Kun Pulls A Nihilus

"During the Great Sith War, Exar Kun would raise the ship from the planet and put it back to service, (which is) similar to the way Darth Nihilus would raise the Ravager from the ruined surface of Malachor V."

This is a compound-complex sentence. Or rather, it is now that I fixed the author's terrible shit-tier poop garbage writing. Which reminds me, what ****ing tense is this passage supposed to be in? The preceding sentences are written in past tense, but then this shit is for some reason written in the future tense, which only ****ing retards write in.

Anyway, the first part of this shitty sentence starts off with Exar Kun as the subject, with raising the ship being the verb in question that would complete the independent clause. The subordinate clause is the ship being put back to service. The ship being put back to service is what then necessitates the conjunction "which", that is what "which" is referring to when it says it is similar. The next part of the sentence has one independent clause, Darth Nihilus being the subject, with raising the Ravager as the verb.

Basically, what is being compared here is the ship being put back to service. NOT the ship being raised by Exar Kun. I can understand the confusion, since the writing is frankly poor. The second part of the sentence, to be more consistent, should have read "similar to the way Darth Nihilus put the Ravager back to service after he raised it from the ruined surface of Malachor V."

I hope this helps you nerds.

👍👍👍👍

That's a long way of saying Tempest is right.

Not as much as realizing the Ravager and the Corsair aren't even remotely the same size, the Ravager over five and a half times larger. It's nowhere near as impressive a feat, even if it didn't mean just activating a ship that was sitting right inside a temple and not inside a gravity well, kek.

"Of course! The spacecraft that brought the original Sith renegades to the jungle moon of Yavin! If it still operates, I won't have to be stranded on this moon!"

Also pretty much says this isn't him picking it up with TK.

Oh, well.

Exar can go back to choking out trainees, and killing ancient Liberian again, and leave the real telekentic God's, I.E., Darth Vader, to do their jobs. 👆

Now now Deron.

Nothing has been disproved yet. And poor writing is always a bad excuse from naysayers - and almost an admittance that the writing does mean what their trying to rebut.

Originally posted by NemeBro
"During the Great Sith War, Exar Kun would raise the ship from the planet and put it back to service, (which is) similar to the way Darth Nihilus would raise the Ravager from the ruined surface of Malachor V."

This is a compound-complex sentence. Or rather, it is now that I fixed the author's terrible shit-tier poop garbage writing. Which reminds me, what ****ing tense is this passage supposed to be in? The preceding sentences are written in past tense, but then this shit is for some reason written in the future tense, which only ****ing retards write in.

Anyway, the first part of this shitty sentence starts off with Exar Kun as the subject, with raising the ship being the verb in question that would complete the independent clause. The subordinate clause is the ship being put back to service. The ship being put back to service is what then necessitates the conjunction "which", that is what "which" is referring to when it says it is similar. The next part of the sentence has one independent clause, Darth Nihilus being the subject, with raising the Ravager as the verb.

Basically, what is being compared here is the ship being put back to service. NOT the ship being raised by Exar Kun. I can understand the confusion, since the writing is frankly poor. The second part of the sentence, to be more consistent, should have read "similar to the way Darth Nihilus put the Ravager back to service after he raised it from the ruined surface of Malachor V."

I hope this helps you nerds.

Originally posted by NemeBro
"During the Great Sith War, Exar Kun would raise the ship from the planet and put it back to service, (which is) similar to the way Darth Nihilus would raise the Ravager from the ruined surface of Malachor V."

This is a compound-complex sentence. Or rather, it is now that I fixed the author's terrible shit-tier poop garbage writing. Which reminds me, what ****ing tense is this passage supposed to be in? The preceding sentences are written in past tense, but then this shit is for some reason written in the future tense, which only ****ing retards write in.

Anyway, the first part of this shitty sentence starts off with Exar Kun as the subject, with raising the ship being the verb in question that would complete the independent clause. The subordinate clause is the ship being put back to service. The ship being put back to service is what then necessitates the conjunction "which", that is what "which" is referring to when it says it is similar. The next part of the sentence has one independent clause, Darth Nihilus being the subject, with raising the Ravager as the verb.

Basically, what is being compared here is the ship being put back to service. NOT the ship being raised by Exar Kun. I can understand the confusion, since the writing is frankly poor. The second part of the sentence, to be more consistent, should have read "similar to the way Darth Nihilus put the Ravager back to service after he raised it from the ruined surface of Malachor V."

I hope this helps you nerds.

I'm pretty sure the writer intended the comparison to be between Exar Kun raising it and Nihilus doing the same, but the shitty writing allows us to dismiss the quote anyway. 🙂

TBH I never put much faith in the excerpt either.

Originally posted by Ziggystardust
Now now Deron.

Nothing has been disproved yet. And poor writing is always a bad excuse from naysayers - and almost an admittance that the writing does mean what their trying to rebut.

As written, only when the author ****s up the second part of that sentence does it murky up the waters and lend credence to the idea that it might be TK-related.

If the author intended to be a TK, then it isn't poor writing.

this is beginning to sound a massive circlejerk.

Kun clearly says the ship is operational. It's not meant to be TK.

Originally posted by FreshestSlice
Kun clearly says the ship is operational. It's not meant to be TK.

There is nothing 'clearly' about what this quote infers. It's certainly ambiguous in nature. But I can see why it could be used to prove what the Kun wankers want it to prove. In addition, Nemebro's input is making the matter worse. If the argument is that bad writing means the intentions behind said writing, were skewed to relay something else, then the Derridans can claim that this was a TK feat. Authorial intent means jack-shit to them. I couldn't care less either way. TK-ing big stuff became part of dunce-class when K'kruhk crashed a Frigate with the Force. Given time, a good state of mind and effort, even average Force wielders will be bench-pressing capital ships. K'kruhks TKfeatslal didn't help him against the only non-force sensitive duelist in the Clone Wars - Grevious. And it certainly didn't save him from Quinlans' ragdoll-tratment.

Originally posted by Ziggystardust
If the author intended to be a TK, then it isn't poor writing.

Also, you misunderstand me. Authorial intent does not matter. As written the sentence can not be referring to the manner it was lifted. The similarity the passage refers to is how an old derelict ship was put back in service. Not how it was raised.

Even if Exar did actually lift the ship, we have no idea how much effort he put into, or how long it took. It could have been off the cuff, or he could have been in a extreme meditative-trance to accomplish it.

It's ambiguous as hell, regardless.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Authorial intent does not matter.

To play devil's advocate, I'd say that while authorial intent may not matter with regards to second-order interpretations and implications of feats and whatnot, it does matter with respect to what the words on the page literally mean. A typo can reasonably be dismissed as a typo; likewise, we can translate different languages because we know that using a particular language comes with intending this word to mean that, etc. I mean, nothing is actually happening - we're just getting communication from the author. It makes no sense to divorce communication from intent.

Originally posted by FreshestSlice
Not as much as realizing the Ravager and the Corsair aren't even remotely the same size, the Ravager over five and a half times larger. It's nowhere near as impressive a feat, even if it didn't mean just activating a ship that was sitting right inside a temple and not inside a gravity well, kek.

"Of course! The spacecraft that brought the original Sith renegades to the jungle moon of Yavin! If it still operates, I won't have to be stranded on this moon!"

Also pretty much says this isn't him picking it up with TK.

I raised that point earlier. And it wasn't neatly evaded so much as...

A ship being operational doesn't mean it's operational!

So now we're using poor writing as a means of dismissing blatant face value? This is rich.

Originally posted by AncientPower
So now we're using poor writing as a means of dismissing blatant face value? This is rich.

😐

Oops.