Where do people rank Senya and Vaylin?

Originally posted by Nephthys
"Essentially confirmed" meaning "my interpretation of how I want to take it". That guy was sitting in the cockpit as a pilot. Pretty sure he can see if the controls are moving or not.

No, he openly states that K'kruhk's power in the Force "is enough to tear a ship from the sky." In this case the key word is power.

Also, the co-pilot wasn't even looking at the controls when the ship started going down, and the actual pilot was pulling the controls upwards, something he couldn't do if they were being manipulated.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Authors are hardly reliable and consistent in their point-of-view about such stuff. I can cite numerous examples.

I will draw my conclusion from the content.

In this case, an author/editor isn't giving his opinion, he's saying what was the purpose of the feat/part of the story -- something he has more right to than you.

If the editor/author said: "Well I personally think K'kruhk can pull/throw ships" then sure you can argue it's a fallible source, but in this case he's confirming a part of the story not stating his opinion.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
LMAOWUT
Obviously the opinion of authors isn't infallible, but that isn't an opinion.
The author explains what happens.

So Palpatine's ability to conjure a Force Storm during the DE era is suspect under normal circumstances.

Revan's growth in power with passage of time is also suspect.

Let us take author opinion at face value now.

thumb up

@MythLord

Same for you.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Right.

So Palpatine's ability to conjure a Force Storm during the DE era is suspect under normal circumstances.

Revan's growth in power with passage of time is also suspect.

Let us take author opinion at face value now.

👆

@[B]MythLord

Same for you. [/B]

This isn't an opinion; this is confirming what happened... In the exact same comic as it happened. The Revan/Sidious examples are legitimately retconned later on; this isn't, hence the author's explanation is valid.

Originally posted by MythLord
This isn't an opinion; this is confirming what happened... In the exact same comic as it happened. The Revan/Sidious examples are legitimately retconned later on; this isn't, hence the author's explanation is valid.

So Palpatine's ability to conjure a Force Storm during the DE era is suspect under normal circumstances.

"Note on "Force Storms": The Emperor can't create Force Storms at will. They are in fact a phenomenon that occurs rarely, when the minds of two great Force users meet and struggle with each other at a distance."

Revan's growth in power with passage of time is also suspect.

Revan's growth in power with passage of time is also suspect.

"[...] On some days, the younger, pre-rebirth Revan might be stronger, on other days the wiser, more mature older Revan might have the upper hand. It depends on all sorts of circumstances. The example I give is with pro athletes. Is Tiger Woods from 2000 better than Tiger from 2006? One was younger and hit the ball farther, the other was wiser and had more control of his game. If they played a match, who knows who would win? If they played 10 matches, I doubt one version would win them all. So, really, who is stronger? I feel the same way about Revan."

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You don't get to pick or choose in this matter. Either take each opinion of an author at face value (or not).

Also, it was explained in the case of K'Krukh, while it was only a opinion in the case of Sidious and Revan.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You don't get to pick or choose in this matter. Either take each opinion of an author at face value (or not).

So Palpatine's ability to conjure a Force Storm during the DE era is suspect under normal circumstances.

Revan's growth in power with passage of time is also suspect.

I'll gladly take the author confirming an event he wrote, unless his word is contradicted/retconned. Tom's word is retconned, the K'kruhk thing isn't.

Besides, both those quotes are actually opinions, not confirmations of events. Grasp the difference, you reprobate.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
Like you take character statements as fact value, but not Out-of Universe accolades?

Also, it was explained in the case of K'Krukh, while it was only a opinion in the case of Sidious and Revan.

Call it an explanation or whatever, it is an interpretation of the author of an event in question (outside the published content). But the published content implies otherwise.

Same goes for the authors of Dark Empire and Revan. They explained the ground realities of their works, after the publications.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I never ignore the context behind each revelation.

Call it an explanation or whatever, it is an opinion of the author in the end. The content implies otherwise.

Same goes for the authors of Dark Empire and Revan. They explained the ground realities of their works, after the publications.

