Tom Veitch confirms DE & TOTJ power levels

Originally posted by Beniboybling
The One's were described as "more powerful with the Force than any Jedi have seen before" and capable of wielding the Force in ways beyond mortal ability upon introduction, so that's a yes to a retcon regarding them.

Oh. Really? Who described them as such, if I may ask?
But, well. So Kun is just a "darker power" than the Star Forge, the World Razer, Soa, Sel-Makor, [enter your faved "dark power" here]...

The case for Vitiate is a bit more ambiguous since he's been stated to be the most powerful Force user in history, but this is only certainty as of TOR, we don't know at what point he surpassed Kun. Otherwise yeah, welcome to 2012. 👆

I'm intrigued. Does that version of "history" just count to the "time of the source" or is that a "general" statement like the one made in 1993. It's so confusing, when you don't know how literal you should take those texts. 🙄

Evidently omniscient given he possesses intimate knowledge for example of Emperor Palpatine's efforts to clone himself for example:

Moreover the narrations are written concurrent with the events of comics, or rather before the wider galaxy would be able to get hold of this information, if they ever did at all.

Still not familiar with the concept of a truely omniscient narrator, right? He must know things that are unknown to the character within the story he tells in order to qualify, e.g. be capable of predicting future events. This is also known as "Little did he know"-writing. The quotes you listed don't qualify. Actually, they contradict that notion: "The Empire would survive." Uh-huh. 🙄 Not even talking about the fact that Sidious' consciousness wan't transferred from Endor to Byss instantly as we know now.

So no, that he would omit anyone of the foremost Sith Lords in history from his assessment is an idea that can be safely dismissed.

Is that the same guy who says that Ulic would be jealous because of Sidious power, but somehow "omits" Kun from that judgement? 😉 Or is that merely a reason to suggest that Kun would not be jealous because of Sidious power, indicating, that he isn't really inferior to the movie era Sith?

It amuses me how the basics of canon have left you so stunned. Yes dear. Star Wars content written in to continuity provides a framework for how future content will pan out.

It amuses me, how the basics of logic have left you to play alone in the void.
To me, it is logical, that any form of statement issued in 1993 cannot refer directly to events, characters and storylines that were not invented yet. Which would be, kind of, a prerequisite, if that statement wants to compare character X to everything that follows. Now, in this particular case, we have the statement in question edited out of the source in question for reprint and have the author of the statement contradicting his own statement. Still you want to place your bet on the statement.
You still don't see any flaw in terms of reasoning on your side of the fence?

You mean the Canon page on Wookieepedia that literally has this at the very top?

(Hint: the first issue of SW Insider was published in 1994.)

Yeah, I respectfully withdraw your rights to refer to me as stupid into the foreseeable future. 😂

I'm very sorry. I just viewed - and typed - on my tablet and literally didn't see that. Though I wonder how you managed to miss the "[...]off-shoots, variants and tangents[...]" part of the quote. So there is one coherent continuity that has "variants"?

No darling because though they may no longer be in print the fact remains that as published Star Wars material they remain canon by definition i.e.:

"Lucasfilm canon" refers to anything produced by any of the Lucas companies, whether it be movies, books, games, or internet.

--Leland Chee, Keeper of the Holocron

I never claimed that the definition of canon is that which is in print, that is a false rule that you contrived from my point that being reprinted would lend credence to the idea that they are still valid, but it doesn't define their validity.

I have understood now, that reviewing editing processes and using the results to interprete sources is not your strong suit. When something is taken out of a source, it is obviously no longer part of what the responsible company (or the editor) wants inside. When referring to SW canon, that means it is not canon any longer.

I may point to the infamous cantina shooting scene in "A New Hope" that Lucas altered for the Special Edition of the movie. So did Han Solo shoot first? According to you: He did and did not, because the part "removed" is still part of the canon - it merely depends on what version of the movie you watch. I could also ask wether or not Luke sees a younger / older version of Anakin as a force ghost at the end of RotJ, given that the latest edit has Hayden Christiansen appear there.

That is, by the way, the very definiont of "N-Canon" (as in "not canon"😉 on the page you wanted to call me out for not reading it properly:

"Information cut from canon, deleted scenes, or from canceled Star Wars works falls into this category as well, unless another canonical work references it and it is declared canon."

Information is cut from canon source: N-Canon.

Or in other words you need something more concrete than the assumption that because the Endnotes are no longer in print, they are no longer canon.

See above. it's not an assumption but the very definition of "N-Canon".

Naturally, but your posting history suggests otherwise, as Temp has pointed out several times now. 🙂

Naturally, my posting history supports what I have stated. Temp's pathetically biased interpretation of it, which I have thrown right into his face so often, that it has probably left an imprint, is a different matter. This is perhabs the reason for him dropping out of every debate concerning my posting history, after being confronted with some excerpts from it. Never gets old, though.

