Brasil

[quote]It was during the Great Blizzard of eighty-one...the only road into town got avalanched, and our only phone line out got ripped down. We were stranded with no way out, and nobody could come in to get us. After a few hours, we all started to get worried, because we'd never been stuck like this before, after all, we lived in a temperate zone, and we never thought we'd ever get a blizzard. But sho'nough, it happened. Snow mounds as high as our church steeple, but not in our town, of course. We couldn't even dig our way out. Oh, but we tried. Oh, we tried. We lost five of our strongest, most strappin, and bravest men when that snow tunnel collapsed down on their heads. It was a sad day, it was. A very sad day, indeed. One of them was the new school teacher. He?d just started teachin the young?uns at the kindergarten. He had a boy of his own, couldn?t have been older than those children he was teachin. He and his wife were expecting, too. Sad to hear it, really it is. That child of theirs they were expectin is never gonna be able to know what it feels like to be held in her daddy?s arms. And that?s a cryin shame, it is. The family was the Joneses. They?d come in from the city. Mister Jones?he liked us to call him Gary, his first name, but we?d have none of that. We respect our teachers, and we respect our public servants, too, and we wasn?t about to disrespect a bright an upcoming kindergarten teacher, no sir?but Mister Jones was well-received in town. He really loved his job, teachin them childrens. You could look at him and see the teacher in ?em. The kids loved him, too. Never was there a day when one would come home and complain. Always smiles, and bright, sparkly eyes, those childrens were learnin, for sure, when Mister Jones would be teaching them. There was one time Mister Jones was out sick with a cold, and requested a substitute for his class. There was no doubt in our minds that if Mister Jones hadn?t been afflicted with something horrible, he?d have been up in front of that blackboard, educating and schoolin the young?uns ?bout ?rithmetic and readin and all that. But Mister Jones was sick, so a Miss Honeyberry taught the class that day. She was a good substitute, of course, but Mister Jones was the star, and the children enjoyed her teachin, but somethin was missing: Mister Jones. Three were on the local fire brigade--the volunteers, son. The last one, well, he was just some passerby, passin through town when the blizzard hit. Just a kind Samaritan and that was probably the saddest loss there. He didn't even live in our town, and still helped, and gave his life in the process. After a day or two, our food supplies began to run low. Our mayor called a town meetin to propose a few ideas he and his cabinet had thought up to help minimize the eventual starvation of our townsfolk. Now, it wasn't his idea?his idea was actually pretty different...but he was just a little real stringy.[/quote] Not quite finished (not at all, really), but I figured post it anyway, see what kind of responses I get, eh?

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Okay, I can see where you're going with this. It's like the abstinence programs that are in effect in 1/3 of the schools in the US. They work just fine for the students who are intelligent enough (like us) to just say no. But for the ones who are just plain curious or just plain dumb there need to be different methods. That's where my idea comes in. It's for the plain dumb ones, the curious ones should get an exstensive course in the pros and cons of protection. I do realize that there's more likelyhood of the whole extreme babysitting idea going on in reality tv then in a school. But schools (atleast the one I went to) do have parenting classes. If a school district has a high teenage pregnancy rate then more evasive teachings, perhaps helping out a family with a newborn should be implimented. More than just a baby think it over that wakes up and cries until you stick a key in it and simply teaching abstinence. Honestly, that's all I can think of for right now. In 6 minutes if my daughter's still crying I have to go take care of her and hope she'll take her bottle with the medicine in it.[/color][/quote] Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that in an effort to help the [i]dumb[/i] teenagers understand what kind of physical, emotional, and economic strain it is to raise a child...those teens will help a family take care of a newborn? The dumb teenager (or reckless teenager) is already going to be experiencing that (the newborn stress), so how is that going to be a [i]deterrent[/i], CHW? The "damage" has already been done. The teenager is "dumb" or "reckless" because [i]they already have a newborn of their own[/i]. You haven't thought this one through, have you? Regarding the curious teenager...what help could a novice possibly be in helping care for a newborn? What would suggest they would be worthwhile assistance to begin with? One of the incidental benefits of such a program would be to alleviate the new parents' stress, basically--but how is it a help when they may very well be doing [i]more[/i] of the work because the "curious teenager" doesn't know what in the hell they're doing, or even enough to do things competently? It's like medical transcription. For example, for argument's sake, I'm a part-timer who works 20 hours per week, but puts in extra time when needed, and covers vacation, etc. When the team is in a bind, I jump in and help clear out the backlog (the backlog is the radiology dictations we still need to complete). But say I'm having trouble with a big chunk of those dictations, and I continually need to turn to my coworkers to help me. I'm not exactly learning how to do it myself, am I? And I'm not exactly helping my coworkers, either, because I'm ending up being more of a burden on them than the backlog ever was. Are you getting what I'm saying here? The backlog is the newborn. My coworkers are the new parents. I'm the curious teen. Your idea doesn't work when the teen very well may suck at it, and inadvertently force the parents to do most of the work. Furthermore, in order to effectively give the teen a taste, so to speak, of what new parenting is, that teen would have to stay with the newborn essentially [i]all the time[/i], because you've said it yourself that the [i]NIGHTS[/i] are really when you get tested--and I sincerely [i]doubt[/i] that most "new parents" are going to be so eager to have a [i]complete stranger[/i] staying in their home--living with them, really--taking care of their child...getting up in the middle of the night with them to soothe the infant. Again, do you see why your idea is unfeasible? Anybody could see the massive logistic flaws there. I say it again: your idea is a bad idea. [quote][color=darkviolet]I do realize that there's more likelyhood of the whole extreme babysitting idea going on in reality tv then in a school. But schools (atleast the one I went to) do have parenting classes.[/color][/quote] Hold on here. There's a [i]huge, huge, [b]HUGE[/b][/i] difference between what you're suggesting here and the parenting classes in school, so to mention those classes as some type of support for your idea is asinine at best, and here's why. You're suggesting something straight out of Jerry Springer/Maury Povich/[insert absurd day-time talk show here]. The parenting classes are anything but that. The bad talk show reality TV build those bits for ratings, CHW. Parenting classes build their structure and "curriculum" to help people. There's a key difference there you need to understand. Shock value like Springer doesn't help people--and that's exactly what your idea is going for; shock value...and scaring people is not what we should be doing, at least not to the extent that your idea would produce. [quote][color=darkviolet]Do you have any other ideas other than solely teaching abstinence and other conventional ideas? Despite our no duh differences I think you're a rather intelligent person. (I hope)[/color][/QUOTE] Firstly, your idea isn't "conventional" in the least, so I just want to make that perfectly clear. Secondly, no, I don't have any other ideas other than teaching abstinence and responsibility--and frankly, if "other ideas" include things like what we see on Jerry Springer, then I'm perfectly content with abstinence and responsibility. Thirdly, I think there's an even bigger issue here than simple Sex-Ed, sexual dynamics, etc. That issue [i]is[/i] age. One of my cousins recently got married at 21. His wife is 19, I think, maybe 20. Their daughter was born about a month ago, if that. To put it bluntly, their marriage means jack**** in relation to making anything any easier for them, because 20 is just too young to be having children. Some parents begin raising a family when they're in their early 20s, yes, and some are successful, but we're talking about many who haven't even gotten their Bachelor's degree yet, so finding a job that will allow them to support their family while at the same time, not sucking up every waking minute they have is [i]incredibly[/i] difficult. My cousin is a perfect example. Every time I see him, he looks more and more exhausted, and everyone knows the precise reason why. That reason is until you're in your mid-to-late 20s, abstinence really is the best option. Nothing is guaranteed when using birth control/condoms/etc, and at that point in most teens' lives (14-20), even a 0.01% chance is a risk not worth taking. Yes, this may be my opinion and nobody else's, but from pure logic and common sense...sex before you can even support [i]yourself[/i] effectively is a bad idea (or at least dangerous enough to warrant abstaining until you're able to). I'm not religious in the least; I abhor the Jerry Falwells and I have wanted to slap Bill O'Reilly on more than one occasion, but while I don't agree with the majority of their [i]reasons[/i] for their stance, I agree with the fundamental idea that there [b][i]is[/i][/b] a "too soon" for sex.

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Or you just lack immagination. Trust me, you wake up to a screaming baby at 1am you really don't want to have sex for a few days. Do it for a few nights by yourself and you'll want to give up sex all together. I'm the voice of experiance. It does sound like an odd reality TV show I know, but I think it'll work. Especially when the baby pukes all over the main characters.[/color][/QUOTE] I'm sure I just lack imagination, CHW. :rolleyes: And it's not that I'm doubting the effectiveness of your idea, because experience with a real live infant is eye-opening for sure. I'm not about to deny that. What I [i]am[/i] arguing, however, is the [i]feasibility[/i] of your idea. I'm making a distinction here, so pay attention. The [i]effectiveness[/i] of your idea is worthwhile, but your idea is [i]only[/i] effective when it's [i]successful[/i], and for such a large-scale as you're suggesting, the likelihood of your idea being a success flies right out the window, quite frankly, which brings me back to my initial point: Your idea is impossible to implement, unless it takes place within the limited confines of the hyperreality of bad talk show TV.

Or, Charles, the following image would have worked just as nicely: [center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=23565&stc=1[/img] [/center]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman']On a closing note, why don't you agree with my baby plan Siren? It promotes abstinence and it's surpervised.[/quote] Straight answer? It's idiotic and unfeasible, and more Maury Povich fodder than an actual, well-developed suggestion. It's an idea, that while attractive, is possible only in the hyperreality of bad talk show TV. That's why.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman']Deleted part of what I wanted to reply to but who cares? The point isn't that all methods of protection are safe, the point is that there are other methods out there besides abstinence. Birth control is one of those methods. I believe it actually has a 99.9% success rate when used properly. I'd also tell my daughter that when having sex with someone she's not married to to use two or more forms of birth control and get the person tested as well.[/quote] Again, coming back to how adept teenagers are, CHW. Let's be frank here. The majority of teens today are morons. There are a few bright spots here and there, but I guess I just don't have as much faith as you do in the "m4d sexn skills" of teens today. [quote]The problem I have with the abstinence only program is what I've stated time and time again. [b]All they talk about is abstinence and failure rates. And that's why the rate of teen pregnancy [u](as you've seen)[/u] has been increasing.[/b] I think if they included success rates as well as failure rates when used correctly along with how to try and abstain the program would be much better.[/quote] As I've seen? So a few of my classmates getting pregnant back in 1998, [i]before[/i] Sex-Ed/Abstinence-only classes is due to the Sex-Ed/Abstinence-only and not because they're sluts, or reckless? lol Blame both, like you say later on, that's a stretch, because teens were getting pregnant long before Abstinence-only hit the scene in the 80s. And you still haven't provided any statistics to concretely back-up your claim that Abstinence-only programs actually are the cause of increased teen pregnancies, CHW. [i]Do you have any reputable studies to prove the correlation you say is there?[/i] [quote]THe logic I'm going by is that if you tell a kid not to do something because it's wrong they're still going to do it anyway. You may as well just tell them to go ahead and have sex, but use a condom. Obviously you didn't read it that way. That way maybe They'll think twice before having sex in the first place because [b]when they see the condom they'll think of mom[/b]. I don't think I said anything wrong.[/quote] By that logic, telling kids not to smoke, [i]drink and drive[/i], etc. is a bad thing, as well, because they're going to go out to do it anyway, [i]because[/i] we say it's bad for them, [i]because[/i] it's prohibited? Should we just go handing out packs of Marlboros and bottles of Jack Daniels, as well? And Oedipal complexes are bad, by the way, in any shape or form. Psychological stress in how you're recommending is...a bad idea. [quote]And yes I do read what you type (every last friggin' word of it let's not have the Movie fiasco again) I was just possibly agreeing with you about the pre-marrital thing.... Including the part about why the psychological part was complete BS. Maybe I should ask if you read everything I type before replying.[/quote] Who said anything about a movie fiasco, CHW? I'm talking about this, right here. And frankly, you would have had no reason at all to mention "out-of-wedlock," as if you were using it as some type of rebuttal to my post, because I had expressed concern regarding the "out-of-wedlock" bits in my very first post in this thread. So there are two possibilities here, by my estimate: One, you didn't read the post. -or- Two, you're just replying with irrelevant nonsense. [quote]I think we blame both. Teenagers for being dumb enough not to use a condom properly and consider what they're in for in the first place and the system for only talking about failure rates and scaring kids from using condoms..[/quote] Failure to use a condom is due to Abstinence-only programs preaching condom hellfire and damnation? How about just teenagers being reckless and dumb? [quote]I'm sticking with what I typed before. Teenagers who are considering having sex should be made to take care of a real baby. Not one of those stupid baby think it overs (the BTIO at least stays still, you don'ty have to bathe it dress it change it or feed it. ) A real baby. preferably a noisy squirmy teething baby (not mine). They will be supervised by the child's (baby's) parent but will have to take on all the responsibilty. And That's how the sex part of sex ed should be taught.[/QUOTE] And I'm ignoring it.

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman] Yes, they imprerss that condoms aren't fail proof, but that's all teh program talks about. Failure rate. No success rate. Birth control (IE the pill) may not be 100% effective. But when used properly the success rate is around 99% It's a proven fact. Abstinence may be the only 100% effective birth control method, but it's not the only method availble. HIgh school age kids and anyone thinking about having sex should be made aware of other methods other than abstinence.[/quote] I think you just kicked yourself in the mouth with that one. If teens already aren't using protection/birth control, and may be using protection/birth control incorrectly when (if) they do, what is the likelihood that protection/birth control will have that 99% success rate? I'm not saying scaring kids into not having sex is the right thing to do here, but to tell them that if they use the pill correctly, there's a 99% chance everything will turn out fine, given how reckless and dumb most teenagers are? I'm sorry, but I've transcribed far too many fetal ultrasounds of 14-year-olds in their second trimester. I don't support scaring people in general practice, but I think this is one issue that we can't afford to soften up on. I certainly support giving teens all the information available, but I don't want to lull them into a false sense of security. [quote]Maybe because they were never taught how to use a condom or made aware of methods of protection other than abstinence. Or maybe it's the 'Everyone is doing it' ploy and the other person isn't smart enough to say no.[/quote] Putting on a condom is not difficult; I find it incredibly hard to believe that a moderately intelligent teenager doesn't know how. If they can't read, then they should be able to figure it out: place and roll. That's basically it. And I think it's sad if high school sex ed isn't teaching students about the variety of protection/birth control methods. My high school did, and I'm sure as hell the surrounding high schools did, too--and I find it incredibly hard to believe that nation-wide, there's this absence of remotely comprehensive sex ed. [quote]The united states has the highest teen birth rate of any modernized country because of this type of Sex education.[/quote] Where is this statistic coming from? Where is this conclusion coming from? The site you linked us to says Abstinence-only doesn't work because teens are getting pregnant--that seems like saying the Abstinence-only programs are the reasons more teens are getting pregnant, and that's a fallacy. Teens are getting pregnant because teens are being stupid, lol (and reckless). [quote]Could be due to both. Maybe these kids should just be supplied with condoms so if they do decide to have sex there's less of a chance that these teens will become pregnant. Simple as that.[/quote] Again, you kicked yourself in the mouth with what you said below: [quote]Yes maybe handing a teen a condom is like saying: Go ahead have sex. But[/quote] What kind of message is that going to give? "Here, be safe when you have sex," or "Here, have sex."? Distributing condoms is not my idea of how to help teenagers. Is Santa going to start throwing out Trojans instead of candycanes at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade? [quote]Okay too lazy and busy to cut paste and edit whatI pasted prior but the part in there about teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity; teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects; There are plenty of people out there having sex before marriage who are still mentally healthy. As well as children born out of wedlock who are perfectly sane. [b]It shouldn't be taught that you're going to have issues if you have sex before you're married.[/b] It goes right up tehre with saying that sex is bad and sex is only done in order to procreate. Maybe not complete BS, but enough BS for parents to be worried. Again. Teaching kids how to try and say no good. Teaching kids to avoid drugs and underage drinking good. [b]Teaching kids that sex is wrong and if you have it before you get married you'll be messed up 'bad'[/b].[/quote] [quote name='Siren in his first post in the thread]...[b]while I don't necessarily enjoy seeing the "out-of-wedlock" mentions there[/b'], I don't see how anyone can label the program as "bs" when those are the goals of the program.[/quote] Do read my posts, Chibi, [i]before[/i] trying to reply to my points. [quote]Besides there are some programs out there (The silver ring thing) [that] don't have a success rate: [center]"Pledging will help them delay sex for, say, 18 months ? a year and a half," says Bearman. "It's a big deal in the lives of teenagers. Eighteen months is a phenomenally long time. It?s almost two school years." So what's the downside? "The downside is that, when they have sex, pledgers are one-third less likely to use condoms at first sex," says Bearman. "So all of the benefit of the delay in terms of pregnancy-risk and in terms of STD acquisition -- poof -- it just disappears because they?re so much less likely to use a condom at first sex." [/center] This is a direct quote from the creator of the Silver Ring Thing) [url="http://"]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/60minutes/main696975.shtml[/url][/quote] How does this support the idea that Abstinence programs are bull****? It doesn't look like the [i]program itself[/i] failed there; it looks like the [i]teens themselves[/i] failed. Do we blame an entire system for the faults of the individual? Do I need to reference the Deltas-on-trial-hearing scene in Animal House?

