Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is he the greatest fighter in star wars history? Just curious.

Yes.

Originally posted by ares834
Yes.

Originally posted by ares834
Yes.

No, Nihilus would eat him.13

Originally posted by GenomeFrozener
No, Nihilus would eat him.13

facepalm

Nihilus would turn Luke into hs quivering Uke-*****.

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_liu1h5Mg9p1qixncqo1_400.gif

Originally posted by emporerpants
Is he the greatest fighter in star wars history? Just curious.

Probably. Depends on what you mean by 'best', since he's never the most intelligent or resourceful and he's not the strongest in the Force since Abeloth rolled around.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Nihilus would turn Luke into hs quivering Uke-*****.

After he was torn apart by powers well beyond his abilty?

Well technically theres nothing to tear apart......

His cloak and armor. Since he was killed it's clear he is not impervious to harm.

Originally posted by ares834
His cloak and armor. Since he was killed it's clear he is not impervious to harm.

With the exception of one, Sith spirits must be bound to a specific anchor in order to avoid dispersing into the Force. Ancient Sith Lords had their sarcophagi, Exar Kun had the Massassi Temple, etc. If Nihilus's was his armor, then his spirit would fade away if that were destroyed.

What would you consider 'destroyed'?

Luke can rip apart space and time when he's in the zone.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
With the exception of one, Sith spirits must be bound to a specific anchor in order to avoid dispersing into the Force. Ancient Sith Lords had their sarcophagi, Exar Kun had the Massassi Temple, etc. If Nihilus's was his armor, then his spirit would fade away if that were destroyed. Two. Don't forget Nadd. And for being inferior to abeloth, Luke sure beats her repeatedly.

DS
Two. Don't forget Nadd.

Multiple sources ranging from The Jedi Academy Sourcebook to The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia disagree. If you want the passages and pages, I can provide them.

DS
And for being inferior to abeloth, Luke sure beats her repeatedly.

I only recall two encounters: the first, in which he was aided by the Sith and the second in which he ripped Callista's essence from Abeloth, which wasn't exactly a duel.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
Multiple sources ranging from The Jedi Academy Sourcebook to The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia disagree. If you want the passages and pages, I can provide them.
I dont need sources, Nadd showed up on Onderon, dxun, yavin 4 and korriban without aid.
he's never lost to her.

DS
I dont need sources,



DS
he's never lost to her.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir






Well, I find it Ironic that you ignore the KOTOR comics.

I'm not ignoring anything. I simply pointed out that there are sources that disagree with you and you not only disregarded those out of hand, but also the circumstances surrounding Luke's confrontations with Abeloth.

DS
Well, I find it Ironic that you ignore the KOTOR comics.

Freedon Nadd was in KotOR comics?

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
I'm not ignoring anything. I simply pointed out that there are sources that disagree with you and you disregarded them out of hand.

I disregarded them because I was looking at the comics, so those sources must be either obsolete or invalid.




Freedon Nadd Uprising, DLOTS.

I don't have the comics and you didn't offer to provide any evidence from them.

DS
I disregarded them because I was looking at the comics, so those sources must be either obsolete or invalid.

Er... not at all. That Nadd was able to project his essence to another location doesn't preclude the notion that was bound to his remains. Marka Ragnos was bound to his sarcophagus on Korriban and still appeared before Exar Kun and Ulic Qel-Droma on Cinnagar.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
I don't have the comics and you didn't offer to provide any evidence from them.



Er... not at all. That Nadd was able to project his essence to another location doesn't preclude the notion that was bound to his remains. Marka Ragnos was bound to his sarcophagus on Korriban and still appeared before Exar Kun and Ulic Qel-Droma on Cinnagar. He didn't project his essence. He led Kun to Korriban, appeared on Dxun many times, and appeared on Yavin to test Kun. You'd have to prove he was bound to his remains because the opposite seems to be the case.

DS
He didn't project his essence. He led Kun to Korriban, appeared on Dxun many times, and appeared on Yavin to test Kun.

And this means he didn't project himself why?

DS
You'd have to prove he was bound to his remains because the opposite seems to be the case.

I offered. You declined.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
And this means he didn't project himself why?
Ragnos needed the amulets to project himself, and he was limited to only his message. Nadd needed no such things. He did not appear bound by anything. It's your job to prove otherwise.





