Originally posted by AncientPower
Because that is even remotely the same thing.
Right, because yours is, at best and by your own admission, "implicit" whereas mine was explicit lol.
Originally posted by AncientPower
The wording is implicit, it can't be any more clear cut than it already is. You've simply taken it upon yourself to interpret subtlety out of a book that says the Sith of the era are ultra-powerful beings who consume worlds with a thought.
Power is relative. Kun can be "ultra powerful" and not have lifted the Corsair with TK. Your interpretation leaves much to be desired.
You say that, but what "the way" is referring to is what was being challenged in the first place. Repeating yourself isn't strengthening your case in any way.
Tempest's argument to begin with was that the article's emphasis was on the underlined section below:
During the Great Sith War, Exar Kun would raise the ship from the planet and put it back to service, similar to the way Darth Nihilus would raise the Ravager from the ruined surface of Malachor V.
1. And you are again assuming "the way" to be referring to the act of raising it, rather than the more general sense of making use of a derelict warship.
2. The similarity as been described many times over. So perhaps first of all you should highlight the difference, as that is again implicit.
@NewGuy 👆
I haven't bothered to read the whole discussion, as I noted earlier.
@Beni & NewGuy01: The similarity between the two has to be the way they each raised the warship since that is the only thing that is mentioned in both their cases by the above quote. There's no reference to similarly making use of a derelict warship in Nihilus' case. That context exists, but is not referenced by the quote.
The quote isn't "similar to the way Darth Nihilus would put the Ravager back to service", it's "similar to the way Darth Nihilus would raise the Ravager from Malachor".
@Tempest: "Explicit"? The only thing that's explicit is this:
During the Great Sith War, Exar Kun would raise the ship from the planet and put it back to service, similar to the way Darth Nihilus would raise the Ravager from the ruined surface of Malachor V.
The fact that "raise the ship" is mentioned twice, once in Kun's case and once in Nihilus', and "put back to service" is only mentioned once, makes it pretty clear that the former is the emphasis of the quote, not the latter.
Once again, the similarity is between Kun and Nihilus, and only within the context of the quote itself. The quote above can be divided into:
A. "Exar Kun would raise the ship from the planet and put it back to service"
B. "Darth Nihilus would raise the Ravager from the ruined surface of Malachor V"
Now, find the similarity in the exact wording of A and B. I think it's "raise the ship from the planet" (A) and "raise the Ravager from the ruined surface of Malachor V" (B) myself, but if you reckon that the similarity in wording is "put it back to service" (A) and " " (B), then you're welcome to believe that.
Everything else is just you guys reading way too much into the quote and adding context not mentioned by the quote itself.
@Nova, it's ironic that you make the accusation of reading context into the quote when that is precisely what you are doing (worse, you are constructing context.) After all, nowhere is the word telekinesis mentioned in raising either warships, not in the entire book. In your own words, that context exists (for the Ravager at least), but is not referenced by the quote. It's no more explicit that the alternate reading.
On the other hand yeah, both sources mention a warship that was put back into service, so the similarity would be here:
A. "Exar Kun would raise the ship from the planet and put it back to service"
B. "Darth Nihilus would raise the Ravager from the ruined surface of Malachor V"
Furthermore, if you took the time to read the discussion in full, you'll notice the point Temp made here:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=15822538#post15822538
Which builds on the contexts of the Ravager as a derelict, "resurrected" warship, much like the Corsair. No mention of telekinesis though.
Regardless you didn't answer my question, if we assuming that the similarity is between the way in which both ships were supposedly raised telekinetically, where is the implicit difference?
I'm also noticing a point you made here:
Originally posted by SunRazerSo why are you ignoring the obviously problems the source material raises with this reading? (Assuming you bothered to read them, if not I suggest looking over pg 7. and onwards.)
If you have a scan of how Kun resurrects the ship and its not telekinesis, then obviously that takes precedence. I was under the impression that the actual resurrection wasn't shown on-panel though, which is why I made the case above. But tomorrow, I'll see whatever you present and if it contradicts the quote above, then obviously the source material takes precedence.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
@Nova, it's ironic that you make the accusation of reading context into the quote when that is precisely what you are doing (worse, you are constructing context.) After all, nowhere is the word telekinesis mentioned in raising either warships, not in the entire book. In your own words, that context exists (for the Ravager at least), but is not referenced by the quote. It's no more explicit that the alternate reading.
That's a nice red herring, but nowhere did I insinuate that the quote itself directly mentioned telekinesis. In fact, I mentioned a few pages earlier that I drew the conclusion from the text's wording, not because the quote explicitly stated it.