Real fast, [quote][color=darkviolet]In the end I think that type of teaching backfires because after lessons based soley on condom failure plus the failure of other forms of protection (including the pill, patch and shot) the students who took this course will inevitably be afraid to use the mentioned tyoes of birth control and protection and just not use anything and have an unplanned pregnancy. Hence why teen pregnancies in the US are up instead of down thanks to this program.[/color][/quote] I find that logic to be incredibly stretchy. Because Abstinence programs impress that condoms aren't failsafe, that most birth control methods (contraceptive-wise) aren't 100% guaranteed, teen pregnancy is on the rise? Teen pregnancy is on the rise because more and more teens are having unprotected sex, simple as that, and more and more teens are having unprotected sex because of social stigma, simple as that. Not to put so fine a point on it, but teens getting pregnant is due to stupidity, naivete, and peer pressure...not Abstinence programs. And to blanket label Abstinence programs as BS is incredibly naive, as well, because... [quote][color=darkviolet][b] has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, physiological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity; teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children; teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems; teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity; teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects; teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society; teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.[/b][/color][/quote] ...while I don't necessarily enjoy seeing the "out-of-wedlock" mentions there, I don't see how anyone can label the program as "bs" when those are the goals of the program.

[quote name='Gavin][size=1]As for the meaning of Darth, it's the title of all Sith Lord, it's what sets them apart from those Jedi who simply fall, Darth is the title of someone who has actually trained in the ways of the Sith. What it means exactly I don't know, although Alex is probably right seeing as "[i]Dark Father[/i']" makes a lot of sense, seeing as how it's not until the New Trilogy that the title becomes widespread. [/size][/quote] And also, you could see Obi-Wan as Luke's "Light Father," so that duality does make a lot of sense. Luke essentially has two dads. ...sounds like a fun sitcom, actually. o_0;;

[QUOTE=Zenju][font=Trebuchet MS][size=1][font=Verdana][color=Gray]EDIT: Just as another point of discussion, does anyone know what the Title "Darth" actually means? I know about Vader and Maul, both apprentices of the Emperor, but Sidious? Isn't Sidious one of Palpatine's guises? I'm guessing that Darth means apprentice, but if Sidious is indeed the Emperor, then I don't know. o_O; Yoda says, in Episode I, something to the tune of "always two there are, one apprentice, one master" Is that the Emperor, and his "Darth" or apprentice? [/color][/font] [/size][/font][/QUOTE] I think "Darth" actually simply means "dark," but I'm not sure. It would make sense, though, because I believe "Vader" is Dutch for "father," so Darth Vader is a "dark father," which is accurate. Considering that most of the "Sith" (cause Sidious and Maul are also wannabe Sith) are also dark, "Darth" fits.

[quote name='James][color=#737373']Might be a good way to attract people who still down't own a Game Boy, especially more women.[/color][/quote] So, basically... [center][b][size=3]Game Boy Micro:[/size] [/b][i]Strong enough for a man, but made for a purse.[/i] [left] Sorry, I couldn't resist. [/left] [/center]

[quote name='MehrLicht']Oh, and about the SPIDERMAN thing, SONY kinda owns the rights to that movie so...yeah they own the font too. Stop trying to find little things to knock the PS3 for just because you love XBOX so much for giving you HALO.[/quote] If that was sarcasm...it sucked. lol I don't think anyone here had any ulterior motives (OMFG PS3 bashin is all teh rage!!11!!11) in commenting on the similarity between the Playstation 3 font and the font to Spiderman. Now, about PS3. I think the console's design looks fantastic; the black version works especially well, though I'm leery of how the ports in the back would do, mainly just color issues. I suppose as long as the labels underneath those ports are changed to white, it'd be fine. I'm most attracted to either the white or black consoles; the gray just isn't doing it for me...and I really wish the PS3 was strictly horizontal. Something about vertical systems...reminds me too much of a CPU tower, I guess. Speaking of computers, the PS3 sounds like a computer, lol. That's not to say Xbox (or 360) never did, either, but I'm starting to miss the days when game consoles were game consoles, you know? I'm not going to deny that I'm very excited about the USB ports, flash drives (which is certainly one thing the gaming industry desperately needs), it's just that where's a Super NES when you need one? lol But I think the flash drives are really going to stir things up. They're really the next step--and a logical one at that. Memory cards are nice and all, but a PS2 memory card got full after saving a dozen different games. The Xbox card didn't fare much better, but the hard drive balanced that out. Gamecube...I can't understand how any of us ever managed with the first-generation memory cards (the 59 block ones). Flash drives functioning as the new memory cards is fantastic. ^_^ [center][b]***EDIT***[/b] [/center] [QUOTE=MehrLicht][QUOTE]If that was sarcasm...it sucked. lol I don't think anyone here had any ulterior motives (OMFG PS3 bashin is all teh rage!!11!!11) in commenting on the similarity between the Playstation 3 font and the font to Spiderman.[/QUOTE] Two people said it before me, plus it's actually something my Xbox inclined friends harp on about a good bit, so yeah I kinda think my comment was valid. As for your response, well I just hope making fun of teenagers over the internet makes you feel big.[/QUOTE] [quote=Siren]And what comment was that? That people's (perfectly legitimate) criticisms aren't legit, because they must be Xbox/Halo fanboys because they aren't drooling all over every single thing about PS3? [i]Please[/i]. I suppose that would make you a Sony Fanboy, considering how you were just blatantly bashing Xbox and Halo, right? After all, by your logic here, if someone criticizes a system/game, they must be Fanboys of a competing game system/company. Merlicht, look what you were saying in that thread, and just think about it. You were reading responses to a design concept and immediately coming close to flaming people, simply because they were voicing disappointment with what is undeniably a [i]lame[/i] logo, a system design that undoubtedly looks eerily similar to a scanner/copier from HP, and a controller that looks like a reject from Batman Beyond. To label those people Fanboys is utterly trite and betrays your naievete, because the logo [i]is[/i] disappointing. The two previous PlayStation logos were dynamic and original. The one for PS3 is nothing more than a highly derivative font style. They are completely justified in their disappointment, because it is a disappointment to those who aren't--gasp, dare I say it--Sony Fanboys. I can point to a vast number of HP printer/scanner/copier combos and do side-by-side comparisons to show the same type of streamlined, smooth look. Hell, you can find scanners like that in your local high school or library. Your reaction to criticisms of the controller is just as unwarranted, because what you fail to realize is that the controller [i]does[/i] look like a wussy Batarang, lol. Frankly, you're the one who needs an attitude check, dude. Disliking aspects of a system does not make someone a Fanboy, despite what you may believe.[/QUOTE] [quote=Merlicht]1. Name one instance where I came anywhere CLOSE to "bashing" Xbox or Halo. 2. The closest I came to flaming was saying the word "stop." You just sent me a "hell," which makes you closer to flaming than I am. 3. You obviously aren't even paying attention to me, because you reffered to my deffensive comments about the controller...I never once made a statement about the controller, because I too think it looks terrible. 4) So what I'm trying to say is, if you automatically are not going to respect me because you're twenty- something and I'm fifteen, please don't send me anymore private messages. Thanks. _Mike_[/QUOTE] [quote=Siren]1. "Stop trying to find little things to knock the PS3 for just because you love XBOX so much for giving you HALO." That statement reeks of "OMFG H4lo an Xbox sux!1!1!! u r s000 Halo fanboyzzz!1!!" If explicitly or implicitly accusing those other members of being Xbox/Halo fanboys was truly and honestly [i]not[/i] your intent, then you should have revised your little outburst so your true intent was clearer. Yet you did not revise it, so what does that say? Furthermore, you Private Message [i]me[/i] with a snide remark, so I don't think you're as innocent of any personal attacks here as you claim, Merlicht, whether in the thread or in Private Messages. 2. I don't see how this is a huge issue. Merlicht, you overreacted in that thread, pure and simple. None of those people are Xbox/Halo Fanboys, but simply because they were criticizing lackluster PS3 designs, you automatically treat them like they are. Your outburst in that thread was totally uncalled for, because there was nothing (I repeat: NOTHING) to justify it. Just because someone dislikes a lackluster concept design, you automatically imply they're fanboys? Grow up, man. 3. I'll refer you to my response in the thread: [quote name='Siren']I don't think anyone here had any ulterior motives (OMFG PS3 bashin is all teh rage!!11!!11) in commenting on the similarity between the Playstation 3 font and the font to Spiderman.[/quote] Note I was paying attention to you there. Also, I made mention of the controller [i]last[/i], so you have failed to effectively respond to my previous PM (and are rather guilty of not paying attention, keep in mind), because the controller was the [i]last[/i] thing on my mind, as evidenced by how I organized my points in the previous PM. You didn't even bother to hit the points I made regarding the logo and/or the physical system design, so before you start throwing insults and jabs at me, Merlicht, it would suit you very well to start responding to the entire point, instead of merely isolating one incidental idea and attempting to build an argument on that one incidental point. 4. I'm not respecting you because you're an idiot, pure and simple. No offense, man, but your entire post in the thread (and your subsequent Private Messages here) scream immature Sony Fanboy. Your age has nothing to do with anything here. Your [i]attitude[/i] is why I don't respect you, let's make that perfectly clear. And let's make sure we're both aware that [i]you[/i] Private Messaged [i]me[/i] FIRST, Merlicht, and you initiated the Private Messages with [i]less[/i] than a pleasant attitude, so don't pull that "if you're not going to reply to me in a nice way, don't bother replying to me anymore" crap. If you didn't want to get into any type of verbal tussle here, you shouldn't have thrown down the gloves in the first place, Merlicht. You have only yourself to blame. ~Siren[/QUOTE] [quote=Merlicht]Well first off i don't believe I made an outburst on that thread, hence my reason for not changing my post. And I've now decided that I won't be responding to anymore of your messages. Until now I would have been perfectly content playing PM tag with you, but now it's apparent that you've built up enough steam to begin the name calling. You actually belive that after reading a few sentences written by me on an internet forum, you can judge my character? Very sad. Hasn't your own mother done something once that you didn't agree with? Is SHE an idiot? But, luckily for me, I'm more mature than you're willing to think I am. I'm comfortable with my life as well as what I've accomplished in fifteen years. I'll concede the point that I did start the messaging in the first place (and yes in a bad tone), but I really have a disliking for veteran members making fun of people because they feel they are "noobs." That's my justification, anyway. _Mike_[/QUOTE] [quote=Siren]I'm actually going to go point-by-point here. [quote] Well first off i don't believe I made an outburst on that thread, hence my reason for not changing my post.[/quote] Insinuating that someone is a Fanboy (and an XBox/Halo Fanboy) simply because they're voicing disappointment with a logo is an outburst, Merhlicht. You used All-Caps in the post, yet you didn't use them here, in the Private Message, so you can't play that off like you always type system names/games in All-Caps. Let's not kid ourselves here: you All-Capped those particular names for emphasis, and for a reason: because you took things in there way too personally. [quote]And I've now decided that I won't be responding to anymore of your messages. Until now I would have been perfectly content playing PM tag with you, but now it's apparent that you've built up enough steam to begin the name calling. You actually belive that after reading a few sentences written by me on an internet forum, you can judge my character? Very sad. Hasn't your own mother done something once that you didn't agree with? Is SHE an idiot?[/quote] Based on what I've seen from you, I have no reason to believe anything other than you're a tempermental teenager who takes things way, way, way too personally. I've built up enough steam here? [i]Please[/i]. There's no steam on my end, nor was there in my posts in that thread. Frankly, I don't see any real justification for your attempt to "take the high road here," because there's no bad blood between us. There is no "us." "We" don't exist. And your petty insults and snide remarks will get you nowhere, because you're making them out of some childish revenge mode. Oh, I've wronged you, so you have to get me back, right? Yeah, I was a teenager once, too. I know how that thought process works. [quote]But, luckily for me, I'm more mature than you're willing to think I am. I'm comfortable with my life as well as what I've accomplished in fifteen years. I'll concede the point that I did start the messaging in the first place (and yes in a bad tone), but I really have a disliking for veteran members making fun of people because they feel they are "noobs." That's my justification, anyway.[/quote] If you're as mature as you claim, you wouldn't have made the initial spiteful and mean-spirited comment in the first place, in the thread, simple as that. Your comments regarding your personal life, as if they're some type of bartering currency here, fall on deaf ears, as I can guarantee that if you want to get in a pissing contest with me, I'll whoop your sorry ***. So bringing in how you're such a saint or mature or whatever isn't going to improve your image--or your "case." Regarding your so-called "justification," it's based on a wholly invalid supposition. You haven't acknowledged that I got on your case not because you were some "n00b," but because you were behaving like a complete tool. I've been on this message board for about two years now, so it's not as if I'm some veteran member anyway. If by "veteran" you mean age, then age had nothing to do with my comments, either. My comments were made not out of age, or rank, or anything of the sort. My comments were made because you were acting like a total spazz. ~Siren[/QUOTE] [quote=Merlicht]I have now reached the point of utter shock. I capitalized those names because they are brand names, something I just do with titles and brands in speculation, as well as emphesized words (so There's room for confusion there i suppose). And WHAT petty insults are you talking about?! The last quote you sent had nothing resembling insults in its content. With your jumping to such wild conclusions, and writing essay long arguments and insults to a teenager, I would be careful who I called a spazz. And as for a "pissing contest," I'm gonna go ahead and assume that means who's done better things in life. Well nor was it my intention for you to believe that I was trying to hold my accomplishments in front of me like a shield, which is the exact reason why i [i]didn't name them.[/i] But, other than having survived 7 years more than I have, if you'd like to key me in on anything you've ever done that would make anyone respect you, I'll gladly listen.[/QUOTE] [quote=Siren]Again, point-by-point. [quote]I have now reached the point of utter shock. I capitalized those names because they are brand names, something I just do with titles and brands in speculation, as well as emphesized words (so There's room for confusion there i suppose).[/quote] Don't act so surprised, Merlicht. You All-Capped those words for emphasis--but why would you need to emphasize those words? Wouldn't it have been just as easy (and just as effective if your intent was as honest and nice as you claim) to write them with normal capitalization? Why not just spare yourself the trouble and just admit what we both know here? That you All-Capped those words because you took things way too personally. lol [quote]And WHAT petty insults are you talking about?! The last quote you sent had nothing resembling insults in its content.[/quote] [quote name='Merlicht']You actually belive that after reading a few sentences written by me on an internet forum, you can judge my character? Very sad. Hasn't your own mother done something once that you didn't agree with? Is SHE an idiot?[/quote] That right there, man. Don't attempt to brush that under the rug. I'm not offended by it, of course, but just because I'm not offended by it doesn't mean it's not petty insults and snide remarks. "Very sad." Come on, who are you trying to fool here? Or the remark about my mother? That's about as childish as insults and snide remarks can get. It's akin to "your mother's so dumb/fat/slow/etc." Come on, man, if you're going to absolve yourself here, you're going to have to clean up your act [i]first[/i], then talk about claiming you're innocent. [quote]With your jumping to such wild conclusions, and writing essay long arguments and insults to a teenager, I would be careful who I called a spazz.[/quote] You think this is essay-long? I've written short papers for passage explications/analyses that were longer than this. And again, remember who started throwing the insults first, Merlicht. You threw down first. Again, I re-iterate: if you weren't interested in getting stuff thrown back in your face, you shouldn't have started ****, simple as that. It's a tired cliche by now, but it's still entirely relevant, and it directly relates to your frame of mind here: You think you can dish it out, but you can't take it worth a damn. And that's the truth, no offense. [quote]And as for a "pissing contest," I'm gonna go ahead and assume that means who's done better things in life. Well nor was it my intention for you to believe that I was trying to hold my accomplishments in front of me like a shield, which is the exact reason why i [i]didn't name them.[/i][/quote] If it wasn't your intention, then you sure as hell didn't make it clear, Merlicht, so again, any miscommunication here is solely [i]your fault[/i]. And frankly, nothing you have said here would lead me to believe anything other than you were trying to "prove" you're the "better man" here. After all, the Private Messages were initiated by you, with an intent that is rather clear to me (and anyone who reads these), that intent being to somehow validate yourself and your actions. Or is that behavior not found in 15-year-olds? This, by the way, is an age-related question, and also a maturity issue, because, again, like I've said previously, if you were in fact as mature as you say you are, you wouldn't have thrown this little tantrum--and that's all it is. A tantrum. [quote]But, other than having survived 7 years more than I have, if you'd like to key me in on anything you've ever done that would make anyone respect you, I'll gladly listen.[/QUOTE] You can find some of my work at [url="http://www.somefantastic.us/"]www.somefantastic.us[/url], an online sf journal, for starters. There you'll see one essay I wrote last Spring (for which I received a perfect grade, I might add, and the critical acclaim of a large number of the faculty here at Rutgers) that featured an in-depth analysis of the character dynamics of Captain Ahab of Moby Dick and Agent Smith of The Matrix, and how the two characters are completely identical--and the piece went far beyond the blatantly obvious "obsessive quest for revenge." Also on that site, you'll find an analysis of the role of Fate in the Terminator films, specifically T1 and T2, where I completely demolish the popular interpretation of T2, the interpretation that believes Judgment Day was prevented. You can explore [url="http://www.myotaku.com/poisontongue"]www.myotaku.com/poisontongue[/url] and find a wide selection of various work of mine, including a rough Freshman year composition that aims at John Milius' claim that he based Apocalypse Now off of The Odyssey--and totally breaks that down, proving it wasn't inspired by The Odyssey, in fact based on Dante's Inferno with a liberal dose of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. Other pieces on myOtaku also include an analysis of multiculturalism in Star Wars entitled The Rebellion and the Death Star, entire posts/debates regarding Terminator 2, original materials on 2001: Space Odyssey, Oscar Wilde, Shakespeare (particularly Hamlet), David Bowie's Space Oddity...the list goes on. How's that? ~Siren[/QUOTE] [quote=Siren]Point-by-Point [quote]How is it? Intriguing. I actually remember seeing a thread here on the boards (maybe the lounge) about your moby dick/ smith parallel. The majority of your (would one say editorial?) publishings are on movies and books (and an epic) that I value tremendously, and I would probably read many of these debates and opinions if I were a more motivated individual.[/quote] Try reading them. They are far from amateur material. [quote]Sorry, but the last message I sent you was only half completed. The next paragraph should have started...[/quote] A 30-minute difference? That's a stretch, Merlicht. A major stretch, and quite frankly, I think it's too much of a stretch to be remotely plausible, so the rest of your reply here is starting on shaky ground. [quote]But you are only giving me half, or only part, of what I was asking as far as accomplishments go. Do you see what I mean? Now I'm gonna go ahead and clarify beforehand: [i]none of this message is meant to be insulting.[/i][/quote] What would you want? Sports? I'm an intellectual, a nerd. I don't play sports. And I'm finding your efforts here to be incredibly transparent, as well. You want me to "prove" how good I am by showing you things I've written, but you simply are not going to accept that I can fully back-up what I've said before, about personal achievements and whopping your sorry ***. So, really, insulting or not (and that's also an incredibly transparent statement, Merlicht), if you're unwilling to acknowledge my achievements, whether Internet-based or hard copy paper, then I see no reason to continue this. You asked me for materials that would show you I'm no random moron, and you got them--plenty of them. I've honored my part of the bargain here. Now honor yours. [quote]Internet publications are good, quite good, but if [i]this[/i] is supposed to be a basis on which I should be building my respect for you (a basis I believe you have), instead of one built upon age and rank, it just isn't enough. True, you've proven that you are scholarly and creative, but so were writers like Poe, who lived an awful life and had drug and alcohol problems. What accomplishments you have shown me here are the kind that could invoke admiration, not so much respect.[/quote] The quality of the work doesn't change with online vs print copies, Merlicht. That's one of the major fallacies of your counterargument. Good writing is good writing no matter what format, so your counterargument here is null and void, and frankly, it looks more like trying to dodge the issue here, the issue being you asked for material so you would respect me, [i]and I delivered[/i]. [quote]I mean, for all I know you could be a clever writer by day, serial rapist by night (again, not an insult, merely an exaggerated example). I hope what I was looking for is more clear now, and you certainly don't have to give me anymore if you feel you don't need to prove yourself to me.[/quote] This entire paragraph is utterly irrelevant, and the last sentence there is utterly arrogant, so again, your sincerity comes under fire. [quote]Oh, and about mentioning your mother, please don't think it was my intention to make a sophomoric jab at "yo mamma." I was merely using that instance as an example of "all people are capable of one wrong thing, even those you love." It was meant to be an anti- judgement statement. I still state with confidence, and apology for any thoughts you may have otherwise, that the paragraph in question contained no personal attacks on you. _Mike_[/QUOTE] Anti-judgment...and again, like I explained before, I was judging you on what you said, and what you said (and what you have been saying) was downright idiotic. Just like when I see the Clown in Shakespeare, I'm going to call the character a Clown, so if you don't want to be characterized as a fool, you shouldn't be saying foolish things. Simple as that. And again, your comment in that thread was idiotic (and I'm not alone on this one, either), and I commented on that, solely because of that. And frankly, you still haven't effectively redeemed yourself for the following remark: [quote name='Merlicht']You actually belive that after reading a few sentences written by me on an internet forum, you can judge my character? Very sad.[/quote] You're losing this one, Merlicht. I've shown you what I'm capable of (and what I've shown you is only a small fraction of my full potential, when I've got my A Game). Your explicit or implict refusal to concede on a variety of points here, the major point being that I am quite formidable, that you did in fact underestimate me, and that your childish attempts at intimidation have failed or blown up right in your face, tells me one thing: You can't admit when you were wrong, especially regarding perceptions of other people (for examples, see this Private Message series, see the PS3 thread where it was clear you overreacted and were more inclined to accuse people of being Fanboys). If I'm mistaken about that, do explain it to me, but as it stands now, your track record here has put you very, very, very much behind the 8-ball, as it were. You can continue this if you want, but you're screwed, man. Why not just walk away? ~Siren[/quote] ----- He just keeps digging himself deeper. XD And deeper, and deeper...lol Still deeper...XD

