Did Palpatine bury the Lusankya with Telekinesis?

That's another clumsily worded analogy lol. And sources omit information all the time. An omission is not a contradiction.

I've already explained to you: one source says Sheev used the dark side to conceal the burial of the ship. The other source says he used the dark side to bury the ship. Two distinct acts are described in two different sources.

You're proposing that we eschew the straightforward interpretation of the text without providing a decent reason why, especially when both acts are not mutually exclusive. Palpatine could bury the ship with the Force and then conceal that burial with the Force.

What Elm's analogies demonstrate is that the facilitation of an act can be conflated with the act itself in a sentence.

Which is the most sense making conclusion, as factual recountings such as these rarely introduce new continuity.

^ what Beni said

Originally posted by The_Tempest
That's another clumsily worded analogy lol. And sources omit information all the time. An omission is not a contradiction.

I've already explained to you: one source says Sheev used the dark side to conceal the burial of the ship. The other source says he used the dark side to bury the ship. Two distinct acts are described in two different sources.

You're proposing that we eschew the straightforward interpretation of the text without providing a decent reason why, especially when both acts are not mutually exclusive. Palpatine could bury the ship with the Force and then conceal that burial with the Force.

Your entire case is predicated on my analogy being wrong, so you should probably elaborate on how.

As for the "straightforward interpretation", using TK would be that if not for the other quotes about TP. Then the straightforward one only assumes one application, not two, and doesn't try to obfuscate the fact that the factpile's intent was to transcribe Wedge's speculations about TP (as we both know).

As for mutual exclusivity, it's not a question of whether your interpretation is impossible, it's a question of whether it's the most plausible.

Oh, and there's also the fact that the star destroyer was functional, so there's no reason for him to use telekinesis to lower it. Another problem.

I said your analogy is clumsily worded, which it is. You're assuming the text is being equally as imprecise in its wording.

The straightforward interpretation assumes the text says what it explicitly says, that the Emperor used the dark side to bury the ship. Your argument is, "well, what the text really means is that he used the dark side during the burial or to facilitate the burial or to conceal the burial."

But that's not what the text of this particular source says. The text of this particular source says the ship was buried as a demonstration of his powers. There is no conflict and the only argument that requires mental gymnastics is yours; I'm merely generously answering questions when asked.

To that end, regarding the ship's functionality, the source never stated or implied that Palpatine needed to use the dark side to bury the ship... merely that he did so as a demonstration of his powers. I imagine a malignant narcissist might indulge in some superfluous grandiosity from time to time.

I would just point out that if the Lusankya was wrapped up in girders and the like as its described in campaign guide, it presumably would not be able to use its engines.

Palpatine should certainly be capable of this regardless, I would think. It definitely takes more effort to suspend/manipulate something that large and lower it and whatnot, but didn't he muse he could pretty easily drop the Imperial Palace, which is fairly comparable in size/length to the Lusankya?

It would make him many many times more powerful than Galen Marek, who struggled merely to manipulate an ISD, but that's not unreasonable either.

Yes, Palpatine is much, much more powerful than many high tier telekinetics based on hype. This feat isn't unreasonable, like at all. Is there really a point to argue it didn't happen?

I think people are arguing the legitimacy of the quote in question; not whether or not Palpatine could pull it off.

Originally posted by Deronn_solo
I think people are arguing the legitimacy of the quote in question; not whether or not Palpatine could pull it off.

Neph's objections are best summarized as "This quote isn't attributable to [insert SWTOR character's name here], therefore it doesn't count."

My boys Ell and Beni provide much stronger reasons than that, but even those are inadequate.

Your ad hom's are adorable, but it won't save this feat. Its been utterly trashed.

It's still the greatest TP feat ever. 👆

It's good.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
It's still the greatest TP feat ever. 👆

I have a full keyboard and a few free hours now, so we can hash this out at length. 👆

Originally posted by Nephthys
Your ad hom's are adorable, but it won't save this feat. Its been utterly trashed.

This feat is faring a hell of a lot better than your credibility tbh. Our friendship notwithstanding, your opinion here means... very little.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
I said your analogy is clumsily worded, which it is.

On what grounds?

You're assuming the text is being equally as imprecise in its wording.

It is. It says that he used the dark side to bury it. In English usage it wouldn't be unusual for this to refer to his manipulation of any potential obstacles to its burying; see my driving across the border analogy.

In the absence of all other evidence, we would indeed assume telekinesis as the most straightforward interpretation, but in conjunction with the other sources, the simpler explanation is actually the one I'm peddling, .i.e. that he was just using telepathy.

The straightforward interpretation assumes the text says what it explicitly says, that the Emperor used the dark side to bury the ship. Your argument is, "well, what the text really means is that he used the dark side during the burial or to facilitate the burial or to conceal the burial."

See above; that's what two other sources say.

But that's not what the text of this particular source says. The text of this particular source says the ship was buried as a demonstration of his powers. There is no conflict and the only argument that requires mental gymnastics is yours; I'm merely generously answering questions when asked.

Your interpretation requires us to just assume that these two sets of sources just decided to omit information for the heck of it, and it just happens to be that it looks as if the source in the OP were just a more vaguely worded version of the other two. It's not a matter of whether there's a contradiction, it's a matter of whether it's a plausible explanation.

Of course, we both know that wasn't the authorial intent. What are the chances that the author independently thought up of Palpatine using the dark side to bury a star destroyer? No, they obviously transcribed from the original source, which referenced Palpatine's command of the dark side being enough to TP Coruscant, took the "dark side" phrase, and then didn't notice how vaguely worded it was. Any conclusion that he was using telekinesis is purely a product of this semantics mishap.

To that end, regarding the ship's functionality, the source never stated or implied that Palpatine needed to use the dark side to bury the ship... merely that he did so as a demonstration of his powers. I imagine a malignant narcissist might indulge in some superfluous grandiosity from time to time.

Demonstrate to who? Nobody remembers it happening...

Originally posted by The_Tempest
This feat is faring a hell of a lot better than your credibility tbh. Our friendship notwithstanding, your opinion here means... very little.

You need some new material. Repeating the same ad hom's over and over is really exposing that you've yet to surpass your limitations.

And we aren't friends, you blistered ****.

Originally posted by Nephthys
you've yet to surpass your limitations.

lmao

Originally posted by Nephthys
You need some new material. Repeating the same ad hom's over and over is really exposing that you've yet to surpass your limitations.

And we aren't friends, you blistered ****.

Your emotional outburst is unwarranted, bestie. Don't mistake my gentle, objective assessment of your shortcomings for the abject condescension others seem to have for you.

Tempest hasn't *broken* Neph per say, but he's definitely changed him, like Vitiate and Revan. Neph just displays a bitter outlook towards everything, and has this weird, snarky way of responding to people that's incredibly off-putting.

It's a sad tragedy because he used to be one of the nicest members of the forum. I should condemn Tempest for this, but oh well.