The "but he is no Sith" part of the quote doesn't imply being sub-Maul, it just translates to "Snoke is powerful in the Dark Side, but he's not a Sith". This is supported by the following line(s) referencing the Rule of Two lineage, and stating that the Sith are extinct. Meaning it's just "Snoke is strong in the Dark Side, but he's not a Sith because the Sith are extinct". Pulling "Snoke is sub-Maul" from that quote is pulling "information" from the quote that simply isn't there.
Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
Skillz, mind telling me what how you'd interpret it if I said:"Skillz is strong but not body builder?"
Just curious. 🙂
Horrific comparison. There are also people stronger than body builders that aren't body builders. Like strongmen.
The quote literally proceeds to say that Snoke is no Sith because the Sith are extinct.
Originally posted by Darth ThorOk you aren't bright enough to figure it out. I'll explain it to you. Imagine a much older guy being killed by something that doesn't kill a much younger man. That doesn't mean the younger guy beats the older guy in a fight that means his body is older. It's like saying Kenobi doesn't use a cane but Yoda does therefore Kenobi beats Yoda in a fight. Yoda is physically much weaker but when they bring their force powers into play he'd beat the hell out of Kenobi. For ****s sake make a relevant point. It's about as retarded as someone saying Jordan got injured in his career therefore someone without the same injury could beat him one on one.
So still no good rebuttal.