[quote name='teh Jeh][font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]I am saying, simply, that the government has no business getting involved in people's private and consentual sex lives (if they are adults). You, on the other hand, are saying that the government has the right to legislate the private relationships of adults.[/color'][/font][/quote] I think it's also worth mentioning that James' point here does have precedent. The Supreme Court struck down (pretty much backhand bitchslap) an anti-sodomy law recently, stating it was unconstitutional. In North Carolina, there's current legislation that is designed to make co-habitation illegal...and there's no doubt in many minds that if it goes up to the Supreme Court, we'll see a similar ruling. So...yeah. It's not as if James is coming out of left field on this one.

[center]The solution to Kittens: [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=23314&stc=1[/img] [/center]

[quote name='Zeta']How is the fact that Palpatine can die even as he does this, not a sign of being less powerful? The Jedi in ?ghost? form cannot die. Being truly immortal. But the fact that Palpatine can die only shows that the Dark Side is not more powerful than the Light Side, from the fact that he can still die.[/quote] How well does a mortal body respond to a lightsaber slicing into its jugular vein? Possessed or not, a flesh and blood being will be turned into a Pez Dispenser. If the LS Force Spirits were to possess a mortal, flesh and blood body and get struck down like Palpy did in the EU, they would die, too, Zeta. It doesn't indicate weakness on Palpatine's part (or weakness on the part of the Dark Side). It indicates weakness on the (body) parts of the hosts. The fact that Palpatine can keep doing it is testament to the EU portraying him (and Dark Side techniques) as more powerful than Light Side techniques. [quote]My reply here is going to cover this, and all your other points about the Imperial Navy/might, etc.. The loss of Tarkin wasn?t that big of a loss. Look at the amazing victory they had over the Rebels at Hoth, it obviously had no effect whatsoever. The Imperial might was still strong as ever. The loss of Palpatine and Vader would only strengthen their resolve to fight as well, no? You lose a leader/important person, you would think that they would also fight twice as hard and get revenge no? Even with them gone, the Imperial might was twice that of the Rebels. Had the Imperials had competent generals they would have been able to continue their fight. They are having the butts handed to them on a platter after the Emperors defeat, even with their impressive military might, that they still possessed even after the Emperors death. The size of the military didn?t help them. They had more great leaders than Tarkin, Palpatine, and Vader. Yet they still crumbled, even with their superior firepower, manpower, etc..[/quote] Do you remember your example of the Jedi standing on a hill, to inspire soldiers? Picture that Jedi on that hill, lightsaber ignited, ready for battle. Then picture that Jedi gets blind-sided by a Sith warrior. The Sith cuts the Jedi in [i]half[/i]. What do you think that's going to do to the soldiers? They're not going to be so keen as to rush into battle, Zeta. They're going to be seriously freaked. Apply that idea to Vader, Palpatine, Tarkin, the Death Star, etc. Every major blow, be it personnel death, technology destroyed, etc., is going to have a negative effect on the morale and resolve of the troops. The Imperial Navy falling apart after the upper echelons of their command are disrupted is to be expected, because that?s what happens in militaristic societies, especially societies with the distribution of power and authority found in the Empire. Take Rome, Britain, Germany, USSR, for example. It?s just what happens. Again, someone in a position of power is killed, it has a negative impact on the grunt's psyche, so I don't see how the Empire falling apart after its entire commanding infrastructure collapses is indicative of one man inspiring the entire military through the Force. All it's indicative of is basic human psychology playing a rather significant role in war-time. [quote]How is it not to blame at all? It doesn?t say/show this in the movies.[/quote] OT. Read between the lines. Study what Obi-Wan and Yoda say. Had there actually been a Dark Side blame, they would have said something about it in the OT. [quote]The whole of the Senate is not corrupt. We see this with the fact that Padme diehard pro-Senate, without corruption in her midst. Not all can be bribed.[/quote] Not all, true, but you?d be surprised how easily politicians can be??persuaded.? If one can?t be persuaded, there are others who can. [quote]They expressed worry yes. But without a Sith Lord, they would have no assurances that their victory could be completely successfully. We all ready see Palpatine himself being surprised at events playing out. Imagine all the things that a lowly Senator would not know about happening. Things that would not play in his favor. Lets just say that a plain ole? Senator managed to get all the way through the Naboo blockaded, and ultimately failing. Would you honestly believe it would progress any farther? [b]With Nute Gunray on trial he would immediately rat out his benefactor[/b]. [b]He never did this with Sidious because he was [i]afraid[/i] of him. [/b]They would have no reason to be afraid of a lowly Senator.[/quote] [quote name='Siren][b]You know the beauty of holograms? You can play dress-up and act. You can disguise your appearance, disguise your voice, etc[/b']. The Trade Federation is corrupt, as well, keep in mind, so appealing to what drives them the most is the name of the game.[/quote] I already took that into consideration. It?s just as easy for a ?normal? Senator to inspire fear. It?s not as if a Sith Lord was the only thing that would scare others. Sometimes you just need an image and a voice to keep others in line. [quote]Since when does it say it is not stronger?[/quote] Well, if it were stronger, why would there be a need to balance the Force? If the Light Side is stronger, there wouldn?t be a problem. The Dark Side would be a minor annoyance, a bit of a hiccup, and easily defeated?and it?s not easily defeated. There?s a constant give-and-take, push-and-pull between the two sides of the Force. Read between the lines in the films. The Light Side and the Dark Side are even. The only difference is the Dark Side is faster to achieve, while the Light Side is slower to achieve, like Yoda says in Empire Strikes Back. [quote]Regardless of whether the clothes are still black or what not[/quote] I wanted to isolate this sentence. The coloring of the characters? clothing throughout the films is too important to just shrug it off, Zeta. Luke?s color changes from white to black for a reason. Vader?s costume is black for a reason. Leia?s costume is white for a reason (and actually, her costume becomes progressively darker throughout the OT, as well). Palpatine?s costume is black for a reason. Obi-Wan?s is a middle tone for a reason, as is Yoda?s. It reflects where they are in relation to Force Alignments. The colors of the clothing need consideration when evaluating the ending, Zeta. Lucas wouldn?t have set the costumes like he did had he intended for them to mean nothing. [quote]I do not care what you see the movie as Siren, plain and simple. Regardless of whether the clothes are still black or what not. I am taking Lucas? own words over your interpretations. If he says the Force is in brought into balance with Anakin killing Palpatine, then it is, regardless of what you interpret. His words take precedence over your interpretations.[/quote] If I'm wrong anyway, where's the harm in actually examining my analysis? We both know what balance means, don't we? What's the danger in you examining my analysis in the context of the films? Anakin is prophesied to bring balance to the Force by killing Palpatine, so that would mean the Force is unbalanced. How is it unbalanced? Is it an actual Light/Dark duality imbalance? If it is specifically to do with the Light/Dark duality of the Force, which side is more powerful? If the Dark Side is stronger, then Yoda's statement in Empire Strikes Back ("Dark Side is not stronger.") would be incorrect. But why would Yoda be mistaken about that, especially after having all of that time to reflect on what happened? But if the Dark Side isn't the stronger side, then the Light Side is...and that wouldn't be a problem, would it? So why the need to balance the Force? It appears balanced in that aspect. Later in your reply you mention the Force being unbalanced because a Sith rules the galaxy. Okay, so the Force isn't unbalanced from the Light/Dark duality, so neither the Light Side nor the Dark Side is stronger than the other. So then the question becomes why is the Force unbalanced with a Sith ruling the galaxy? Is it because it's a Sith and not Jedi? Why would it be any more balanced with a Jedi ruling the galaxy? There?s still a Force user with more power than those around him or her. The Force is unbalanced because one Force user of one side of the Force has more power than a Force user of the other side of the Force. How would a balance be achieved there? By eliminating all of the Force users. It?d be essentially dropping the ?Force Index? down to Zero for both sides. Totally even, totally balanced. [quote]Do we hear them say anything about midi-chlorines? No. Things that are said in the prequels don?t have to be said in the OT.[/quote] Zeta, I think the fact that there is no repeat at all of the Dark Side clouding the Prequels in the dialogue of Yoda and Obi-Wan in the OT is very significant, because if it (the Dark Side clouding things) were truly the case, they would have said something about it. And we?re not talking about something that, by comparison, is purely incidental (like Midichlorians). We?re talking about a possible reason the Old Republic fell (the Dark Side). To write off no mention/attribution in the OT as ?things that are said in the prequels don?t have to be said in the OT? is vastly understating the importance of it. We?ve seen throughout the Trilogy that if Lucas wants an idea or concept to resonate, if he wants to stress the importance of a particular idea or concept, he will repeat it throughout the Saga. He does this with ?point of view,? which is a major theme of the Saga. Nowhere in the OT do Yoda or Obi-Wan attribute their clouded perceptions of the Prequels to the Dark Side. That is an important point to realize here, Zeta. [quote]I am also going to reply to your things after, without quoting them. Yes they have gone through a learning process. Yes they have realized that is was their own faults. Yes they realized that they have been played for fools. But, if they had had the proper teachings and fundamental beliefs that they were not all powerful, the Dark Side would not have gone unnoticed. They would have been able to sense it immediately. Their weakness allowed the Dark Side to ?overpower? what little the Jedi had. This still doesn?t imply that the Dark Side is stronger in anyway. The Jedi still have the ability to be stronger, to realize the truth of what was happening. But they didn?t. They were hell bent on believing that they were all powerful. Which is why the Dark Side had such a profound effect on their ability to use the Force. It is the fault of both sides here Siren. Had the Jedi not been lack in the ways of life and beliefs, the Dark Side would never have gained a foothold. But, the Dark Side did gain a foothold, clouding things and diminishing the Jedi?s ability to use the Force.[/quote] The Dark Side--rather, [i]Palpatine[/i], only has an opportunity because the Jedi fail. There is an opening only because the Jedi are incompetent. They are solely responsible for the fall of the Old Republic, for the Old Order, etc. Had they been doing their job from the start, disaster would have been averted long before the Trade Federation ever came into the picture. Think about it. Palpatine nabs some people because the Jedi are fools. Is that indicative of both being responsible for the disaster, or is that indicative of the Jedi sitting with their thumbs up their *****? The Jedi are the cause for the Fall...not Palpatine, not the Dark Side. The Jedi are. [quote]What would have happened if Luke at killed his father? Would he have literally killed himself? I think not. But would he have turned to the Dark Side if he did? Most definitely. He would have killed his father with hatred, fulfilling his destiny and joining Palpatine, aka the Dark Side. But the fact that he chose not to kill his father, proved he will not embrace the Dark Side. If he were Dark Side, he would have easily killed his father. But he doesn?t. [b]He chooses to let this murderous, Dark Side monstrosity live[/b]. It is as much as self-survival as it is showing an inclination towards the Light Side. Killing Vader = Killing himself in the way that he would be the last of the Jedi and would join with the Sith, losing whatever identity he had beforehand. And the Force would remain unbalanced with the Sith ruling the galaxy, possibly for eternity. Not killing Vader = Luke beginning the throw off the Dark Side that has taken root into him, and starting on his path to the Light Side, ensuring the survival of the Jedi and his own survival.[/quote] [quote name='Return of the Jedi']LUKE: Never! I'll never turn to the dark side. You've failed, Your Highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me.[/quote] What is that passage there? It's gloating, it's a snide remark, it's conceited and self-absorbed. We heard the same attitude from Anakin throughout the Prequels. Light Side inclination you say? I doubt it. Where in that passage does he ever consider the well-being of his father? For that matter, where in the scene? He goes berserk, starts hacking away at Vader, and is about to kill him until he sees the mechanical hand. His father is not what stops him, nor does a consideration for his father. What stops him is purely self-interest, as shown by the mechanical hand. Then he turns to Palpatine and mocks him. What Light Side Jedi would be so pretentious as to treat Palpatine with such flippant disrespect? Even Yoda doesn't, and he's fighting Palpatine in Episode III. Mace Windu doesn't, and he fights Palpatine in Episode III. Who is the only other character apart from Luke that speaks like that to any other character? Anakin in AOTC. [quote]I have been saying that [b]the Dark Side has been able to cloud the Jedi?s judgment and ability to use the Force[/b], due to the Jedi?s own failings. Both are at fault. I have been saying that [b]the Jedi can sense deception[/b], and that [b]Palpatine has been ?hiding? himself from the Jedi[/b] (the [b]Dark Side clouding everything[/b]). Where am I getting this? I am making conjectures based upon events in the EU that is very, very similar as to what is going on in the movies. I can do this safely because we [i]can[/i] take the EU into account. We can take it into account until we are shown otherwise by the movies themselves, the novelizations, etc.. But as of right now, none of what I have been saying has contradicted anything in the movie, meaning it is a valid conjecture, and one that makes sense too.[/quote] If both Obi-Wan and Yoda in the OT demonstrate an understanding that their self-assurances and attitudes in the past are what blinded them, what evidence is there that Palpatine had to hide himself at all? The Jedi couldn't sense deception, but not because Palpatine was hiding himself. They couldn't sense deception because they themselves were limiting their own perceptions. They can't detect anything because they blind themselves. There were no external forces at work. The Jedi were the ones clouding their own judgments. [quote]But you are free to think the EU is bogus if you want. If you want to go strictly by what the movies are saying, you are correct. But I do not go by just the movies. As your link said, I can think of the EU as canon until the movies show otherwise, which is what I am doing. This all comes down to whether you wish to believe that the EU is fair game to bring into discussion. You obviously do not believe this, whilst I do. We might as well end this discussion here because it won?t get anywhere from either side of the argument.[/QUOTE] What the EU has been doing in this argument is ?fill? ?gaps? that never existed to begin with. Head on over to fanfiction.net and you?ll find thousands upon thousands of ?EU? that authors don?t get paid for. There is no difference between Luke?s childhood on Tatooine as told by ForceChyk3053 and the same concept as told by Timothy Zahn, apart from writing quality. It?s still the same fundamental thing: sidestories. And if we go by strictly the movies, I'm correct? So that would mean that the movies imply differently than the EU does, which would mean the EU conflicts with what the films set-up, which means the EU is unreliable. If you view the films exclusively, and they clearly show one particular stance on particular issues, and then the EU comes along and gives a different stance on those same issues, the EU is not giving the same message as the films...meaning, the EU is unreliable.

