Dark Side Sourcebook Author Clarifies Ulic Qel-Droma Quote

Well, because he's not an authority on canon, for one.

He's an authority on what he wrote.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66

I'm genuinely embarrassed for even asking this question.

Wow, what a shocker a quote doesn't apply to a character that didn't exist yet, lmfao.

I fully accept your concession, Az. 👆

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Well, because he's not an authority on canon, for one.

I am sorry but I have reiterated (time and again) that it is not wise to pick a revelation in a material from the past and impose it on newly established ground realities that appear to challenge it.

Exar Kun was the leader and most powerful member of his Empire. Ulic Qel-Droma was second to him in the same Empire. Vitiate and his Empire are excluded from evaluation because they were a hidden threat at that point in time.

Not only this author but the author of FACT FILES also stated that revelations in them are valid for established realities of that time.

Thank you @DarthAnt66

Originally posted by DarthAnt66

I'm genuinely embarrassed for even asking this question.

Wow, what a shocker a quote doesn't apply to a character that didn't exist yet, lmfao.

I fully accept your concession, Az. 👆

I don't care for authorial intent.

Boom.

Your case fell apart.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

@Azronger

Your end is near.

😂

Good Lord, could Ant's questions be any more biased? 😂

Originally posted by Azronger
I don't care for authorial intent.

Boom.

Your case fell apart.

Benefit of this disclosure is that nobody will take your bullshit seriously on any platform after this revelation is circulated.

When you can't sell your bullshit, your effort is in vain. Your loss; our gain 👆

Originally posted by Azronger
I don't care for authorial intent.

Boom.

Your case fell apart.

And lmfao @ "case," implying it's up for debate.

Here's an L:

L.

Take it.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
He is a contributor to the lore and has the authority to decide which aspects of his works are valid and which are no longer valid.

Uh, you must have missed the part where Ant said this should apply to other sources as well.

Pretty sure that doesn't fall under the author clarifying his personal work, dumbbell.

*grumbling under breath* it still should count for other sources

Anyone who has a problem with the nature of Ant's question or the answer it yields should just learn to ask similarly loaded questions. It's not hard, folks.

What do you think about all this, Temp?

The Ant stomped the Az?

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
That's... not even an argument.

And lmfao @ "case," implying it's up for debate.

Here's an L:

L.

Take it.

It's not, and I never sold it as such. I simply said I don't care for authorial intent, and that's that.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
That is not intent; the author has rejected your point of view regarding this matter actually.

Benefit of this disclosure is that nobody will take your bullshit seriously on any platform after this revelation is circulated.

When you can't sell your bullshit, your effort is in vain. Your loss; our gain 👆

He has, and is that supposed to actually mean something? Because as far as I know, that's just him stating his take on continuity, which is not an objective one, but just his opinion. Which is why it's perfectly within my power to not give a crap.

Originally posted by Deronn_solo
What do you think about all this, Temp?

I like Azr, but I think the preponderence of evidence made it clear that Vitiate > Ulic.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
I like Azr, but I think the preponderence of evidence made it clear that Vitiate > Ulic.

Well, I'd be interested to hear what evidence you are referring to (assuming it is something other than what has been presented in this thread), but another user has already pledged to take me down, so maybe next time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEKURyM0DyU&t=0m15s

So, let's get this straight for the record.

We all read this one source.

Everyone read it and interpreted it one way. You, alone, interpreted it a different way.

I stated I would contact the author and you agreed, saying that we'll finish this once and for all.

I get a quote saying it was era specific, and you agreed to it, saying Vitiate still applies.

I get a second quote saying it didn't apply to Vitiate, with the author clarifying the scope of his own work, but now you dismiss it under author intent.

... despite already accepting the author's first statement and encouraging me to contact the author.

This is the most blatant display of bias I've seen on this forum since 2015.

Ant is absolutely done. 🙁