Constructing context? Where? I already said that that I didn't derive the word telekinesis from the text itself, and that isn't constructing context anyways. Sounds like a false accusation.
What is explicit from the text is that the similarity lies between both of them raising ships from their respective planets. In Nihilus' case, it was through telekinesis, so if it was similar, then my deduction was that Kun would've made similar usages of the Force to bring it up again.
On the other hand yeah, both sources mention a warship that was put back into service, so the similarity would be here:
The source doesn't mention Nihilus putting any warship back into service, hence why that can't be the point of similarity between the two.
A. "Exar Kun would raise the ship from the planet and put it back to service"B. "Darth Nihilus would raise the Ravager from the ruined surface of Malachor V"
Sadly for you, no. It mentions "similar to the way", with the word "way" indicating that the similarity refers to an action or means of accomplishment. That's why I deduced that it was telekinesis, because that was the way Nihilus raised the Ravager.
Also, it's pretty fun that you decided to highlight only the nouns when that's clearly not what the "similarity" here is referring to.
Furthermore, if you took the time to read the discussion in full, you'll notice the point Temp made here:
I already told you that I didn't have the time to read everything in the discussion.
Which builds on the contexts of the Ravager as a derelict, "resurrected" warship, much like the Corsair. No mention of telekinesis though.
Given that the resurrection was through telekinesis, you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot here.
Regardless you didn't answer my question, if we assuming that the similarity is between the way in which both ships were supposedly raised telekinetically, where is the implicit difference?
The fact that the Corsair itself didn't have to also be pieced together with the Force?
I'm also noticing a point you made here😖o why are you ignoring the obviously problems the source material raises with this reading? (Assuming you bothered to read them, if not I suggest looking over pg 7. and onwards.)
I don't recall the source contradicting the notion that it was through telekinesis.
Originally posted by SunRazerI never accused you of saying it was explicit, rather the exact opposite, that is is only implicit (that raised refers to telekinesis) as you accused me.
That's a nice red herring, but nowhere did I insinuate that the quote itself directly mentioned telekinesis. In fact, I mentioned a few pages earlier that I drew the conclusion from the text's wording, not because the quote explicitly stated it.Constructing context? Where? I already said that that I didn't derive the word telekinesis from the text itself, and that isn't constructing context anyways. Sounds like a false accusation.
What is explicit from the text is that the similarity lies between both of them raising ships from their respective planets. In Nihilus' case, it was through telekinesis, so if it was similar, then my deduction was that Kun would've made similar usages of the Force to bring it up again.
The purpose of this thread being a construction of contexts surrounding the Corsair feat. False accusation indeed. 😬
The source doesn't mention Nihilus putting any warship back into service, hence why that can't be the point of similarity between the two.Which is neither what I said nor the point, the point is it mentions two warships that in that respect, have comparable contexts. The fact that these contexts are not explicitly mentioned being irrelevant, as telekinesis, by your own omission, is not explicitly mentioned either.
Sadly for you, no. It mentions "similar to the way", with the word "way" indicating that the similarity refers to an action or means of accomplishment. That's why I deduced that it was telekinesis, because that was the way Nihilus raised the Ravager.So? Putting a derelict warship back into service to escape a planet is very much a course of action.Also, it's pretty fun that you decided to highlight only the nouns when that's clearly not what the "similarity" here is referring to.
And yes, because that is where I infer the emphasis to be, rather than the verb. I believe what you've hit upon is the point of contention.
I already told you that I didn't have the time to read everything in the discussion.Which is why I provided a link, your welcome.
Given that the resurrection was through telekinesis, you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot here.Gosh what a way to miss the point. The point being that within the contexts of the source itself, the nature of the warship and the purpose it was put towards, rather than the way in which it was telekinetically recovered, is what is stressed.
We should therefore assume the same regarding this comparison.
The fact that the Corsair itself didn't have to also be pieced together with the Force?Neither did the Ravager to my knowledge.
I don't recall the source contradicting the notion that it was through telekinesis.It contradicts it in the respect that there is no logical reason for Kun to use telekinesis to retrieve the Corsair, none at all.
Except we don't know if the quote is even referring to Nihilus telekinetically retrieving the Ravager from the gravity well. The quote says that they raised the ships from the surface and put them into service; both used the ships to escape the planets they were trapped on, and since there's no explicit mention of telekinesis, it's perfectly reasonable to interpret that as the quote's meaning.