[quote name='Zeta']Show me where in the films that it discredits this.[/quote] Empire Strikes Back. Yoda. [quote]Even if I do get the time to read it fully, I will not take it into account in this discussion. Regardless of whether it seems legit to you, we do not know for a fact it is legit.[/quote] Empire Strikes Back. Yoda. Take that into account in this discussion. [quote]How does it indicate the Dark Side is stronger? He has the same ability as the Jedi. Making them equal you could say. He just comes back into a living body, that is ultimately destroyed [i]every[/i] single time. He cans till be defeated, ultimately making him weaker, whereas a ?ghost? Jedi cannot.[/quote] Zeta, how is a Light Side Jedi Force Spirit and Palpatine's Dark Side Force Possession the same ability? They aren't. Not only can Palpatine assume an other-wordly form, but he one-ups the LS Force Spirit [i]by being able to possess the living[/i]. His ability there is more powerful than the LS's, and it's established in the films that the Dark Side is not stronger than the Light Side. Again, see YODA in EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. [quote]1) [u][b]It isn?t a stated, absolute fact[/b][/u]. It is a theory among characters in the EU, which I happen to believe. Look at how fast the Empire falls apart after his death. They are reduced to nothing. A small, insignificant Rebellion pushed them to a small chunk of the Outer Rim.[/quote] Okay...so if it isn't fact, just a theory, why treat it as canon with utter relevance to this discussion? And you do know that Tarkin is dead, that Vader is dead, that the second Death Star is destroyed, that the Imperial fleet is majorly decimated and scattered...shall I go on? Palpatine is dead, yes, but so is the powerhouse of the Empire (Vader, Tarkin, Death Star, the Executor, etc). Consider that the Empire crumbles because 80% of its heavy-hitters have been wiped out, not because of some EU text's supposition that Palpatine's Dark Side Battle Meditation went the way of the dinosaur when Palpatine did. [quote]2) Again, show me evidence from the film that discredits this theory. You provided the link that said all EU is canon, unless it contradicts the movies. This doesn?t contradict anything in the movie.[/quote] When you've got better equipment, better soldiers, better starfighters, better technology, stronger forces, more resources...leagues of Star Destroyers, the Death Star, Tarkin, Darth Vader...I'm sure none of that had anything to do with the Empire's success. What the EU Dark Side Battle Meditation does is imply that all of the superior technology and firepower and so forth mean absolutely nothing because Palpatine is controlling everything through the Force, to "inspire" his entire Imperial military to victory. Based on that supposition, that would mean the destruction of Alderaan was actually due to Palpatine's Battle Meditation and [i]not[/i] the Death Star's Superlaser, that the Stormtroopers taking over the Tantive IV was actually due to DS "buffing" and not there being more Stormtroopers than Rebel defenders, that the Jedi extermination in Episode III is actually due to Palpatine boosting the abilities of all of the Clone Troopers, and not just pure and simple military commands. Am I making any sense here, Zeta? Is any of this getting through to you? I'm not trying to sound harsh here, but what that EU [i]theory[/i] does is minimize the entire might and outright technological superiority and dominance of the Imperial Navy to the point of being an incidental effect. You want to know why the Imperial forces do so well? It's because they've got better equipment, better technology, better command, better organization...better everything. It's not because of some parlor trick. The Death Star destroys Alderaan in one shot because it's designed to, not because it's being powered by the Dark Side. Stormtroopers beatdown Rebel Scum aboard the Tantive IV because they've got numbers on their side, not because they're being powered by the Dark Side. The Clone Troopers kill Jedi in Episode III because of the element of surprise and about sixty blaster rifles, not because they're being powered by the Dark Side. Do you get what I'm saying? The films clearly establish Imperial dominance through total, unadulterated physical force with no traces or indications of Force behind them. To say that the victories of the Empire are due only to Palpatine using the Dark Side of the Force to push his forces to victory is understating the strength of the entire Imperial military. The DS Battle Meditation in the EU suggests that physical strength has nothing to do with the victories. That's bunk, as shown by the films themselves. The Imperial military wins (not ultimately, but for what we're talking about) because very few things can stand up against a Death Star, Super Star Destroyer, AT-AT, the blaster cannons on an AT-ST, or even something as mundane as the Death Star's trash compactor, lol. And plus, what happens in war when you kill an opposing army's leaders? The enemy troops lose morale. It's basic human psychology. Someone in a position of power is killed, it has a negative impact on the grunt's psyche, so I don't see how the Empire falling apart after its entire commanding infrastructure collapses is indicative of one man inspiring the entire military through the Force. All it's indicative of is basic human psychology playing a rather significant part in war-time. [quote]There have been twenty different Jedi that have left the Order. All to their own devices. (I myself am curious as to who they are.) They were unhappy with the Jedi Order as well. The corruption within the Republic has been going on for possibly decades. They could be unhappy with that as well. We know that Qui-Gon was also unhappy with the Republic, and defied the Council.. It isn?t a common occurrence as what some Jedi?s feelings are about the Republic and Jedi. They viewed Dooku as just another one of these men, who was just acting upon his feelings. This doesn?t mean he was automatically turned to the Dark Side. We know what their feelings about him are from what Ki-Adi Mundi (is it Mundi?) said about him being a political idealist, not a murder. Just because he is leading a movement, doesn?t me he is automatically Dark Side.[/quote] Who said anything about keeping tabs on him out of suspicion he may have turned to the Dark Side? I was merely speaking in a purely political sense. It just makes sense to keep track of insurgents. And had the Jedi thought to search for Dooku by whatever means necessary, his Dark Side may very well have been detected much earlier, and in time to avert the real chaos. [quote]I have been blaming [b]both[/b] the Dark Side and the Jedi themselves.[/quote] And what if the Dark Side wasn't to blame at all? [quote]But would you actually think that one lowly Senator could pull off all the things that Palpatine did? The mere fact alone of a Senator even thinking of blockading a planet for his own devices would spread extremely fast in such a [b]corrupt governmental system as that of the Republic[/b].[/quote] You've got a corrupt Senate, corrupt government in general...so you're not going to be able to get people to hush-hush by [i]bribing them[/i], or granting them special immunities, benefits, etc etc? The corrupt state of the government would only facilitate the process, regardless of who was initiating it. [quote]Imagine if Palpatine himself had contacted the Neimoidians. The Trade Federation wouldn?t have even moved a ship if they knew it was just a Senator, and not some powerful Sith Lord.[/quote] You know the beauty of holograms? You can play dress-up and act. You can disguise your appearance, disguise your voice, etc. The Trade Federation is corrupt and driven by greed, as well, keep in mind, so appealing to what drives them the most (i.e., wealth and power) is the name of the game. The Viceroys actually express worry in dealing with a Sith Lord. If they were dealing with a "normal" Senator, they might have been even more inclined to go along with it. [quote]Yoda also said that the Jedi were blind, if they failed to see the creation of the Clone Army. They obviously don?t give all the blame to the Dark Side. Neither do I, as I have said countless times.[/quote] And you can see the characters starting to change...minimally. They start to take some responsibility for things, but they stop short. [quote]No, it just shows that the Jedi are becoming aware themselves. Just like I have been saying, it is both the Dark Side, and the Jedi?s fault for them being oblivious to Palpatine. As the Jedi become more aware (stronger), they can see past the less powerful Dark Side. It is the fault of both parties, as I have said all along. It doesn't stop everything from being clouded. But as the Jedi become stonger, they can overcome the "cloudiness", because the Light Side is stronger than the Dark Side. It is still there of course, but since they are stronger than the Dark Side, it will not affect them as much or at all.[/quote] Since when is the Light Side stronger? The only difference between the Light and Dark path is the speed, as Yoda says in Empire Strikes Back: "Faster, more seductive." [quote]Hey man, if you are willing to take Lucas? own words from the films into account, but not what he specifically says about this instance, go for it. But it is his story. And if he says the Force is balanced, it is, regardless of what you are interpreting from the films.[/quote] What's the definition of "balance," Zeta? And how is the ending to RotJ balanced? How is the Force balanced? Think about it analytically. "Balance" would entail a total even-ness in the Force...which there isn't. Luke's a more powerful Force user than Leia is, and he's Dark Side, and she's neutral. Vader/Anakin isn't as powerful as Palpatine, so there's not an equal loss there. [quote]Where does it [b]show[/b] that he isn?t doing it? We know Jedi can do this. And by reading the prequel book to Episode III, you can draw the same conculsion. It doesn?t say he cannot do this in any of the films.[/quote] What confirmation do you have that he is? The Jedi Council? They aren't reliable. They'd sooner shift the blame than take responsibility, and they only take responsibility after some serious **** starts hitting the fan. [quote][i]You[/i] are the one who posted the link that said all the EU is canon unless it contradicts something in the movies/movie novelizations/etc..So far, [b][i]none[/i] of the things I have been saying as contradicted anything said or shown in the films[/b]. Until the movies say that Jedi cannot sense deception, that Palpatine isn?t/cannot ?mask? himself from the Jedi, we can safely assume that they can.[/QUOTE] You've been "explaining" how the Dark Side can cloud so much, how it overpowers the Jedi (even in your reply here--the Jedi get stronger and overpower the Dark Side, implying the Dark Side was stronger to begin with), but as of this post, you still have not acknowledged what [b]YODA SAYS ABOUT THE DARK SIDE IN EMPIRE STRIKES BACK[/b]. You want to hear how the films are contradicting what you've been saying? That's how. Zeta, you're telling me how the Dark Side has this one-up on the Jedi...and that's the complete antithesis of what Yoda says in Empire Strikes Back. Do we see or hear anything in the OT, from either Obi-Wan or Yoda, that repeats "Dark Side clouds everything"? No. In fact, where Yoda does discuss the future in the OT, he makes no mention at all of "Dark Side clouds everything." Why would he do that? Perhaps because the Dark Side doesn't cloud everything...and in the Prequels, wasn't clouding much at all, if anything. Do we see or hear anything in the OT, from either Obi-Wan or Yoda, that would indicate Palpatine was hiding himself in the Prequels? No, we don't. In fact, the far more humble natures of Obi-Wan and Yoda in the OT signify a learning process has taken place. They don't act like they blame Palpatine for what happened; they act like they blame themselves. Their actions, their dialogue...all point to that. If, after their years of reflection, they now understand their fault in the past, and now have opened their minds much moreso than in the past, that indicates a certain...limitation in the days of old, a limitation that cost them the Republic. That limitation was their inability to realize they were getting played for fools (i.e., deceived) before it was too late. You keep asking where it says this or that; sometimes, it does say this, but other times, you need to read between the lines. Everything is not going to be spoonfed to you, man. It's not all going to smack you in the face; every little nuance isn't going to be announced with a bullhorn. Star Wars is a very subtle film series, despite the first glance mentality you'd see about it. There's a lot of stuff going on in the films; only half of it is visible on the surface. EDIT: [quote=Siren]You mean the act of self-preservation? It wasn?t Altruism, Zeta. It was an act focused purely on Luke himself, in an almost selfish fashion. Remember the mechanical hand? Luke kills Vader, he kills himself, just like we saw in the cave on Dagobah. And if he wanted to bring balance to the Force, he would have had to end the Jedi bloodline entirely, by killing Vader, Palpatine, and himself. That would have been a Light Side inclination, through self-sacrifice to bring peace to the greater good.[/quote] I don't think you ever touched upon that, so I'd appreciate it if you could. If you can't recall what my above quote was a reply to, you were asking why Luke not killing his father wasn't a Light Side inclination. Thank you.