Citing a source that comes into contradiction with the comics isn't proof.

DS
Ragnos needed the amulets to project himself, and he was limited to only his message.

Source?

Are you referring to the amulet Kun used?

DS
Nadd needed no such things. He did not appear bound by anything.

The operative word being 'appear'.

DS
It's your job to prove otherwise.







facepalm

Wouldn't any "proof" then be automatically disregarded out of hand by you since it contradicts your interpretation of the comic?

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
Source?


DLOTS when the two amulets come together or the JA games when they use Ragnos' Scepter. We have no other instance of Ragnos appearing anywhere other than Korriban.


Sure, appeared, yet all evidence points to the fact that he wasn't confined to any one place. Yet again, it's your job to prove otherwise, or I win




If it's a contradiction, then it's not "proof".

For the final time, I offered to provide the evidence and you dismissed it entirely out of hand. You weren't interested.

So demanding a different kind of proof is a little absurd, when my entire argument contradicts yours and, by your own admission, you'll disregard anything of the sort.

So explain to me what sort of proof will satisfy you.

Wasn't Nadd on Onderon before being banished from it by Arca Jeth?

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
For the final time, I offered to provide the evidence and you dismissed it entirely out of hand. You weren't interested.
Maybe you have been out of this for a long time but stating a source isn't evidence, especially if it contradicts another source. But you can continue playing that game.


One that confines Nadd to a certain place or through certain sith artifacts.

Says the guy whose contributions to this forum for the past two years feature a stunning range of calling people anything from "gay" to "psuedointellectual"?



DS
One that confines Nadd to a certain place or through certain sith artifacts.

Can I have the sources? My interest has been piqued. Unless you guys are enjoying being stubborn jackasses about this.

Neph
Can I have the sources? My interest has been piqued.

Coming right on your faceup.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
Says the guy whose contributions to this forum for the past two years feature a stunning range of calling people anything from "gay" to "psuedointellectual"?

Says the guy who's been sarcastically propping himself up on a pedestal for two years. Pot. Kettle. Black

Now unless you have something substantial, you can admit defeat and move on to something else.

aaaagggghhhh my face!

Here's what I have thus far, from sources off the top of my head. I'll hunt for more if you need them, N.

The Dark Side Spirit section of The Jedi Academy Sourcebook, page 118.

That first one seems pretty clear on the subject. No hunting needed.

N.
That first one seems pretty clear on the subject. No hunting needed.

I'm not sure what the issue is . That Nadd's spirit, and those of other Sith Lords, were able to temporarily transport themselves to places beyond the confines of their tombs does not preclude the fact that they were inevitably anchored there. That is one of the reasons why so many Sith seek to restore themselves to their physical forms.

DS
Says the guy who's been sarcastically propping himself up on a pedestal for two years. Pot. Kettle. Black

facepalm

Your use of the pot and kettle expression indicates you have no idea what it really means; it is intended to indicate that there are no real differences between two parties despite what one or more party may believe.

In this case, the expression is inappropriate and nonsensical and I'll give you a walkthrough as to why:



^ This was your initial smartass remark, intending to convey the idea that I didn't understand the burden of proof because I haven't been debating in a while.



^ My response turns your insult around on you, and has the added benefit of being true. In recent times, the vast majority of your posts have been dedicated to randomly insulting people on their perceived sexual orientation, political affiliation, or religious views. Now, most of us tend to take this just fine, since it's part of your charm. But the reality is that it isn't productive or insightful and so the idea of you lecturing anyone on losing competence due to a lack of activity in the realm of sophisticated debate is enough to make most of us who know you make with the lulz.

So whether or not I've been sarcastically placing myself on a high pedestal has absolutely nothing to do with the chain of smartass comments you initiated and, QED, the pot and kettle expression is both inappropriate and irrelevant. Completely.

But I forgive you anyways.



facepalm

Maybe the reason why this was even an issue is because you're kind of a dick.

Actually I think we all are really.

The wonderful thing is that your post works regardless of the party to whom it was addressed (except for Advent, I suppose).

Neph
Maybe the reason why this was even an issue is because you're kind of a dick.

And on what do you base that? sneer

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir facepalm

Your use of the pot and kettle expression indicates you have no idea what it really means; it is intended to indicate that there are no real differences between two parties despite what one or more party may believe.
Oh no, I know what it means and I used it correctly.





