Arcann vs Tulak Hord

Given that the statement itself is canon, and needs only support both IU and OOU for validity, both of which we have, then Sadow > Nihilus which is demonstratably proven by nigh-prime Meetra 'not standing a chance' against the remnant life force energies of Ludo's tomb, which is the same statement Nihilus gets over her. Leaving Ludo in his living prime and the even stronger Sadow to look even better.

NotAA3 wrote:- rather than you know... actually addressing the arguments I made. 

A walk down memory lane tells me that you were the one giving emotional tantrums rather than addressing my arguments in the first place. 

You don't want me to address that history, nor do you want me to address the accusation made against you,

You won’t address that history because you can’t explain most of it other than simply you having a terrible attitude and a history of mocking others. You won’t address the accusation because you very well know now that you were wrong.

nor do you want to conduct a civil dialogue.

Another walk down memory lane tells me that you started this with the garbage attitude and could have just addressed my points in a civil way instead of having an uncalled-for snappy attitude.

the final could have already happened if you'd simply replied to my actual post and insisted we dropped all hostilities rather than ignoring every point I made on the real discussion and wasting your time sifting through a posting history which was probably very tiresome to read. As such, I'm not going to waste my time continuing this petty side debate: my own misconduct does not justify yours, nor am I mad about you not handling yourself with proper conduct in of itself (I'm mad about you getting on your high horse when someone snapped back), so I'm not a hypocrite here for having my own issues with conduct.

Essentially, you get to have a horrendous and disgusting attitude with others and we are all just supposed to bow down to you and have a nice, loving and peaceful conversation with you despite your complete lack of respect. 

Either way, now that you have toned down that attitude, I will take you on your word and keep this civil moving on.

Regarding the Malak discussion, we could go on and on debating about what Kreia or Avellone or whoever meant endlessly but that will only really keep us going in circles and so I am going to cut straight into the chase about my fundamental problem with the quote directly.

I do not buy that Malak quote because it was published in an article that has been removed and not a single one of the republished material regarding Malak reinstate his superiority ever again and I simply do not use a quote published in 2003 that has been removed and none of the republications restate the superiority in any way neither explicitly or implicitly. The republications should have the same information as the removed article, if not more, and if something is not restated then, to me, that piece of information is no longer valid since otherwise it would have been restated after its removal. And if the article information has been removed without being republished, then I see no reason as to why I should take that article as a source anymore if it has not even been republished. The fact that you never find that Malak superiority except in a removed article makes it invalid to me. I really do not care about having Malak superior to Kun or ancient Sith, but I am not going to buy it from a removed article with republications that never state such thing again.

The bottom line here is that I do not consider information published in a removed article valid anymore. Either the republished material has to restate that piece of information that has been removed or it does not. And if it does not, then I see no reason to take that certain piece of information on its validity anymore. If the quote is republished, I would have Malak superior to Kun.

Nice to see the brothers are sticking up for each other 

@Rei

I said I'd drop the hostility, and the side debate to solely discuss the Malak quote, and, so, I shall.

Anyway, as a preface, can I ask you to, please, for the love of God, not spend an entire paragraph saying 50 different variations of the same thing (that can be explained in like 3 lines) in your next post? It's infuriating to try and have to work through all of it to see what is relevant, and what is repetition (the repetition is emphasised, as I've quoted the parts which are repeated alongside the first time you make the point):

Regarding the Malak discussion, we could go on and on debating about what Kreia or Avellone or whoever meant endlessly but that will only really keep us going in circles and so I am going to cut straight into the chase about my fundamental problem with the quote directly.

I'm glad you recognise the Malak quote is the most important factor here.

I do not buy that Malak quote because it was published in an article that has been removed and not a single one of the republished material regarding Malak reinstate his superiority ever again. // The fact that you never find that Malak superiority except in a removed article makes it invalid to me. // I am not going to buy it from a removed article with republications that never state such thing again. // The bottom line here is that I do not consider information published in a removed article valid anymore.

That's not how quotes work. They don't become non-canon once they've been removed from a website (it was removed alongside the whole SW section of the site, lmfao, that doesn't render thousands of articles non-canon), as the website doesn't determine their canonicity - LFL does. As long as they're part of the continuity Holocron, they're canon, and they were added to it before they were removed from the site, so them being removed is irrelevant.

The republications should have the same information as the removed article, if not more. // The republished material has to restate that piece of information that has been removed.

Again, see above; the republications don't have to re-state something to make it canon when it's already part of the Holocron. Do you want to make 99% of sourcebook accolade N-Canon, because newer sourcebooks don't re-state them?

I simply do not use a quote published in 2003 that has been removed and none of the republications restate the superiority in any way neither explicitly or implicitly. // If something is not restated then, to me, that piece of information is no longer valid since otherwise it would have been restated after its removal.

Why would valid information need to continually be repeated in order to remain valid?

And if the article information has been removed without being republished, then I see no reason as to why I should take that article as a source anymore if it has not even been republished. //  And If it is not republished, then I see no reason to take that certain piece of information on its validity anymore.

I believe WOTC did publish more articles on Malak, though they didn't include the Malak quote. Regardless, my point on the quote being added to the Holocron applies here, too.

So, no, he wasn't demanding civility from anyone, he just took issue with the moral grandstanding. Which, to be quite frank, was a rather amusing thing for you to engage in when conversing from someone on SI, a site filled with the lowest levels of degenerate filth on the internet. You want my advice? Kindly piss off and save yourself the trouble of being associated with anyone here, because almost everyone present on this site (me included) is extremely hostile and a piece of shit human being.

Yikes.

@Sjuttiosju: Let's tone it down.

How many fights has this Malak quote started? It is honestly cursed. 

@Rei:

Not to interfere, but what you have to realize is that the article wasn't specifically removed on its own. All Star Wars articles on WOTC were removed due to licensing issues in 2010. That was the reason for the removal and not because the Malak article in of itself or the rest had some inaccuracy or Lucas found them invalid anymore. So:

1. The Malak article wasn't removed on its own

2. The article (and all the others) were removed due to licensing issues and not accuracy or validity

Hopefully this closes the Malak quote debate at last.

Arcann stomps, let's get real here.

God bless the Malak quote

God bless the Malak quote

@NotAA3 @Darth Nihilus

I was under the impression that the Malak article (amongst other articles) was removed and that a newer version was republished for that specific WOTC article after its removal which did not include the quote itself. I was not aware that the article was removed specifically due to Licensing. Wasn’t there a republished article specifically for that WOTC Malak article without the quote? If not then I will drop my previous point and agree with you both.

@Rei

Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy with school, etc. Anyway, it's good to see you've dropped the majority of your points, so hopefully, we can wrap this up fairly swiftly:

Wasn’t there a republished article specifically for that WOTC Malak article without the quote? If not then I will drop my previous point and agree with you both.

The article was never "republished", all that happened was WOTC made future articles about Malak which didn't contain the quote. Not that, even if it had been republished without the quote, the quote would be rendered non-canon, because, again, as long it's part of the continuity Holocron, it's canon - the republications wouldn't need to include it.

@NotAA3

The article was never "republished", all that happened was WOTC made future articles about Malak which didn't contain the quote. Not that, even if it had been republished without the quote, the quote would be rendered non-canon, because, again, as long it's part of the continuity Holocron, it's canon - the republications wouldn't need to include it.

I think that whether the quote would be rendered non-canon or not would depend on the reason the article was removed. Now since this article (amongst others) was removed specifically due to Licensing reasons, then yes I agree with you that the quote is indeed valid.

We got there in the end.

Surprisingly, yes we did.