[quote name='Zeta']Which is why I said earlier that it is a combination of the Dark Side, and the Jedi?s own fault in their approach to their teachings/fundamental beliefs. You combine the two and you have the Jedi being blind. Not 100% their fault, but they do play a part in their own inability to sense Palpatine, which I have said before.[/quote] But it isn't a combination of anything. Had the Jedi not been so arrogant, Palpatine would have never had the opportunity. It all still ultimately boils down to the Jedi being solely at fault here. Plus, there still is no concrete evidence you've raised [b]from the films[/b] that would indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Dark Side played a part in anything. [quote]If he had suddenly opened his eyes, you would think that he would have even opened them more afterwards and have been able to sense Palpatine, no?[/quote] Read the script to Episode III. For that matter, pay close attention to the Post-Dooku Yoda and compare him to the Pre-Dooku Yoda. Distinct differences in approach and attitude. Yoda goes through a transformation after squaring off with Dooku. This explains why he is so much more humble in ESB, and so much more in-tune with the true nature of things post-NT. He realizes that he and the Jedi Council were wrong in the Prequels. [quote]This is his way of returning to life. The parallel to this for the Jedi is their ability to come back as ?ghosts?. He comes back in the flesh. Jedi come back as a spirit, more powerful than they were before death.[/quote] And again, there's no indication at all in the [b][u]films[/u][/b] that there are little Palpatine clones running around. It's the same Emperor all the way through. All that EU Palpy Cloning material is doing is filling in a gap that was never there to begin with. And in the EU post-RotJ, as I've come to understand it, Palpy also has a Force Spirit of sorts, because he possesses various characters. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but I do recall various EU texts that echo ideas like The Exorcist, The Shining, and Amityville Horror. So, not only does Palpy (according to the EU) possess life-transfer abilities, he also possesses the Force Spirit ability of the Light Side Jedi (and an even more powerful Force Spirit than theirs, at that), which would mean the Dark Side is definitely more powerful, [b][i]which is contradicted by what Yoda says in ESB[/i][/b]. [quote]Bastila and her Battle Mediation in KOTOR. Jacen and his Battle Meditation in the NJO. It isn?t an exclusive power to the Dark Side.[/quote] Yes, EU, when there's absolutely no indication at all in the [b][u]films[/u][/b] that Palpatine was powering the Imperial Navy with the Dark Side of the Force. The films indicate (i.e. [b]SHOW[/b], lol) that the Imperial Navy was so powerful because they had fantastic leadership, devastating weaponry, and unprecedented organization. Tarkin was a think-tank. Vader was a powerhouse. Palpatine was a brilliant commander-in-chief. The Imperial Navy steamrolled because they had the tools and the talent, simple as that. [quote]The fundamental difference here is that Yoda [i]knew[/i] the whole story behind Luke. He was informed of where he was hidden. And naturally he will have concentrated and focused on him, to watch over him. But, Yoda had no reason to be looking out for Dooku. He had no reason to reach out and search out Dooku. Because as far as Yoda and the Council were concerned, he was just a Jedi unhappy with the workings of the Republic.[/quote] Actually, I think he certainly had a reason to be searching for Dooku, because with the timely appearance of the Separatist movement, I think it'd certainly be prudent to keep an eye on the leader, especially considering what has happened in the past five years. The Jedi want to fight to keep the Old Republic together. Dooku is the leader of the movement that wants to break away from the Old Republic. I think that's reason enough to search for him through any means necessary. It's common sense to want to keep tabs on the leaders of opposing armies/factions. And why isn't it possible that Yoda knows of Dooku, and knows of his story? Yoda is on the Jedi Council, after all, and Dooku was once a Jedi who left the Order. It's not some huge secret that Dooku wasn't pleased with both the Old Republic [i]and[/i] the Jedi Order. Why wouldn't Yoda & CO. try to keep tabs on what he's doing? It'd be common sense to keep an eye on him. After all, he [i]is[/i] trying to organize a mini-Rebellion of sorts. [quote]I know, lol. I never said it was completely accurate. But what are you claiming that is inaccurate? [b]The Jedi?s ability to sense deception[/b]? [b]Palpatine?s ability to mask himself to the Jedi[/b]? [b]Neither have been discounted from the movies yet[/b]. So we can safely believe that the Jedi can sense deception. And we can safely assume that Palpatine can be hiding himself from the Jedi.[/quote] Again, I'm referring to [b]Empire Strikes Back[/b], Zeta. Why would Yoda have discounted the idea that the Dark Side was stronger if it really was? You have been blaming the Dark Side for the Jedi inability to sense deception, for the Jedi inability to sense Palpatine, but you never seem to consider Yoda?s dialogue in Empire Strikes Back, where he [b][u]clearly states[/u][/b] that the Dark Side is not stronger. Yoda says this many years after Episode III, so he has had a nice chunk of time to reflect on what happened. [quote]Would Palpatine have instigated his blockade of Naboo if he were Force blind? Highly unlikely. Would he have had a leader for a Seperatist faction were it not for the Force? No. Everything he does boils down to the Force. We see in TPM him say something along the lines of ?everything is going as I have foreseen.? Were he just a normal, everyday senator, it is highly unlikely he would have been able to instigate a blockade of Naboo and stay anonymous, or have a leader for a Seperatist movement, assuming he was even able to get that far.[/quote] So you're saying that it would be utterly impossible for "normal" Senators to do what Palpatine was doing? Palpatine was a brilliant strategist. That had nothing to do with his being a Force user. Yes, "I have foreseen" is something we hear from Force users throughout the films, but it would be impossible for a "normal" Senator to not be able to predict things? It's not as if the Senate was some huge, complicated and twisted conundrum that defied all the laws and rules of human (and alien) behavior and desire. When you know how to manipulate people (even strictly non-Force techniques), you can get a lot of what you want. Manipulation and suggestion isn't some massive Dark Side technique, nor is political observation, nor is political maneuvering. [quote]Why can?t it be attributed to the Dark Side clouding everything?[/quote] I wanted to isolate this one statement. If you were a JEDI MASTER, who believed yourself to be the pinnacle of Force wielders, who believed yourself to be able to see and know everything, who was so confident in your own abilities that you had begun elevating yourself above those around you...why would you not believe that some external force was to blame for your failures? Why wouldn't you blame yourself? I think the fact that the Council does ultimately blame themselves (various Jedi now and again in AOTC, Episode III; Yoda in ESB) is testament to how inaccurate their initial comments of the "Dark Side clouding everything" were. [quote]Why can?t this all be clouded together in a way that doesn?t seem sinister?[/quote] I wanted to isolate this sentence as well. It [i]can[/i] be clouded in a way that isn?t sinister. What I?ve been saying all along is things are clouded in a way that isn?t sinister at all?that the Jedi Council themselves are clouding themselves. [quote]But we can see that the Jedi do suspect something deeper is going on. They don?t know which Sith they have killed, master or apprentice. And without Sidious making himself visible to anyone, they have no way of finding out who they have killed. So for all they know, they could have killed the Master. A very big mistake on their part yes, but the Jedi are not 100% to blame as you make them out to be. [b]We see Yoda taking suspicious glances towards Palpatine early on in AOTC[/b]. We see them start to investigate the matter full in AOTC. Civil wars are a common thing for all countries/peoples and there is no reason to assume this is any difference. They are seeing it as the galaxy just entering a Civil War, with nothing sinister behind it.[/quote] I've bolded an interesting sentence. That seems to be pretty clear evidence that Palpatine wasn't hiding himself. If Palpatine were shrouded so heavily in the Dark Side, Yoda wouldn't even have sent those glances his way. You've said how the Dark Side doesn't choose when/where/how/who/etc. it clouds (it just clouds everything, all the time), so if there are moments where Yoda and others catch whiffs of something unusual about Palpatine, isn't that evidence that there in fact isn't anything being clouded by Palpatine or the Dark Side? There are times where the Jedi Council has glimpses of something not being right with what?s going on, so if the Dark Side doesn?t choose what it clouds, it should be clouding everything, which would mean Yoda & CO. would never have any of those little glimpses?but they do. Is that a sign of the Dark Side or Palpatine clouding everything? Or is more a sign that there are no external forces at work? We only hear of the Dark Side clouding things from the Jedi Council themselves, and we have no reason to trust anything they say there, because Yoda does in fact negate the implications of the "Dark Side clouds everything" line from what he says in ESB. You keep asking me why everything can't just be clouded? Think of the simplest answer here: that nothing is being clouded. [quote]The Force isn?t unbalanced. Anakin brought the Force into balance by killing Palpatine. Lucas himself has said this. So the Force is not unbalanced, but balanced.[/quote] So by "balanced," you mean a less-than-Gray/leaning-Dark Jedi and his Force Sensitive twin sister being the only two remaining Force Sensitives in the entire galaxy? The Force being balanced is an essentially Dark Side Jedi (Luke) and his barely Force-awakened sister (Leia)? Balance is a push-and-pull, give-and-take, two sides that aren't stronger than each other. Do you believe Luke and Leia to be equally matched? Do you believe Anakin/Vader and Palpatine to have been equally matched? The Force being balanced would entail Force users of equal strength on opposite sides of the Light/Dark duality or if that isn?t the case, then no Force users at all, meaning, all Force users are dead. Palpatine is definitely more powerful than Luke and Vader/Anakin; that much is clear from the Finale in RotJ. Palpatine dies, so does Vader/Anakin. That wasn't a "fair trade," lol. That wasn't balance. The Force is still unbalanced, because Luke didn't sacrifice himself. One side of the Force (whichever side Luke is actually on) still has a powerful Force user. The ending is anything but balanced. If Lucas defines ?the Force being balanced? by all the major villain Force users getting killed and most of the major hero Force users surviving?that?s not balance. That becomes one side of the Force having a heavier weight than the other side. Balanced? Not a snowball?s chance in hell. [quote]Me: [i]The dark side is a powerful tool on Palpatine's side. He could easily block the creation of the Clone Army. But the fact that the Jedi couldn't sense the dark side in Palpatine is the fault of the Council themselves. They have been Sith free for 1000 years. They are ignorant of the fact that the Sith are still out there, and have let their teachings show. [/i] You: [i]The problem with your supposition that Palpatine might have been using the Dark Side of the Force to "block" the Council is that there's nothing in Episodes I and II, or in the script to Episode III, to indicate that. I can't recall one instance of anything being said that would relate to that.[/i] You are asking me where does it say that Palpatine can ?block? himself from the Council in the movie. It doesn?t specifically say it, just as some of the things you have been saying are not specifically said or shown in the movie. So that is why I am asking you where it says it in the movie. Though I guess I should have said ?where does it show/say in the movie.? My apologies if it came out as me looking for only dialogue.[/QUOTE] Where does it [b][i]show[/i][/b] it, then? There is no solid indication at all that Palpatine is hiding himself at all. We only have what we see happening in the films, and what the Jedi Council attribute things to, and...I'm less inclined to trust what the Jedi Council is saying, based on what I've been repeating ad nauseum regarding blame shifting and so forth (PLEASANTVILLE).

