that moment. A lesser Jedi would have been overwhelmed (e.g. Meetra Surik) in his place.
WTF does this even mean? Revan > someone lesser than Revan? Ooohhh, what a brilliantly articulated tautology! But now how does this compare with Palpatine's feats
----
Honestly, I really, really hope that in your reply, you at least show signs of understanding the argument I'm putting forward here. I would even see a really stupid or illogical rebuttal to it as progress on your part - at least you understand what the f*ck I'm saying!
Originally posted by The Ellimist
You still don't understand how to analyze things in a meaningful way. You still make awkward and cringe-worthy posts about how somebody has "amazing" powers or "wizard-like" skills.
Whatever I have said about Heskal is absolutely true. He was fast enough to knock out Senya before she could react and he evaded Outlander's attacks like a wizard (literally vanishing from a spot 'before' Outlander could land a blow, only to manifest in another spot). You can see Heskal's actions in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KErb5OGP7d0
Just ask me to elaborate a point, if you are not getting it. This is common courtesy.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Let me try to give you an example:
Lord Scourge had become a proper Sith Lord and gained combat experience prior to meeting Darth Nyriss:- And an excellent swordsman:
What does "excellent" mean exactly? What does "combat experience" tell us? Is he 1 in 1000? 1 in 100,000? Is he comparable to Kit Fisto or Caedus?
Your utter lack of analytical skills seems even more befuddling when these quotes don't even engage with what you were responding to:
Me: Good for him. He's still described as being a top student at his academy, but hardly a prodigy on the level of, say, Mace Windu, who was basically nothing next to Palpatine before he sunk into vaapad.
What's this? I literally told you that Scourge is an exceptional duelist, but not on the level of the characters we were talking about. You refute me...by pointing out that he's an excellent swordsman. It's like you honestly don't understand the simple elements of the English language.
It is impossible to determine whether Lord Scourge compares to Mace Windu in skill or not. Both are described as expert swordsmen in literature; in this manner, the authors are telling us (the audience) that they have excellent dueling skills. Now who scores higher on paper is impossible to tell because the two never fought and/or never directly compared.
You may argue that Mace Windu outdueled character X and my response would be that Lord Scourge outdueled character Y, and we will be back to square one.
Mace Windu stalemated Palpatine by virtue of Vaapad! Fair enough. But then how fast is Palpatine? Fast enough to blitz some Jedi Masters? Ok. But Palpatine cannot blitz 'every' Jedi Master out there. This is the point.
The ambiguities in these matters cannot be addressed, like ever. Otherwise, these kind of debates would not be taking place.
If Palpatine scores 10 on paper and Lord Scourge scores 8 on paper then every reader will know that who is better and who will win should the two ever fight. However, Star Wars is not about mathematics.
In the end, we all are making assumptions! Informed ones at best.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
I'm beginning to think that you have a learning disability. I've tried to explain to you how cringe-worthy your obsession with meaningless adjectives over real analysis is, and you don't even come up with flimsy excuses to this - you don't even acknowledge these complaints or seem to register what I'm trying to say at all.
You understand how stupid this is? I have university degrees under my belt for a reason.
I pointed out a fact to you that Revan became the most powerful Jedi Master in galactic history. Your response is that this is an adjective.
Now is it my job to explain to you the implications of the aforementioned revelation? Where is your common sense?
Since Revan is the most powerful Jedi in galactic history, you can look into the history of Jedi who are known [with quantifiable showings] and then power-scale Revan from such information.
Don't try to be my teacher.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
The second issue with your intellectual failures is your inability to draw substantive comparative analysis between set A and set B. You are intelligent enough to find quotes and videos on the internet and give a superficial description of them in broken English, but you cannot figure out how to explain what this means relative to the opposing character. Take a look at this gem:Revan's feat of one-shotting Darth Nyriss is a legitimate demonstration of his raw power in the works during that moment. A lesser Jedi would have been overwhelmed (e.g. Meetra Surik) in his place.
WTF does this even mean? Revan > someone lesser than Revan? Ooohhh, what a brilliantly articulated tautology! But now how does this compare with Palpatine's feats
You requested 'quantifiable' showings of Revan and I provided some.
Now, you are saying that "how does this compare with Palpatine's feats"? Dear Lord.