^ My response turns your insult around on you, and has the added benefit of being true. In recent times, the vast majority of your posts have been dedicated to randomly insulting people on their perceived sexual orientation, political affiliation, or religious views. Now, most of us tend to take this just fine, since it's part of your charm. But the reality is that it isn't productive or insightful and so the idea of you lecturing anyone on losing competence due to a lack of activity in the realm of sophisticated debate is enough to make most of us who know you make with the lulz.

So whether or not I've been sarcastically placing myself on a high pedestal has absolutely nothing to do with the chain of smartass comments you initiated and, QED, the pot and kettle expression is both inappropriate and irrelevant. Completely.
Both responses accuse the other of being useless on this forum, therefore my remark was correct. Try to keep up.

Also, none of those sources bring up the possibility (and all likelihood) of Nadd being able to travel freely anytime and be at said location for an X amount of time. Almost good sources..

I'll call my new theory 'Why I choose to spend my time looking at dicks on the internet'.

DS
Oh no, I know what it means and I used it correctly.

Sure.

facepalm





Except it doesn't. It is simply an accusation that I have an unusually high opinion of myself, not that I've failed to contribute anything meaningful to the forum.



The fact that they did not mention that Nadd could project himself elsewhere (even though we know he could) doesn't invalidate the source.

facepalm

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir


Except it doesn't. It is simply an accusation that I have an unusually high opinion of myself, not that I've failed to contribute anything meaningful to the forum.
Again, two accusations of uselessness makes my statement validNo amount of rationalization changes that.


the fact that he spent an extended time on both korriban and yavin certainly does.

DS
Again, two accusations of uselessness makes my statement validNo amount of rationalization changes that.



Having a high opinion of one's self does not make one useless.

DS
the fact that he spent an extended time on both korriban and yavin certainly does.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
Having a high opinion of one's self does not make one useless. Hint: reread what I wrote and try again. Also, nice of you to include the word 'temporary' in there because anything that isn't Nadds resting place can be considered temporary

DS
Hint: reread what I wrote and try again.

I did and it still doesn't make sense.

DS
Also, nice of you to include the word 'temporary' in there because anything that isn't Nadds resting place can be considered temporary

Which still doesn't invalidate the sources.

The http://southerngaragebands.com/spade-k.jpg is strong in this thread.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
I did and it still doesn't make sense.
when I insinuate that the majority of your time is spent figuring out your insecurity issues, what do you think that means in terms of productivity?


which still doesn't mean they're valid

Ace of spades?

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
Ace of spades?

Its slang for Kismesis.

http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/rr275/inb4insomnia/colonymired/errata/kismesis.png

DS
when I insinuate that the majority of your time is spent figuring out your insecurity issues, what do you think that means in terms of productivity?

An insinuation and an accusation are two entirely different animals, DS. As I said, having a high opinion of one's self (which is what you accused me of) does not indicate lack of productivity.

Aren't you in law school?

DS
which still doesn't mean they're valid

I don't need to prove their validity. They're statements from a canon source; they're valid until there is an obvious contradiction and here there is none. Pretty clumsy backpedaling there.

facepalm

That urbandictionary link is worthless... trollromance can literally not be explained in any way using less than three pages of text.

I'm contemplating posting the explantion on Trollmance. After snipping it to make it fit of course.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
................Did you just call me a troll? haermm

Only incidentally, I assure you.


http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100620071260/mspaintadventures/images/thumb/1/1d/CG.png/88px-CG.png
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100620071609/mspaintadventures/images/thumb/6/69/GCc.png/88px-GCc.png
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100620074937/mspaintadventures/images/thumb/6/60/Gamzee_Makara.png/95px-Gamzee_Makara.png

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
An insinuation and an accusation are two entirely different animals, DS. As I said, having a high opinion of one's self (which is what you accused me of) does not indicate lack of productivity.

Aren't you in law school? whether its an insinuation or accusation is irrelevant but I appreciate the misdirection.



since there is nothing confining Nadd to anything, unless you plan on hiding behin the word 'temporary', looks like the comic proves you wrong. Feel free to take a page out of the old Nai handbook and typing until the other party stops caring.