[quote name='Zeta']This all once again comes down to the Dark Side clouding everything.[/quote] A statement made by Jedi who have just realized they've been acting out of ignorance and not intelligence. Sorry, Dark Side clouding everything? I don't really believe we can place so much faith in the Jedi assessment there. For more on this, please see comments below. [QUOTE=Zeta]Who says he cannot do this? Why not? We know the Dark Side clouds everything. The fact that he [i]is[/i] the Dark Side will cloud him only more. Says who? Dooku can easily be hiding himself from the Jedi just as much as Palpatine is. But, there is only what, one meeting with the Seperatists where a Jedi is present? Obi-Wan is a powerful Jedi. He is able to sense a lowly centipede thingy about to kill Padme, yet he cannot sense Dooku? There is obviously something more going on. Dooku has no need to immerse himself in the Dark Side while meeting with the Seperatists, why should he? And again, the Dark Side does cloud everything. The whole planet of Geonosis, mixed with Dooku?s Dark Side energy, could easily have clouded Obi-Wans perceptions of what Dooku actually was. Why on earth can?t it be clouding everything? Yoda says it clouds [i]everything[/i]. But they have no reason to believe that Dooku has turned to the Dark Side. There have been other Masters that have left the Order and not turned to the Dark Side. They believed he was a simple former Jedi, not impressed with the workings of the Republic and was looking for change. Why would the Dark Side stop clouding everything just because they are far away from the Council Chambers? It chooses where it beings to cloud things or something? Is there a certain distance where it suddenly stops, and everything is clear? The key thing here is that the Dark Side clouds everything. It doesn?t choose when/where/who/why. It clouds [i]everything[/i]. [/quote] I notice you keep referring to Yoda's "The Dark Side clouds everything." Why are you so sure that Yoda is so correct there? I refer back to my Pleasantville reference. Big Bob is so confident in himself that any failure on his part must be the fault of someone else. He blinds himself and his perceptions with his own falsely-inflated sense of self-worth. He tries to take the "high road" wherever possible, attempting to maintain an almost Orwellian control over his faculties, and anyone who challenges his Ideology (his Ideology being that there must not be passion, or fear, or love for a society to exist, for an order to survive) are labeled Heretics and suppressed. When Big Bob does "fall," he has only himself to blame. When he is unable to see and feel the dangers of the society he presides over, he has only himself to blame. Apply that philosophy to the Jedi Council (Yoda included). The Council is so confident in their own abilities that they never entertain the idea that perhaps the failure to sense disturbances in the Force is not the workings of the Dark Side, instead a fundamental failure in their own personal approaches. "The Dark Side clouds everything" is a self-assurance more than anything else...a self-assurance that it's really not the Council's fault (when it really is, because all along, they were the ones ultimately limiting their own perceptions, just like Big Bob). You ask why Yoda was able to sense Dooku's Dark Side when he faced him in front of Anakin and Obi-Wan? He sensed the Dark Side because he finally opened his eyes. All of this time you're seemingly arguing that the Dark Side is more powerful than the Light Side, that it can overwhelm everything, and you're basing your argument on something Yoda says in the Prequels, but let's examine something Yoda says in ESB: [quote=Empire Strikes Back]LUKE: Vader. Is the dark side stronger? YODA: No... no... no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.[/quote] This is what Yoda says long after what happened in the Prequels, and after he had gained a new perspective on things. At the time of the Prequels, he isn't fully aware of the dynamics of the Dark/Light duality. He believes the Dark Side is clouding everything, so he effectively absolves himself of any of the blame. But in ESB, however, after he saw the problems that arose out of his Prequel attitude, he sees things for what they really are (and always were): one side of the Force not having a dominance over the other. It's a balance. The Dark Side was never overpowering the Light Side, or the Jedi Council. The Jedi Council were limiting themselves, and ESB Yoda understands this, and expresses it through the dialogue I quoted above. Palpatine was orchestrating, yes, but he most certainly was not blinding the entire Jedi Council. The Council was blinding themselves. ESB Yoda knows this. Now, let?s consider what Yoda said (?Dark Side is not stronger?) in a different context, specifically relating to the EU?perhaps the EU texts that entertain various ideas as to the extent of Palpatine?s powers, notably his Dark Side cloning-life-energy-transfer and his ability that could be called the Dark Side Battle Meditation. As I understand it, there are novels that deal specifically with ways Palpatine keeps himself alive through cloning and life transfer techniques exclusive to the Dark Side. With this technique, Palpatine can keep himself alive forever (and continue to wreak havoc in post-RotJ EU texts). But there is never any mention made of any Light Side powers/abilities of this magnitude in the films themselves, so Palpatine possessing these abilities would significantly tilt the strength of the Force in the Dark Side?s favor. The same is said for his ?Battle Meditation? (the EU supposition of how the Imperial Navy was so powerful). The success and strength of the Imperial Navy, according to EU supposition, is largely in part due to Palpatine ?inspiring? the troops and boosting their abilities through Dark Side powers. But if the EU were accurate in these situations, then Yoda?s statement in ESB about the Dark Side not being stronger than the Light Side would be false, because if Palpatine did possess those abilities, the Dark Side would definitely be stronger than the Light Side, because with those Dark Side abilities, one could create invincible armies. It is stated that anything in the films takes precedent over everything else that may conflict with the films, and this is one of those things. The [b]films[/b] state the Dark Side is [b]not stronger[/b]. The [b]EU[/b] indicates it [b]is[/b]. The films overrule the EU. [quote]The destruction of Alderaan and Dooku are completely different things here. Obi-Wan was able to sense the destruction of Alderaan because billions of people suddenly just went up in smoked. A lowly meeting with Seperatists on Dooku?s part isn?t going to peek a Jedi?s senses. It isn?t going to set off a disturbance to alert them to something. How does Dooku meeting with the Seperatists create a disturbance in the Force? These are two completely different things here.[/quote] They?re both tremors in the Force. Dark Siders do give off an aura/presence, just the same as Light Siders. See Vader sensing Obi-Wan in ANH; see Luke sensing the Cave in ESB; see Vader sensing Luke and Luke sensing Vader in ESB; see Luke sensing Vader in RotJ. The OT establishes tremors in the Force in a wide variety of variations, and there?s nothing to suggest that the Dark Side was any stronger than the Jedi in the Prequels, nor anything in the Prequels to suggest that the Dark Side was clouding anything (Yoda?s comments in the Prequels are later negated by his comments in ESB. I?ve explained this earlier in my reply here.). [quote]And where does it say that the can feel things through the Force at whatever distance? Sure they can feel intense rage/destruction/etc.. but picking out a single person who hasn?t caused a disturbance in the Force?[/quote] Where does it say that they can feel a single person who hasn't caused a disturbance in the Force? [quote name='Empire Strikes Back']YODA: (to the invisible Ben, indicating Luke)This one a long time have I watched. All his life has he looked away...to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing.[/quote] Luke hasn't caused any disturbance in the Force on Tatooine. He pilots a speeder incredibly well, but that's a minimal Force influence. Yoda is able to both feel and see Luke there, and Luke is as "blank" as Han is. Dooku is considerably more "Force active" than Luke was in ANH, and since Yoda in ESB has established that the Dark Side is in fact [i]not[/i] stronger than the Light Side, which would effectively establish that the Dark Side was never truly clouding anything in the Prequels, that would mean Dooku was in fact neither hiding nor being hidden at all in the Prequels. [quote]I know he doesn?t read everything. But what I do know is that all major things that will affect his creation go through him. He is asked if so and so is ok to kill/do etc?If it conflicts with his story, he doesn?t allow it. He didn?t allow them to kill off Luke, Han, or Leia in NJO. He wanted Anakin Solo killed in the NJO to ease confusion. I never said he reads the entire EU. All I have said is that he approves/disapproves things that may or may not conflict with his story. He isn?t going to allow something drastic to happen if it changes his story. We [i]can[/i] look to the EU for accuracy. We know he won?t allow major changes to occur to his story. And your link on canon only strengthens that we can take the EU into consideration. The first three form an overall continuity. [b]Until something in the books is contradicted by a line/scene in the Star Wars movies, it is just as much free game as the movies themselves[/b]. Then we can say that whatever part of the EU is inaccurate/non-canon. We have seen this before with the original dates of the Clone Wars mentioned in [i]The Thrawn Trilogy[/i]. So it ultimately boils down to this. Until something in the movies directly contradicts what is said in the book(s) it is canon, and can be safely assumed so, regardless of whether or not Lucas doesn?t ready every single EU piece out there.[/quote] I?ve bolded the line I?m specifically focusing on. Please see my above comments regarding Yoda?s dialogue in ESB. You say we?ve seen EU inaccuracy before with The Thrawn Trilogy, so it?s very possible there?s more of it that?s also inaccurate. It?s not unheard of, after all. [quote]We all ready know that the Jedi know that politicians are not to be trusted. But had they known the [i]true[/i] Palpatine, they would have acted no doubt. Slowly they began to realize things were happening for a reason. As they slowly see what is going on they begin to suspect that Palpatine is more than he is. He is a clever politcian yes. But he is also a powerful Dark Side user able to manipulate things to go his way. Who is to say that he isn?t manipulating certain events/people on the home front to get his way? Had he not been a powerful Sith Lord, he would not have blockaded Naboo, etc?Many, many things that Palpatine, the politician, did were results of him manipulating events in his favor with the help of the Dark Side.[/quote] Zeta, entire systems allying themselves with the Separatists, immediately after the Trade Federation pulls the stunt they did, with a peculiar similarity between the Separatist allies? forces and the Trade Federation droid armies, all the while with Senators that just happen to start viciously bickering in the Senate, divided into essentially two major sides? Common sense would dictate something is going on here. Common sense would dictate that everything is just too timely to be purely coincidental. Common sense would dictate there?s some sinister political maneuvering going on. The Dark Side doesn?t factor in here. The Light Side doesn?t factor in here. The Force itself doesn?t even factor in here. Force presence doesn?t factor in here. What does factor in here is just plain and simple, pure common sense. I?d like to return the focus to a previous point I made, too: [quote=Siren] It's not coincidence that the Separatists want to secede from the Republic shortly after there's such dissention among the Senators, after it's obvious there's a Sith presence, after the Trade Federation's stunt on Naboo. The fact that there were battle droids in the Trade Federation's army and the Separatists ally themselves with the Techno Union? Maybe it's just me, but that's too big of a warning flag that there's something sneaky going on in the political arena to just chalk it up to simple coincidence. One doesn't even need Force Attunement to smell a rat there. Jedi can sense deception? I'm sure they can, what with that whole "missing the big, fricking, red, flashing light" thing there, lol. It's just a matter of reading between the lines.[/quote] Your response to the above was the following: [quote name='Zeta']This all once again comes down to the Dark Side clouding everything.[/quote] The Dark Side has absolutely nothing to do with the Jedi inability to figure out that those events weren?t coincidental, Zeta. You don?t need to use the Force by any stretch of the imagination to know that a pro-Republican columnist for the New York Times getting paid by the Bush administration to write his column is a conflict of interests and something that should raise eyebrows. Same thing applies here. You don?t need to use the Force at all to know something is happening behind the scenes when there?s that type of progression going on in a political arena. The Dark Side has nothing to do with that. It?s just incompetence when someone can?t see such a transparent political maneuver like that. [quote]How does him choosing to not fully embrace the Dark Side and kill his father, [i]not[/i] show an inclination towards the Light Side?[/QUOTE] You mean the act of self-preservation? It wasn?t Altruism, Zeta. It was an act focused purely on Luke himself, in an almost selfish fashion. Remember the mechanical hand? Luke kills Vader, he kills himself, just like we saw in the cave on Dagobah. And if he wanted to bring balance to the Force, he would have had to end the Jedi bloodline entirely, by killing Vader, Palpatine, and [i]himself[/i]. [i]That[/i] would have been a Light Side inclinati[font=Verdana]on, through self-sacrifice to bring peace to the greater good. [/font] [font=Verdana]But he doesn?t sacrifice himself, so what do we get at the end, for one of the final shots of the film? A family portrait, essentially, with Han in the center as the father figure and Luke, Leia & CO. off to the right, which is an unbalanced shot composition. The Force is all about balance and Luke has just unbalanced the entire thing, and lack of balance is what led to the chaos in the Prequels?so I don?t think the New Order has the hope that the EU texts give it. [/font] [center][font=Verdana]*******[/font] [/center] [font=Verdana] I'm separating this from the rest, because I want to mention it separately from everything else. You've been asking in nearly every reply where in the films is something [i]said[/i]. It's a film, Zeta. They're not going to be [i]telling[/i] you everything about what's going on. It's one of the golden rules of cinema and screenwriting: Show don't tell. They're not going to come out, face the camera, and tell you the Jedi can't sense jack-****. They're going to [i]show[/i] it...and they do show it, throughout the NT and OT. Everything isn't going to be handed to you, nor spoonfed to you, in Star Wars. Compared to other films, Star Wars seems pretty light and airy, but it does require the viewer to pay attention to everything going on. The dialogue is certainly important, but it's also everything around the dialogue, as well. [/font]

[QUOTE=Zeta]Palpatine: You still haven't answered as to why Yoda is able to sense Dooku, a far inferior being who won't be reveling in the Dark Side as much as Sidious. The Council is competent enought to sense a less strong being than a stronger being? If anything the should have an easier time sensing Palpatine than sensing Dooku.[/quote] Yes, Yoda is standing in the same room as Dooku, and Dooku is giving off DS energy. But that doesn't account for why Yoda & CO. can't sense Palpatine when he's [i]Darth Sidious[/i] (Darth Sidious, by the way, in full Sith-ness...no pretenses, no covers. He's total Sith Lord there.). He's using the Dark Side to hide himself from the Jedi even when he's Darth Sidious? Even when he [i]is[/i] the Dark Side he's able to hide himself? C'mon. He's fully immersed in the Dark Side of the Force there, and it's clear he's not trying to play the Senator for the Jedi. Furthermore, there [i]are[/i] times in AOTC where Dooku is meeting with the other leaders of the Separatist alliance and there's no indication the Jedi can sense that. Dooku revels in the Dark Side in those scenes--the Jedi can't sense that--and it's not as if Dooku is hiding at all there. Is it Dark Side power clouding the Jedi sense when Dooku is meeting with the Genosians far away from the Council's chambers, or when Palpatine is Darth Sidious, far away from the Council's chambers...or is that failure on the Jedi's part more a testament to their inability to wield the Force (i.e., their complete incompetence)? These are Jedi Masters here, and Obi-Wan can sense Alderaan's destruction in Hyperspace...but a Council of twelve Jedi Masters can't feel anything when a minor Sith Lord is meeting with a bunch of anarchists/revolutionaries? I'm sorry, but that is just incompetence. The Jedi are supposed to feel things through the Force, at whatever distance. A minor Sith Lord like Dooku is one of those things. [quote]Canon: Please do tell me where you are getting me saying Lucas is reading the texts.[/quote] [quote name='Zeta]All [i]major[/i'] changes are approved by Lucas in some form or the other, whether it be by phone or mail. Ideas that would drastically change his universe would most likely come from him.[/quote] [quote name='Zeta']I am going to considere the EU being canon until they are all labeled with the icon that the Infinities comics use. Regardless of whether or not Lucas reads them.[/quote] I keep repeating the very real possibility of Lucas not reading the texts because you keep minimizing it, and I want to make it clear that it's something that needs consideration when evaluating EU texts for accuracy. Lucas doesn't have the time to read all of the EU material being written/produced, so he's getting second-hand accounts of it from assistants, interns, etc. I'll use a theatre example to explain what I mean. In set design and construction, you always need to be perfectly precise when you're cutting lumber and putting the set together. If you're off by say, 1/8 of an inch after nailing three beams together, that amount of difference will only be exponentially increased by the time you reach the final product. What may seem like a minor variation in the beginning is going to turn out to be a major difference. Consider that analogy here. Lucas is the final product. The process of construction is the assistants and so forth reading the texts (and then reporting to Lucas), and the original is the author's fiction. There are intermediaries between Lucas and the text, so it's not as if he's getting a pure, unfiltered view of things. The meaning/plot points/etc of the text are being "translated" by someone who didn't create Star Wars. I'm harping on this, I know, but what Lucas is approving may very well be misinterpretations or misunderstandings a...Beta Reader had while reading the text. That fact alone is a major blow to the credibility of the EU, because whether or not Lucas endorses them, he's reading what amounts to a [i]book report[/i], and we all know from our own personal experiences that book reports [i]suck[/i]. I know I don't trust students' book reports to give me an accurate representation of what a book is...do you? [quote]He is only contacted about very important plot points/developments/etc.. G-canon, S-canon, be it what it may.[/quote] See the set construction analogy above, and also the book report. [quote]Where does it say in the movies that the Jedi being able to sense deception, etc.. is a contradiction? Until it says in the movies that they do not have this ability it is just as much canon as the movies itself. The keyword is it isn't canon if it contradicts something mentioned in the movies. Show me where it says they cannot detect deception and the like, and I will gladly rescind my views on this matter.[/quote] What if I were to tell you that the Force has little to nothing to do with the political maneuvering seen in Episodes I and II? The Dark Side and the Force is used only to "shield" Palpatine from the Force Attunements (although it's more incompetent on the part of the Council). The Dark Side power has nothing to do with what Palpatine does in the Old Republic itself, in the Senate. What he does in the Senate is plain and simple old-fashioned political manipulation. No Force required. It's not coincidence that the Separatists want to secede from the Republic shortly after there's such dissention among the Senators, after it's obvious there's a Sith presence, after the Trade Federation's stunt on Naboo. The fact that there were battle droids in the Trade Federation's army and the Separatists ally themselves with the Techno Union? Maybe it's just me, but that's too big of a warning flag that there's something sneaky going on in the political arena to just chalk it up to simple coincidence. One doesn't even need Force Attunement to smell a rat there. Jedi can sense deception? I'm sure they can, what with that whole "missing the big, fricking, red, flashing light" thing there, lol. It's just a matter of reading between the lines. [quote]Ending of ROTJ: Again, I have never said that ROTJ ended with Luke being good. I agree with you on the fact that he is leaning more towards Dark then Light. I [i]know[/i] his Order is shaky. Nowhere have I implied otherwise. He has members fall to the Dark Side, just like the Old Order. But the majority of his Order is progressing towards Light Side, you can clearly see it in the books, regardless of the fact that Luke wasn't completely light by the end of ROTJ.The fact that he is not completely Light Side means that he can still stray down the path he almost took in ROTJ. All I have said is that Luke's Order is based mostly on action. His Order takes up fighting roles much more often than the Old Order. And concerning this matter, all I have said is that Luke's Order would have jumped to action against the Vong much sooner than the Old Order one. We can deduce this through the Old Orders actions in the past concerning various conflicts. This doesn't imply that Lukes Order is perfect. It just shows one change in his orders teachings and beliefs on what their job is.[/quote] If Luke is DS instead of LS, and has clearly been falling throughout the OT, why would he suddenly go on the incline post-RotJ, when he's clearly been in a downward spiral the entire time? If there's nothing in RotJ to suggest that he's remotely LS (and nothing in the OT to suggest he's got a LS inclination), what precedent do the EU novels have to set him on the gradual/ultimate path of LS? For that matter, what precedent is there to set the New Order on the path to the LS? Especially considering the founder is DS? [quote]Script: I haven't been able to read it all yet. I am working on some school readings at the momet. Barely even had time to start it sadly.[/QUOTE] I'd normally say "Set blasters to kill" here, but I'll refrain, because I've been insanely busy, too. lol =p