Nice but rather besides the point, being that the aforementioned statements are both continous and applicable to Kun. Whether or not they are reliable or not is a seperate matter, but naturally applying the foggy window conceit as a carte blanche to dismiss evidence not to your liking as unreliable, is arbitrary nonsense. No, it only introduces a basis for these so called objective sources to be interrogated through logical and empirical means, but in so far your attempt to do so has been weak and ineffective. 🙂

The statements can't be "continous" as they have been "discontinued" from the source-material and are, therefore, N-Canon, as demonstrated above. They can't likewise be "continues", because we know that this wasn't the intent of the author - and is, aside from that, logically impossible, at least in the way you want it.

Furthermore, I'm wondering why you attempt to defend the quotes, if their reliability might be debateable (if I get your statement correctly).

And finally: You got the meaning of the "foggy windows" quote just right. Yet I see only one person here performing any kind of "logical and empirical examination" of that quotes. So I think that "weak and ineffective" might still be better than "non-existant", which would describe your critical analysis of the source material in question. Not to mention that me being "weak and ineffective" is apparently still enough to own you. I'm very sorry.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
lol

Is it that time of the month again, dear? Poor thing.

That insult would be more effective if you had provoked a hostile response.

Originally posted by Nai
Oh. Really? Who described them as such, if I may ask?

But, well. So Kun is just a "darker power" than the Star Forge, the World Razer, Soa, Sel-Makor, [enter your faved "dark power" here]...

I'm intrigued. Does that version of "history" just count to the "time of the source" or is that a "general" statement like the one made in 1993. It's so confusing, when you don't know how literal you should take those texts. 🙄

Still not familiar with the concept of a truely omniscient narrator, right? He must know things that are unknown to the character within the story he tells in order to qualify, e.g. be capable of predicting future events. This is also known as "Little did he know"-writing. The quotes you listed don't qualify. Actually, they contradict that notion: "The Empire would survive." Uh-huh. 🙄 Not even talking about the fact that Sidious' consciousness wan't transferred from Endor to Byss instantly as we know now.

And where it says "The Empire would survive" its clearly only relaying Palpatine's own thoughts. 😬

Is that the same guy who says that Ulic would be jealous because of Sidious power, but somehow "omits" Kun from that judgement? 😉 Or is that merely a reason to suggest that Kun would not be jealous because of Sidious power, indicating, that he isn't really inferior to the movie era Sith?

It amuses me, how the basics of logic have left you to play alone in the void.
To me, it is logical, that any form of statement issued in 1993 cannot refer directly to events, characters and storylines that were not invented yet. Which would be, kind of, a prerequisite, if that statement wants to compare character X to everything that follows. Now, in this particular case, we have the statement in question edited out of the source in question for reprint and have the author of the statement contradicting his own statement. Still you want to place your bet on the statement.
You still don't see any flaw in terms of reasoning on your side of the fence?

On the other hand naw, assuming that characteristics ascribed to Palpatine in 1993 are no longer the case because *gasp* several thousands years ago, some dude used the dark side!!11 is the only flawed logic I see here.

So there is one coherent continuity that has "variants"?

I have understood now, that reviewing editing processes and using the results to interprete sources is not your strong suit. When something is taken out of a source, it is obviously no longer part of what the responsible company (or the editor) wants inside. When referring to SW canon, that means it is not canon any longer.

I may point to the infamous cantina shooting scene in "A New Hope" that Lucas altered for the Special Edition of the movie. So did Han Solo shoot first? According to you: He did [b]and did not, because the part "removed" is still part of the canon - it merely depends on what version of the movie you watch. I could also ask wether or not Luke sees a younger / older version of Anakin as a force ghost at the end of RotJ, given that the latest edit has Hayden Christiansen appear there.[/b]

On the other hand if the back of the original ANH had a description different to the Special Edition, I wouldn't assume the later redundant unless something was overwritten or otherwise outright contradicted. This is common sense.

That is, by the way, the very definiont of "N-Canon" (as in "not canon"😉 on the page you wanted to call me out for not reading it properly:

[b]"Information cut from canon, deleted scenes, or from canceled Star Wars works falls into this category as well, unless another canonical work references it and it is declared canon."

Information is cut from canon source: N-Canon. [/b]

On the other hand no, you're assuming that Dark Empire being republished without the Endnotes (or as I'm sure you'd prefer to word it, cut from the publication) means they have been cut from canon. Understand that these are not synonymous, and you've failed to provide proof they are.