DS
whether its an insinuation or accusation is irrelevant



^ Here you claim that your remark was an accusation, when it was not. It was you who introduced the "irrelevant" notion to begin with, and worse, you got it wrong.

DS
but I appreciate the misdirection.

I appreciate the tenacity you exhibit in your own defeat, speaking of Nai's handbook. Your insult failed as spectacularly as your argument.

facepalm

DS
since there is nothing confining Nadd to anything, unless you plan on hiding behin the word 'temporary', looks like the comic proves you wrong. Feel free to take a page out of the old Nai handbook and typing until the other party stops caring.

Multiple sources confirm that Nadd's spirit was anchored to his remains. If you don't like it, take it up with the authors of the various texts. But there is no contradiction, because the source material (comic) and the text themselves allow for both facts to exist cooperatively: Like Ragnos, Nadd was capable of transporting his essence across space to various locations outside of his tomb while still being ultimately anchored there and unable to roam indefinitely.

Or you can continue to operate under the vivid delusion that you are, somehow, the arbiter of canon and can disregard multiple sources on a whim.

It ultimately makes no difference to me: My point remains as firm and erect as my penis was during the licentious sexcapades that ensued with your girlfriend and your mother last night. innuendur

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
^ Here you claim that your remark was an accusation, when it was not. It was you who introduced the "irrelevant" notion to begin with, and worse, you got it wrong.
I appreciate you continuing the moot point because it doesn't change the validity of remark. And your post is nice considering I've already allowed you to admit defeat and move on but I enjoy reading irrelevant posts and hail marys
I also enjoy it when you decide to hide behind a sentence or two and take it as literal as possible when it suits you but unfortunately, these sources don't say
Nadd is confined to his remains and the comics confirm this. But if you want to compare Ragnos' appearance to Nadd's continuous, lengthy appearances, I
suggest you concede defeat and move on. I look forward to reading a parrot of this post

DS
I appreciate you continuing the moot point because it doesn't change the validity of remark. And your post is nice considering I've already allowed you to admit defeat and move on but I enjoy reading irrelevant posts and hail marys

Well, when the remark is valid and you try to hide behind a cloak of irrelevance, you know it's time to move on.

DS
Well, when the remark is valid and you try to hide behind a cloak of irrelevance, you know it's time to move on.

No one said anything about the remark being invalid.

I worry about you, my friend, and your future in law. I have a gut feeling that the bar is going to clothesline you.

haermm

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
No one said anything about the remark being invalid.

I worry about you, my friend, and your future in law. I have a gut feeling that the bar is going to clothesline you.

haermm Thats ok, I would worry more if someone 9 years my junior actually corrected me but since the point is hidden within a bunch of irrelevant nonsense, I think you just might have a career in law. That is after you educate yourself in semantics.

Also , for someone who spent 2 pages arguing that my remark was invalid and I didn't know what it meant, you sure have a short term memory

Your years on KMC must have been agonizingly stressful, then.





facepalm

I arguedproved the remark was inappropriate, not that it wasn't valid. It was not relevant to what was being discussed: productivity in the realm of discourse. That I may or may not have an inflated opinion of myself is ultimately irrelevant to my activity and skill within an actual debate. It's a little disheartening to see that you haven't caught on. So this is what two years of unending trolling does to you?

I guess someone needs a lesson in the difference of inappropriate and nonsensical as it relates to validity, not even realizing that not only was it appropriate but 100% correct. I suggest you lay off the pot and Friday night WoW sessions as it's affecting your grasp of the English language

WoW and pot are no friends of mine (but your mom is) and the remark was still inappropriate and the sources still stand, my love.

The sources are disproved and 'inappropriate' is another way of saying my remark is invalid in this specific context. I win.

DS
The sources are not disproved and 'inappropriate' is another possible way of saying my remark is invalid but not in this specific context. I winlose.



Well said.

he

Looks like I win, time to look at victory porn.

I thought you were married. mmm

DS
Looks like I winlose, time to look at victoryconsolation porn.

I left the sex tape of your mother and I in the VCR. Enjoy!

Engagement doesn't preclude one from watching porn, especially victory porn.

Does she know about your consolation porn?

She will have to accept it. Does your life partner?

We watch it together.

That's.... Gay

Well duh.

I lol'd.




Twice.

NoH8.