Fast reply. Quick hits on your points. [QUOTE=Zeta]?Powerful you have become Dooku. The Dark Side I sense in you.? His exact words. The keyword here is [i]sense[/i]. He doesn?t deduce the fact that Dooku is using the Dark Side. He senses it. He doesn?t say he has deduced the fact that Dooku is using the Dark Side. Going strickly by the movies, as you seem to like, you are saying something that is [i]not[/i] explicitly said in the movie. What is said explicitly is that he senses it within him. Which is what I am asking you. If Palpatine is not hiding himself from the Jedi, then how exactly is he staying masked to their senses? 1) The destruction of Alderaan took place light years away from Obi-Wan. Yet he is still able to feel the tremor. Largely because of the massive loss of life of course. 2) Luke is able to feel Vader at the end of ESB, yes. A Padawan, with extremely little training from the strongest Jedi alive at the time, Yoda. 3) We have Vader saying in ANH that he ?has not felt a presence since.? He is, as you know, talking about Obi-Wan. Here we have three instances where we know that the Jedi are able to feel other Force users. Now what do you have in the prequels. We have a very powerful, quite possibly the strongest, Sith Lord to show his face in the GFFA. We have Jedi, a handful of them at any given time, seated across from him. And they are all oblivious as to Palpatine?s true identity. Why? We know that the Jedi are not as incompetent as you are making them out to believe, as we can see from your two of your own examples. Luke, a lowly Padawan; hell, not even one in my books, is able to sense Vader, who is someone as strong, if not stronger than Palpatine. But what do we have in the Prequels again? An extremely powerful Sith Lord that has masked his presence to every single Jedi. We know the Jedi are not as incompetent as you are making them out to be. If they were, Yoda would not have been able to sense Dooku, Luke would not have been able to sense Vader. You tell me how it is possible for the Jedi to not sense that Palpatine is just bursting at the seems with the Dark Side, without him masking himself from them. Recap. As has been shown, Yoda sensed the Dark Side in Dooku. You cannot say that Yoda deduced the fact from his clothes and that there were two Jedi laying on the ground, why? Because it is not explicitly stated in the film, just like how you said I cannot claim that Palpatine was hiding himself from the Jedi because it wasn?t stated in the film. Dooku is far inferior to Palpatine in Dark Side power, but is able to be sensed by Yoda.[i] Now you tell me, why can the Jedi not sense Palpatine when he is quite possibly the strongest Sith to show his face in the GFFA.[/i][/quote] Yes, Dooku's demonstrating anger, passion, malignancy...which are the precise emotions that Palpatine demonstrates when he's Darth Sidious and nowhere do we ever see any Jedi perk-up when he's Darth Sidious. He's not hiding his Sith-ness there; he's [i]reveling[/i] in it. It's interesting that I'm watching Pleasantville right now, because I find it to be a rather appropriate reference for this discussion. In Pleasantville, the Council of Commerce is the group that presides over the town, and isn't exactly comprised of the most intuitive people in town. They're simpletons, essentially, ones who are so limited in their perceptions--or rather, steadfast in the denial of external and internal perceivings, that they become the bane of their own existences. Big Bob, the "leader" of town, denies the existence of passion, fear, anger, etc., within himself--which is precisely what the Jedi Council does. He limits himself to the extent that he is unable to see what the real problem is...to the extent that he limits his own perceptions and intuition. I don't think it's the Dark Side that clouds the Jedi Council at all. It's their own self-assurances that limit their perceptions...just like Big Bob. Dark Side has very little, if anything, to do with it. The moments we hear about the Dark Side clouding things are moments when the Jedi are speaking...and it's not as if the Jedi on the council are all that intuitive to begin with. They're pretentious, overly confident in their abilities (only finally getting/accepting the idea that they aren't so omniscient when it's too late), and are ineffective because of their attitudes...attitudes that are the clouds, not the Dark Side. Dark Side presence or not, the Dark Side isn't to blame for why the Council can't detect jack-****. The Council can't detect jack-**** to begin with, lol. [quote]I still do not see this as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. All [i]major[/i] changes are approved by Lucas in some form or the other, whether it be by phone or mail. Ideas that would drastically change his universe would most likely come from him. As an example, it was Luca who said that Anakin Solo would die in [i]Star by Star[/i] when it was originally going to be Jacen. I highly doubt he would let things fly that would interfere with how he interpreted the story to be. You can find this in the CD that comes with [i]The Unifying Force[/i] if you wish to see the proof.[/quote] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_canon][u]Star Wars Canon[/u][/url] [quote name='Site][b]Star Wars canon[/b] was first defined in the first issue of the Lucasfilm magazine, the Star Wars Insider: "Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology."[/quote] [quote=Site]This policy has been further refined and fleshed out over the years. The STAR WARS website also details the role of canon, Expanded Universe, or "EU" sources, and how they fit into overall STAR WARS continuity. Chris Cerasi stated, "[b]When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves - and only the films[/b]. Even novelizations are interpretations of the film, and while they are largely true to George Lucas' vision (he works quite closely with the novel authors), the method in which they are written does allow for some minor differences. The novelizations are written concurrently with the film's production, so variations in detail do creep in from time to time. Nonetheless, they should be regarded as very accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies. The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, [i][b]but stylistically[/b][/i], there is [i][b]always room for variation[/b][/i']. Not all artists draw Luke Skywalker the same way. Not all writers define the character in the same fashion. The particular attributes of individual media also come into play. A comic book interpretation of an event will likely have less dialogue or different pacing than a novel version. A video game has to take an interactive approach that favors gameplay. So too must card and roleplaying games ascribe certain characteristics to characters and events in order to make them playable. The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them. Like the great Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi said, 'many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view."[/quote] [quote=Site]As of 2000, Lucas Licensing has appointed Leland Chee to create a continuity tracking database referred to as the "Holocron". As with every other aspect having to do with the overall story of Star Wars, the Holocron follows the canon policy that has been in effect for years. The Holocron is divided into 4 levels: [b]G-canon[/b], [b]C-canon[/b], [b]S-canon[/b], and [b]N-canon[/b]. G, C, and S together form an overall continuity. [b]G-canon[/b] is absolute canon; the movies, the scripts, the novelizations of the movies, the radio plays and the Star Wars DK "Cross Sections", "Visual Dictionaries", and "Inside The Worlds Of" books based on the movies. G-canon always overides the lower levels of canon when there is a contradiction. [b]C-canon[/b] is pretty much everything in the [url="/wiki/Expanded_Universe_%28Star_Wars%29"]Expanded Universe[/url]; SW books, comics, and games. Games are a special case as generally only the stories are C-canon while things like stats and gameplay are N-canon. [b]S-canon[/b] is "secondary" canon; the story itself is considered non-continuity, but the non-contradicting elements are still a canon part of the Star Wars universe. This includes things like the popular online roleplaying game [i]Star Wars Galaxies[/i] and certain elements of a few N-canon stories. [b]N-canon[/b] is "non-canon". What-if stories (such as stories published under the [i][url="/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars:_Infinities&action=edit"]Star Wars: Infinities[/url][/i] label), game stats, and anything else directly contradicted by higher canon ends up here. N-canon is the [i]only[/i] level that is not considered canon by Lucasfilm.[/quote] Note no mention is made of Lucas himself reading the texts. Note "Lucas Licensing" is the driving force behind the canon evaluation. Licensing is more associated with marketing and production...not development/evaluation of core ideas and concepts. Also, see below. [quote]I never said that Luke was completely Light Side at the end of ROTJ. So now, the fact that Luke fully embraces the Dark Side does not interfere with what Lucas? story. The fact that Luke embraces the Dark Side fully, or as completely as he can without being totally consumed by it, does not mean he had to have been redeemed in ROTJ. It just shows that even though he is progressing towards the Light Side from the end of ROTJ, that he is still susceptible to the tempting of the Dark Side, and can still take that path. Regardless of whether or not he seems to be good or bad at the end of ROTJ, as the EU progresses we clearly see him heading towards the Light. How can we tell this? He doesn?t use his power to rule over others. He doesn?t use his powers to get his way. We see him doing, to the best of his ability, what the Jedi of old were doing, [i]protecting[/i] the people. There is inclination to the Light Side because Luke isn?t consumed by the Dark Side. He still has the ability to choose which path to take. Vader is practically [i]all[/i] dark, and yet strays farther and farther from it as time goes on. He may not be completely redeemed and turned Light, but he sure as hell was becoming [i]more[/i] light than dark.[/quote] Zeta, ask yourself, is there any indication at all in RotJ that--if Luke were indeed totally redeemed at the end of the film--Luke would fall at all post-RotJ? If he were Light Side, [i]there is nothing in RotJ (or for that matter, in ANH [b]or[/b] ESB) to ever suggest that he would fall in the manner that the EU texts have implied[/i]. You want to talk about the EU being unreliable? Lucas' character redemptions are more or less permanent. There's nothing in the OT to suggest that Han Solo will slip back into his cheatin' scoundrel's ways (i.e., a fall back into "darkness"). Luke and Han are two of the major "redemptions" in the OT, and there is nothing that would indicate they were going to fall back into their questionable antics. Anakin is "redeemed" in RotJ and we see his Force Spirit with Yoda's and Obi-Wan's, and it's made rather clear that he's achieved peace, and won't be turning to malicious naughtiness. If the Luke As Good ending to RotJ is the accurate one, then he's not going to fall again, simple as that. I don't have the time right now to go into why I'm placing redemption in quotation marks, but it relates to the material in RotJ I've mentioned before. I will say this, though. I don't think it's prudent to believe a Jedi Order founded by someone who's a "darkie" at best (Luke) will be as guaranteed to go Light Side as the EU texts show. When the foundation is shaky, the Order will be shaky, as evidenced by the Old Order. [quote]PS: You no longer have to e-mail me the script. It loaded up for me the other day. Very nice. J Thanks a lot.[/QUOTE] Did you see the emphasis on "point of view"? It's something that's repeated throughout the Saga, from TPM up through RotJ. I think I said everything I had time to say. If I missed anything, I'll catch it on the rebound.

[quote name='Zeta]The fact of the matter is. Yoda says he senses the Dark Side in Dooku [i]before[/i'] he uses the Force lightning. Regardless of whether or not he knows Dooku is a Sith at that point, Yoda is still able to sense the Dark Side in him.[/quote] And you don't suppose that Dooku, clad in [i]all black[/i], standing over Obi-Wan and Anakin (who are badly beaten, mind) would tip Yoda off? [quote]Which is exactly why [i]something[/i] is being done to mask his prescence from Yoda and others. If they are able to sense it in Dooku who pales in comparison to Palpatine, they should be able to sense him. Yet they can't. Why can they sense the Force on Dooku, who as we have established is inferior to Palpatine by far, but they cannot sense Palpatine? It is more than just incompetence on the Councils part.[/quote] For argument's sake, let's say that Palpatine was masking his presence so well when he was walking around as Senator Palpatine that nobody in the Jedi Council could ever pick up on it at all. He couldn't be detected because he was in his "Senator" mode, essentially. That's hard to believe in and of itself, though, because again, Jedi Masters...twelve of them in a room together, which, based on what the films themselves have established, should have strengthened their bond to the Force. The Force appears to operate on saturation, meaning, when there is a consolidation of a particular Force Alignment's energy, there is a swell at that location. ESB's the cave, for example, is a place where the Dark Side is very powerful. Dagobah as a planet is a "Force planet." That would explain why Luke feels a familiarity with the place. The Emperor himself in RotJ is a focal point for Dark Side energy. I don't think it's unreasonable to say the Jedi Council would function in a similar manner. The more of them there are together, the stronger their individual attunements to the Force become. It's synergy. It's been established in the OT that a Jedi can feel a tremor in the Force from great distances. Obi-Wan can hear the screams of Alderaan. Luke could feel Vader at the end of ESB. Why aren't Yoda & CO. sensing Palpatine when he's Darth Sidious? He?s not playing the Senator anymore?he?s playing the overt Sith Lord. [quote]I am going to considere the EU being canon until they are all labeled with the icon that the Infinities comics use. Regardless of whether or not Lucas reads them. Until they are specifically said not to be canon, I will consider to think of them as canon.[/quote] Check out the various copyright pages of the books. There's an "Authorized by LucasFilm Ltd." That seems to me to be a sign of someone else approving the texts. I think the probability of Lucas not reading them is a major issue here, Zeta, and one that definitely warrants consideration. Lucas would know Star Wars better than anyone on his staff. If he's not reading the novels, and approving them, someone else is, and I certainly don't think it's wise to trust that other "someone" when it comes to something like EU...do you? [quote]Which is exactly what I was saying. Lukes order does act. I never said one thing about them being secure. All I was saying that compared to the Old Order, Lukes Order would have acted while the Old Order would have sat back and debated. But even so, we can see throughout the books that Luke's Order is light and not dark. Regardless of whether or not Luke is Light-side or neutral at the end of ROTJ, we see him progressing more towards the Light. With the exception of a few Jedi here and there, his Order helps the people of the New Republic. He may or may not be aligned to the Light-side of the Force at the end of ROTJ, but we see him progress more towards the Light-side as the NJO ends. Reading the books even supports your statement. We see countless times where Luke isn't completely aligned with the Light-side of the Force. We see him display characteristics that may lead him down to the Dark-side, and we have seen him [i]fully[/i] embrace the Dark-side. But ultimately we end the EU (as of now) with Luke and his Order embracing the Light-side, taking up the role the Old Order had of protecting the people of the New Republic.[/QUOTE] Like I said, there are far greater fundamental issues in Luke?s New Order than a predisposition to start swinging a lightsaber before diplomacy. Regarding Light Side vs Dark Side, for argument's sake, let's say that Luke was in fact totally redeemed at the end of RotJ (i.e., total Light Side). If that were Lucas' intent, then it would be clear that Lucas had a very specific vision for Luke's character arc, and wanted there to be no question in the audience's mind that Luke was a "good guy" at the end, right? Now, if this were Lucas' intent, surely he would be apprehensive to approve an EU novel (or allow an EU novel to be approved) that would contradict his original vision. He is very protective of the OT, after all. He made significant changes in the re-release, so he could keep his original vision intact. So if there are EU novels post-RotJ that feature Luke fully embracing the Dark Side, what does that say about the EU and how they're being produced? That they are in fact conflicting with the films; that Lucas himself is [i]not[/i] evaluating every text; that LucasFilm lackeys and/or marketing are reading and evaluating the texts; that the EU is no better and no more reliable than material from fanfiction.net. Now let's go from the other side of that argument, that Luke wasn't squeaky clean, wasn't remotely Light Side, and was still on the Dark Side at the end of RotJ. You've described a situation in the EU that shows a clear authorial predisposition to having Luke and the New Order have a natural inclination to the Light Side of the Force. The progression of the Jedi in the EU, as you've just explained, is Light Side. Luke apparently stumbles along the way, but a fall again would imply there was a redeeming previously, which would indicate that Luke was Light Side in the Finale of RotJ. But Luke is far from being a Light Side Jedi in the Finale of RotJ. He is still heavily bathed in shadow, a ghostly funeral pyre light, and still clad in the full black suit. If he?s clearly more dark than light, why would there be an inclination to Light Side at all? I find it to be very apparent that Luke isn't remotely close to "good" in those final scenes. Throughout Star Wars, clothing plays a large part in what a character represents (Darth Vader, Leia, for example), and Luke is no different. In A New Hope, he starts off in white; in ESB, he's gray; in the [u]entirety[/u] of RotJ, he's all-black. Dark Side? You betcha. Let?s not forget he uses Force Choke, which if it?s not an actual power exclusive to the Dark Side, it?s certainly only utilized by Dark Side characters. Forget all about the EU post-RotJ for a moment (because it [i]will[/i] confuse you) and think about what the ending to RotJ means, particularly in terms of lighting, shot composition, costuming, etc. Luke is Dark Side, and if not Dark Side, still heavily, heavily leaning. EDIT: You're going to have to give me (PM me) your email addy, Zeta. You don't accept email through the OB link in your profile.