Do you even have a brain? I am curious.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Honestly, I really, really hope that in your reply, you at least show signs of understanding the argument I'm putting forward here. I would even see a really stupid or illogical rebuttal to it as progress on your part - at least you understand what the f*ck I'm saying!
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Don't take my patience and tolerance for granted.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I have university degrees under my belt for a reason.
^ if I get the motivation for it, I'll probably sig these.
As for me "berating" you, I think you need to read your posts a little more carefully for their random bursts of condescension and mockery before you try to toss stones from a glass house. Although now that I think of it, I honestly think that your English skills might be so bad that you don't realize how condescending you sound. Sorry if that's a rude thing to say - but I think it's the lesser of two bad interpretations.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Honestly, the kind of comparisons and parallels you expect from me (or any member) - are not possible to provide when we are comparing characters who belong to different eras and have never interacted.
Funny; if you were a nihilist on this, one would expect you to not be the one with the most radical and ironclad power hierarchies.
But, you're right to say that it's difficult, more so for lightsaber combat than with the Force (which can be measured by more absolute standards). But that's no excuse for you to hold a strong position and then defend it with meaningless quotes and evidence that fails to even try to do said comparisons.
This is also why, unlike you, I pay attention to canon statements of relative power levels, because they're the most objective measures that we have in a sea of inconsistencies. Of course, despite your rejecting Sidious's "most powerful sith" statements, you drool over proclamations of Revan being "immensely powerful" and the double standard shoots way over your head.
Regardless, through a combination of said accolades, powerscaling and feats, we can construct a pretty cogent picture of things.
---------
[I need to meet someone for dinner, pending]
Originally posted by The Ellimist
^ if I get the motivation for it, I'll probably sig these.As for me "berating" you, I think you need to read your posts a little more carefully for their random bursts of condescension and mockery before you try to toss stones from a glass house. Although now that I think of it, I honestly think that your English skills might be so bad that you don't realize how condescending you sound. Sorry if that's a rude thing to say - but I think it's the lesser of two bad interpretations.
You tend to hide behind your lack of comprehension skills by attacking my English skills and me in person. You have yet to offer a good argument about why Palpatine would utterly trash Revan. Kindly stick to the discussion at hand. If you cannot offer a reasonable argument then get lost.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
But, you're right to say that it's difficult, more so for lightsaber combat than with the Force (which can be measured by more absolute standards). But that's no excuse for you to hold a strong position and then defend it with meaningless quotes and evidence that fails to even try to do said comparisons.
1. How much raw power is needed to deflect Force Lightning?
2. How much raw power is needed to lift a 5 ton object?
Originally posted by The Ellimist
This is also why, unlike you, I pay attention to canon statements of relative power levels, because they're the most objective measures that we have in a sea of inconsistencies. Of course, despite your rejecting Sidious's "most powerful sith" statements, you drool over proclamations of Revan being "immensely powerful" and the double standard shoots way over your head.
What do you think that I have been revealing to you so far? Pancakes?
Here is an important one for Revan:
In battle after battle, Revan had led the Jedi and Republic forces to victory. Realizing defeat was inevitable, Mandalore the Ultimate had challenge Revan to single combat, and Revan had accepted. Though the Mandalorian fought valiantly, in the end he was no match for the Jedi Order's most powerful champion.
Taken from Star Wars: The Old Republic: Revan
The benchmark is absolutely clear and defined. Now it is up to you to infer Revan's power through power-scaling and feats of his inferiors.
I do not reject Palpatine's promotion as the most powerful Sith Lord; I focus on the bigger picture at hand.
Valkorion was never a true Sith Lord to begin with, FYI. He destroyed a large number of Sith on Medriaas after the Great Hyperspace War for personal gains (first red flag). He did reconstitute the ancient Sith Empire but he created a Dark Council to run its affairs. Personally, he was more interested in honing his talents in the Dark Side and prepare for galaxy-consuming ritual (second red flag). He eventually got exposed and then went on a killing-spree with total disregard of the well-being of the Empire he had created (third red flag). He even established a new Empire and Force-using Order - free from the constraints of Sith philosophy (fourth red flag). No wonder the Sith rejected him in the end.
The label Sith is not something that you inherit since birth. Its just a philosophy and a Force-user may reject it but still be a practitioner of the Dark Side. Valkorion is dark but not Sith.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Regardless, through a combination of said accolades, powerscaling and feats, we can construct a pretty cogent picture of things.
Now use it for Revan.