Nope. He explains what happens. Also, Tom's word is retconnected.

No, they don't. Tom's word was retconned, while Drew's is only a opinion.

I don't know why I'm surprised at your inability to differentiate two simple words from the English language... but I hope at least 4/5ths of the forum understand the difference between confirming an event and having an opinion of an event.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
Good joke.

Nope. He explains what happens. Also, Tom's word is retconnected.

No, they don't. Tom's word was retconned, while Drew's is only a opinion.

Same is the case with the showing of K'Kruhk. The published content gives the impression that the Jedi was manipulating the controls of the Starship in order to crash it. It contradicts the author's interpretation.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Retconned by what? Those opinions are contradicted in published literature. Nothing else.

Same is the case with the showing of K'Kruhk. The published content gives the impression that the Jedi was manipulating the controls of the Starship in order to crash it. It contradicts the author's interpretation.

And no, the opinion of an guy who screams: "OMG ITS DA CONTROLZ", while the pilot pulls the controls up- the ship goes down- doesn't contradict anything.

Originally posted by MythLord
I don't know why I'm surprised at your inability to differentiate two simple words from the English language... but I hope at least 4/5ths of the forum understand the difference between confirming an event and having an opinion of an event.

I highlighted the contradiction in the relevant revelation (in the published material) and the relevant author's interpretation of the same revelation (outside the published material) with 3 examples in total:

1. K'Khruk's ability to bring down a Starship.

2. Revan's growth in power with passage of time.

3. Palpatine's ability to conjure a Force Storm under normal circumstances.

In each case, the published material contradicts the relevant author's interpretation of it. We don't need to look for additional sources to affirm these contradictions.

Now coming towards the opinion versus confirmation aspect:

If Chris Avellone tells us something about the capabilities of Revan, he is offering an opinion. If Drew Karpyshyn tells us something about the capabilities of Revan, he is confirming something because he created this character (and wrote his story) in the first place. However, if Drew is contradicting a revelation in his published works, I will consider the revelation in his published works.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You are turning this into a debate about semantics; an [B]opinion versus confirmation argument because it suits your agenda.

I highlighted the contradiction in the revelations (in the published material) and the relevant author's interpretation of the same revelation (outside the published material) with 3 examples in total:

1. K'Khruk's ability to bring down a Starship mid-flight.

2. Revan's growth in power with passage of time.

3. Palpatine's ability to conjure a Force Storm under normal circumstances.

In each case, the published material contradicts the relevant author's interpretation of it. We don't need to look for additional sources to affirm these contradictions.

Analogy:

If Chris Avellone tells us something about the capabilities of Revan, he is offering an opinion. If Drew Karpyshyn tells us something about the capabilities of Revan, he is confirming something because he is defines this character. [/B]

What is the contradiction of K'Krukh's feat? An characters statement? It was the only logical explanation for him to say that.

Analogy:
What happens: Kyp Durron stands besides an Leviathan. The Leviathan is hit by lightning, we see how Kyp uses AE.
Opinion of some guy who doesn't even know that the force exists: Luckily lightning came from the sky to save us.
The author states: Kyp used AE to kill the Leviathan.

Whom do you believe?

Should I respond to Legend? Or should I use my time on something more productive?

Originally posted by Azronger
Should I respond to Legend? Or should I use my time on something more productive?

Originally posted by Ursumeles
Yes, we do it, but not because it fits our agenda, lmao.

What is the contradiction of K'Krukh's feat? An characters statement? It was the only logical explanation for him to say that.

Analogy:
What happens: Kyp Durron stands besides an Leviathan. The Leviathan is hit by lightning, we see how Kyp uses AE.
Opinion of some guy who doesn't even know that the force exists: Luckily lightning came from the sky to save us.
The author states: Kyp used AE to kill the Leviathan.

Whom do you believe?

Originally posted by Azronger
Should I respond to Legend? Or should I use my time on something more productive?

Originally posted by Ursumeles
Productive.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Where is the author's quote in the first place?

I think he's referring to the K'kruhk one, actually.