[quote name='Zeta']Thank you. That has been what I have been trying to convey, but haven't done so successfully, as can be seen.[/quote] Um...you're welcome? [quote]Yes they are incompetent. But how can they be that incompetent? We have to give them some credit as to being able to use their powers. I brought in the OT just to show examples that they can sense the dark side, etc...An excuse for a Jedi master not being able to sense a Sith Lord sitting right across from them, while Luke is able to sense the dark side in the cave? Easy. Palpatine is hiding himself. It makes perfect sense. There is no one/thing hiding the prescense of the Force in the cave. Yoda is able to sense the dark-side in the cave. How does that explain his not being able to sense Palpatine? Is he more attuned to the workings of the Force after he has been in hiding for so many years? I don't believe so. I believe he could have done the same thing back in the PT years. But he can't sense Palpatine, not because he is incompetent to the fullest degree, but because the Dark Side clouds everything, Palpatine concealing himself from their prescense. If they are that incompetent, Yoda would be oblivious to the fact that Dooku has turned to the Dark Side, but he isn't. Dooku isn't hiding himself from them. [u][b]How do you explain that Yoda can sense Dooku is a Sith[/b][/u], while he cannot sense Palpatine?[/quote] When does Yoda ever sense Dooku as a Sith, Zeta? Any time Yoda mentions his name [i]before[/i] the Finale of AOTC, it's merely speaking of Dooku as the leader of the Separatists. In the Finale, he doesn't sense Dooku is a Sith...he just senses the Dark Side in him. The Force Lightning might have given it away, or the fact that Anakin's arm isn't connected to his body and both he and Obi-Wan are laying on the ground in exhausted, bloody messes, might have clued Yoda in. But compared to Palpatine's, Dooku's Dark Side resonance (the effect his presence has on the Force) is miniscule. Palpatine is a Sith Lord. He's going to be resonating [i]something[/i] no matter what he's doing. If he's as powerful and as heavily immersed in the Dark Side as we're led to believe, there would be traces of it that would be detectable on some level. And how many Jedi Masters regularly have personal and physical contact with Palpatine throughout the films? Quite a few. It's not as if Palpatine is walking down the streets of Coruscant across the street from a Padawan. We're talking about essentially shaking hands with Yoda, Mace Windu, etc. Palpatine's powerful, yes, but common sense would dictate that he would be giving off [i]something[/i] there, even if it's just a mild, cold tremor in the Force when he walks into the room. [quote]We are really going to be getting nowhere in this argument. I believe the EU is just as much canon as the movies, unless noted otherwise. There are many, many things not answered in the movies, which are answered in the books.[/quote] EU: Sidestories written by authors who differ from fanfiction.net writers only because the EU authors get paid for what they write; stories that very likely are [b][i]not[/i][/b] being read by Lucas at all; stories that base much of the various plots and concepts on spotty interpretations or interpretations that can be weakened by further and more in-depth analysis of the source material; stories about Empire Strikes Back that were written 25 years after Empire Strikes Back was released in theatres... I would think the fact alone that Lucas probably isn't even reading the EU novels is a fairly strong indication that you need to take most of the EU with a grain of salt. [quote]I am confident in their abilties to act on certain crises that appear throughout the books. We see them take action right away concerning the Vong, regardless of their Light or Dark stances. I am also confident in their changing the ways things are taught, and their basic ways of life; such as allowing marriage. I still don't see how this has to do with Luke being Light at the end of ROTJ. It is just me showing that Luke's Order acted in a time of crisis right off the bat, rather than wait for diplomatic processes to end as we have seen the Old Order do in the movies. I still don't understand what you are trying to get at here.[/QUOTE] They act, yes, but they're not as...secure...as most peole think. What you read in the EU there is centered around the idea that Luke was redeemed at the end of RotJ. The New Order is based on the assumption/interpretation that Luke was a good guy at the end of RotJ. What I'm getting at is while the New Order is more than willing to pick-up a lightsaber before things fall to ****, there are other, far more important fundamental [i]flaws[/i] in the EU material about the New Order, most notably regarding the authorial stance taken toward Luke's Force Alignment.

Before I go into the larger portion of it, I wanted to isolate one statement: [quote]2) The Jedi's teachings have been waning. They have remain virtually the same for centuries. As you pointed out, they do not see the need for change. Teachings and ways of life that have failed throughout their time.[/quote] Zeta, you need to make the distinction here, and use language that effectively conveys what you want to say. The Jedi [i]teachings[/i] have [i]not[/i] waned. They haven't decreased...they haven't become minimized. They've stayed the same. The focus here is not on their teachings failing them...because the teachings were not the main reason that the Jedi Council/Old Order got decimated. I harp on this because it's a point you need to understand here. The Jedi's [i]approach[/i]/[i]attitude[/i] is what doomed the Old Order. There is a key difference between approach/attitude and teachings. If it were not for the Jedi's attitudes, the Old Order would have remained intact, because they would not have been so pretentious as to believe they were the pinnacle of the social order. Had their [i]attitudes[/i] been different, they would have realized the need for massive changes in how they presided over the Order. The [i]attitude[/i] was the bane of the Order...[i]not[/i] their teachings. Not seeing the need for change is related to the [i]attitude[/i], [i]not[/i] the teachings. [QUOTE=Zeta]Again, I am basing my opinions off of the EU, particularly [i]Labriynth of Evil[/i]. But it is also mostly common sense. We do know that the Jedi are able to sense Force users. Are in in an agreement about that at least? Yoda and the tree on Dagobah...Vader saying the Force is strong in Luke in the Death Star trench.... It is then logical to assume that they can do so as well in the PT. But they do not sense Palpatine, even with him sitting right across a table from them. Why? 1) We know that Palpatine is a powerful user of the Dark Side. With power such as his it would be hard pressed to miss when meditating, etc... 2) The Jedi's teachings have been waning. They have remain virtually the same for centuries. As you pointed out, they do not see the need for change. Teachings and ways of life that have failed throughout their time. Put two and two together. With the Jedi's teacing waning and the Jedi's inability to adapt tot he times, Palpatine will have a much easier chance in getting away with "cloaking" himself to them.[spoiler]In [i]Labriynth of Evil[/i] Yoda is meditating and suddenly feels Sidious on Coruscant. He just appears virtually out of no where.[/spoiler] He had to have been hiding his Force powers, it is what makes sense as to why the Council cannot realize he is a Sith. I don't believe that the Jedi were [i]that[/i] blind as to be 100% their own fault for failing to realize the truth behind Palpatine.[/quote] I am putting 2 and 2 together, and the Jedi Council are coming off as increasingly incompetent. We're talking about a SITH LORD sitting across from them, and they don't even get so much as a chill? I realize the power of the Dark Side, and Palpatine's power, is immense, but when they've got a Sith Lord right in front of them and they can't feel anything...I'm sorry, but I can't chalk that one up to uber-powerful Dark Siders. I chalk that failure up to an incompetent Jedi Council. I don't see how bringing in the OT is supposed to help your argument, because if anything, it's just further portraying the Old Order as hopelessly incompetent. I mean...on Dagobah, Luke feels the cave, and he's [i]barely[/i] a Padawan at that point. If a [i]Novice[/i] can be attuned to the Force enough to feel a coldness coming from a cave, and know enough to know that it's something entirely different than just usual swamp stuff...what excuse does a Jedi Master have for missing a Sith Lord? In fact, what excuse does an [i]entire Council[/i] of [i]Jedi Masters[/i] has? None, lol. I'm talking about the actual films here, because the films are canon. Anything we see in the films takes precedent over what we read in the EU, and what we see in the films here does in fact do that. [quote]Well yeah. I don't think he would allow them to go against his own works. He has said it himself that Star Wars is [i]his[/i]. I don't think he would allow them to go against what he has set up, whether by adding things or taking away things.[/quote] Yes, Star Wars is his, but that doesn't mean that his assistants aren't going to be mis-reading the texts, or mis-judging a character, unintentionally explaining the plot developments incorrectly. The EU [i]is[/i] unreliable. [quote]:animestun Huh? I'm not saying Luke is Light or Dark. I am just saying that he is changing the teachings and basic fundamentals of the Jedi of his Order. He has changed the teachings of the old by allowing marriage, and taking on older students. And I only compared the pace in which each Order would have handled the Vong threat. Unless I am completely missing what you are saying?[/QUOTE] I think you are missing what I'm saying. From what I gather from your posts, you're pretty confident in Luke's New Order. You're more or less praising them, and I wanted to make it clear that I don't have the same confidence that you do, for mainly two reasons. (if more come to me, I'll edit them in...I've been up all night playing GuildWars, hehe) 1) The EU is unreliable in general when discussing the films themselves. There are contradictions...there are characterization issues, pacing issues, development issues...even issues in the approaches of various characters (in our discussion here, the approach inconsistency becomes very clear). 2) The EU post-RotJ is unreliable because any text in the EU that focuses on Luke's New Order, and operates under the assumption/interpretation that Luke was Light Side or redeemed at the end of RotJ, is unreliable. It's unreliable because Luke was [i]not[/i] Light Side at the end of RotJ. The New Order is nowhere near as secure as the EU or its readership makes it out to be, because Luke isn't squeaky-clean "Leave it to Beaver" at the end of RotJ.

[quote name='Zeta']Nah man. I have always wanted to be in the Star Wars universe. And this is the closest I am going to get. ^_^[/quote] Haha, fair enough. I guess trying to ride in bugged speeders, trying to fight bugged Dathomir Nightsisters, trying to complete bugged missions is being in the Star Wars universe. After all, what other sci-fi films have grungy machines that just don't work half the time? =p [quote]The dark side is a powerful tool on Palpatine's side. He could easily block the creation of the Clone Army. But the fact that the Jedi couldn't sense the dark side in Palpatine is the fault of the Council themselves. They have been Sith free for 1000 years. They are ignorant of the fact that the Sith are still out there, and have let their teachings show.[/quote] I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say here. On one hand, you're defending the Council, because Palpatine could have used the Dark Side to cloud their cognition, but in the next sentence, you're criticizing the Council for never sensing Palpatine himself, and for believing the Sith to be eradicated. The problem with your supposition that Palpatine might have been using the Dark Side of the Force to "block" the Council is that there's nothing in Episodes I and II, or in the script to Episode III, to indicate that. I can't recall one instance of anything being said that would relate to that. [quote]I believe we have to take the EU into consideration in the Star Wars universe. It is a continuation of the Star Wars story. Books have to be approved beforehand. [u][b]I don't believe that Lucas would approve something that isn't true[/b][/u]. *shrug* This argument will keep going on because we both hvae different beliefs as to what we can bring in for proof and what can't. I cannot comment on this if we are leaving the EU out of this. I am referring to the acceptance he gains before AOTC. Books that include Rogue Planet (where he shows dark side tendancies at a very young age, another reason to limit his choices), Labyrinth of Evil, being given command of Clone Troopers.[/quote] I seriously doubt that George Lucas himself has enough time to read some 50, 300-page novels each year. The most likely scenario is that his assistants are reading the works for him, then giving him synopses. That's how it works in Hollywood regarding script submissions, and I don't see why it'd be any different here. The only way for the EU to be actual canon (or remotely relevant or reliable) was if Lucas were to read [i]every single[/i] novel, play [i]every single[/i] game, read [i]every single[/i] comic book, [i]multiple[/i] times over to make sure all the material within is accurate and [i]then[/i] approve them. I'm positive that's not happening. [quote]Thank you. I have been trying to say that but for some reason the words never were able to come out of my hands right, heh. I am going to just quote some of the things you have said Siren, in regards to my post which will once again be more towards Gavin. Luke has brought this mentality into his order as well, as seen by his marriage, Corrans marriage, and I am sure there are others, heh. This was a big problem with the Old Jedi Order. We see countless instances where the Jedi do not act when actions should be taken. The hesitate in KOTOR to enter the Mandalorian Wars. And as Siren pointed out, they failed to take apporiate actions in regards to the events unfolding in front of them by the time of the Prequels. Back to the Vong and the Old Jedi Order. I still do not believe that they would have stood any more of a chance against them than Luke's Order did. The Old Order would not have immediatly taken steps into their own hands to protect the Republic. They would have been looking for diplomatic means to solve the problem which wouldn't have workd. They are hell-bent on their belief that they are not soldiers. By the time they did take up the role of soldiers, it would have been just as bad, if not worse than what Luke's order went through. Luke's order is bred for action. They have been taking action into their own hands to ensure the peoples, as well as their own, lives are safe. The Jedi were all ready acting on the threat before the New Republic officially acted on it. I believe that this was ultimatly the reason for the New Republic's success. *shrug* I just believe without a doubt that Luke's Order is the only order that could face the Vong and triumphant.[/quote] Well, hold on a second...you're talking about an EU based on the end of RotJ, and based on an interpretation that Luke was Light Side...Luke wasn't Light Side. He was "neutral" at most. His "moment of truth" at the end of RotJ wasn't a reversal...he was merely drifting closer to neutral. It's the same thing with Vader. They're not instant character changes...it's always gradual, even Vader. He starts drifting away from Palpatine in the middle of Empire Strikes Back. It's not as if he suddenly turns in the Finale of RotJ. The EU material paints a much more rosy picture of the Finale than is really there. [quote]P.S. Siren, would it be possible for you to e-mail the Episode III script as an attachment? The website refuses to load for me. :mad:[/QUOTE] Yeah. I'll get to that tomorrow.

Spam problems.