See above. it's not an assumption but the very definition of "N-Canon".

Naturally, my posting history supports what I have stated. Temp's pathetically biased interpretation of it, which I have thrown right into his face so often, that it has probably left an imprint, is a different matter. This is perhabs the reason for him dropping out of every debate concerning my posting history, after being confronted with some excerpts from it. Never gets old, though.

i believe u.

The statements can't be "continous" as they have been "discontinued" from the source-material and are, therefore, N-Canon, as demonstrated above. They can't likewise be "continues", because we know that this wasn't the intent of the author - and is, aside from that, logically impossible, at least in the way you want it.

Furthermore, I'm wondering why you attempt to defend the quotes, if their reliability might be debateable (if I get your statement correctly).

And finally: You got the meaning of the "foggy windows" quote just right. Yet I see only one person here performing any kind of "logical and empirical examination" of that quotes. So I think that "weak and ineffective" might still be better than "non-existant", which would describe your critical analysis of the source material in question. Not to mention that me being "weak and ineffective" is apparently still enough to own you. I'm very sorry.

Nai is down right destroying Beni, tbh.

😂

Originally posted by Deronn_solo
Nai is down right destroying Beni, tbh.

😂

I haven't got a reply from you for ages, so I assume you want to start our CaV after you finish yours with Tempest?

I don't really check my inbox often on CV anymore, so you'll have to forgive me.

But yes, if you like. You can make your first post if you to though, and I'll get to it when I get to it.

Alright.

Originally posted by Deronn_solo
Nai is down right destroying Beni, tbh.

😂

Originally posted by Beniboybling
The in-episode narrator and the SW Databank.

Quotes?

Yeah, pretty lame.

Sure. 🙄

Obviously the former, since anyone aware of Sheev's great power would never make such a claim. 🙂

Obviously, cherry picking never gets old. 🙂

How does this not qualify lmao? Only Palpatine could have known the above details, and certainly no historian, ergo. to be aware of these details the narrator must either 1. be Palpatine 2. be omniscient. (Hint: its 2.)

And where it says "The Empire would survive" its clearly only relaying Palpatine's own thoughts. 😬

You ask how this doesn't qualify and then give the answer yourself. 🙄
Since Sidious is a character within the narrative, a narrator doesn't need to be truely omniscient, to know his thoughts. He just needs to know that of Sidious - which would be a "third person limited" narrator (or "by-narrator" or "POV-narrator", depending on what concept of narratology you are following). This is, by the way, the most common form of narrator in contemporary fiction, so it's a save bet to assume that this one is too. Meaning, that the information contained within the paragraph is probably based on Sidious thoughts, rather than springing from the "mind" of an truely omniscient narrator. This is also backed by the fact, that an omniscient narrator would know the end of the story told within the comics, which doesn't end with a "winning" Emperor and an surviving Empire. 😉

In short: Those words are not necessarily binding.

Furthermore have the endnotes been edited out of newer editions of the source, probably because they contradict established canon with about every sentence:

[list]
[*]Sidious didn't need to send agents out into the Galaxy, because he had all knowledge he needed available even before the PT era.
[*]All force technique he was employing (essence transfer) are asociated with Sith and not Jedi, making it rather unlikely that he got them from Jedi Masters, especially when they were already known to his Sith predecessors (Tenebrous).
[*]He didn't "put the science of cloning together". That also was easily available to him already before the PT era.
[*]Sidious didn't travel through the Galaxy in as a bodiless Dark Force but bonded with Jeng Droga.
[*]The Empire didn't survive.
[/list]

So, essentially, you want to place your trust in the part of a source that has been edited out, probably because being so outdated, that it now contradicts established canon with every sentence. I'd say, that, given this, the source is at least rather unrelieable.

No, Kun was just retconned into continuity, Ulic is still a jealous wannabe though and Palpatine has still No #1.

Is that the same Kun which "The Official Star Wars Fact File" listed as "the most powerful and dangerous of the Sith Lords"? Funny enough, that in this instance, a rephrasing of the same sentence, leaving the "most powerful" out, is viewed by "Sheevists" as "retcon" of the former statement, where editing entire parts of a work out doesn't seem to concern you.

Or maybe Veitch is just screwing with you? I have no reason to take statements made by the author decades after the fact as reliable or authoritative lmao. And in the absence of concrete evidence of a recton no, it should be assumed to remain valid.

Urm. No. Since LFL canon policy defines, that stuff cut from a work does become N-Canon. And this is only logical, because people who do - as of now - familiarize themselves with the Star Wars (Legends) Canon, won't get the information any longer, which means that it is absent from the current version of Legend canon.

On the other hand naw, assuming that characteristics ascribed to Palpatine in 1993 are no longer the case because *gasp* several thousands years ago, some dude used the dark side!!11 is the only flawed logic I see here.

🙄
How is it "flawed" to consider the fact, that the statements were made, when most of the current Star Wars universe wasn't invented, they probably won't be written in the same way today, especially considering the fact that they were edited out of the source in question?

You see: When writing the statement, the author had clearly no concept of any Sith Lords next to Sidious, with the exception of Darth Vader. From there, it is a pretty clear cut to determine that Sidious is the most powerful Dark Side user in (then) known history. But when you add a rather large amount of stuff to the "known history" pile, such statement being made, based on the knowledge available before, is to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially considering, that it has been edited out since then.

You'd love that wouldn't you? Funny how this what was originally intended as turning my "stoopid" logic against me is turning into your last defense.

Seeing that you don't have anything to say about that, I'll simply accept your concession and move on. Nice red herring, though.

That's not equivalent at all, nowhere was the content of Dark Empire rewritten, the comics were simply published with different supplementary material.

They were published without the supplementary material, that you have been quoting. Which doesn't even consider the content of the comics themselves, given how Palpatine, as shown above, is depicted as "winner" with a surviving Empire, which doesn't even stay "true" until the end of the comic itself.

On the other hand if the back of the original ANH had a description different to the Special Edition, I wouldn't assume the later redundant unless something was overwritten or otherwise outright contradicted. This is common sense.

Nope. This isn't "common sense" but "fanboy logic".
When a work is altered (as in "edited"😉, the newer edit becomes the new "canon". While further versions might be interesting in terms of literature analysis or from a historical perspective, they aren't a thing any longer in the realms of canon. Which is only logical - and here true common sense kicks in: When somebody refers to the "ANH description", to stay with your example, that would - after the publishing of the Special Edition - mean "the ANH Special Edition description" and not the 1977 counterpart.

And in this particular case, the editiing isn't a question of some convenience, but probably due to the fact, that the endnotes as they were did contradict newer established canon quite a lot.

On the other hand no, you're assuming that Dark Empire being republished without the Endnotes (or as I'm sure you'd prefer to word it, cut from the publication) means they have been cut from canon. Understand that these are not synonymous, and you've failed to provide proof they are.

You better understand that they are synonymous. The endnotes are not longer part of the canon source. That means they have been "cut" or "cancelled" or whatever. The fact remains that, whoever buys "Dark Empire" now, won't get the endnotes that you have been quoting. That makes them obsolete for the current version of the "canon". They are information that is not included any longer. You are free to search for instances in which the information contained within was transferred to other works (that are still canon), but the endnotes are out.

So I assume this is lifeline you plan to cling to from this point onward? The irony deepens.

Irony? Indeed. That the guy that blatantly ignores the LFL canon policy, narrative modes, logic, common sense and editing history of the source in question, in order to defend a source that has been edited from canon and contradicts established canon on various instances, talks about me "clinging to a lifeline" is really ironic.

Empty wordplay lol. The Endnotes are published canon, and therefore part of continuity.

Oh. They are? Go buy a new copy of "Dark Empire". Show me the endnotes contained within. D'uh. Apparently, they are not recently published canon any longer.

Nope, the only thing that's debatable is the reliability of Veitch's most recent claims. In fact, its not debatable, they aren't reliable at all. I'm merely pointing out the official, canon ruling.

Is that the same canon ruling that you keep ignoring in your pathetic attempt to end up being right? And. Yeah. Of course the relieability of cut content published in 1993 and contradicting established canon is not debateable. It is just an unrelieable source. Nothing to debate there. Correct.

OK darl, but my analysis is just fine. The statements are clear, the narrator is omniscient and the facts have not been retconned. Ergo, I've no more reason to doubt the accuracy of said window anymore than I can the fogginess of that particular pane that depicts Exar Kun freezing a senate of senators, or cutting through Mandalorian iron. You get me?

😂
What "analysis", pal? So far, you have been sticking with the "it was written down, so I need to believe it" approach, without conducting any form of analysis. When I did it for you, you just ignored every instance of (literary) science and logic applied to the quote, sticking with your initial stance, continuing to the last sentence there.

So, yes, I "get you": You're an ignoramus that is either unable or unwilling to apply literature analysis / critcial thinking to the Star Wars source material. Good to know. Have fun.

🙂

So what book is it?

Dark Tales of the Jedi Empire: Complete Super Package - Limited Deluxe Collector's Edition

Tom Veitch is trolling when saying he's making a book. Said book was supposed to release some time last year.

Originally posted by The Merchant
Tom Veitch is trolling when saying he's making a book. Said book was supposed to release some time last year.

Star Wars is not his life.