Tendo City

GOOD fantasy stories have well-developed characters.

Star Wars has great fight scenes and visual cinematography, and even the plots aren't too bad. It's just that the characters are so poorly-developed and leave me unwilling and unable to sympathize with them.

Spoken like a true Trekkie.

Well, I think the latest Star Trek shows have had characters that were very developed, but not very WELL-developed. I loved the original series and Next Generation, but the other three ST shows were pretty forgettable and overly-thematic.

That doesn't change the fact that my problem with Star Wars is that most of the characters are really basic and simplistic, unforgivable in a series that calls itself 'epic'.

I'd argue this, but we did it before and you didn't listen then, so I don't know if I should try again...

If you do, you should try a different angle. Last time you tried to convince me Palpatine was a deep, well-developed character simply because he was so powerful and manipulative, when my argument was that he was one-dimensional and had only the most shallow and childish motives, and never once tries to justify himself. I am right.

I was reading some of the old posts, and in one ABF mentions that the Star Wars ships can only fire from a few kilometers away. The Star Trek ships however are often thousands of kilometers apart from the ship they are fighting. So the Star Trek ships could probably destroy the Star Wars from a distance because the Star Wars ships wouldn't be albe to fight back.
Oh and they have fighters in Star Trek now, they had them in the last season of DS9, and their was a PSX game based on them

I was reading some of the old posts, and in one ABF mentions that the Star Wars ships can only fire from a few kilometers away.

Well---no, not applicable. The Death Star was several thousand (tens of thousands?) of kilometers away from Alderaan when it went nova on her ass. As for non-Super Laser weapons; well, I dunno.

Oh and they have fighters in Star Trek now, they had them in the last season of DS9, and their was a PSX game based on them


Hahah---what a terrible promotion this is! Star Trek, trying to compete with Star Wars 30 years on by introducing fighters. I wonder how gay these Star Trek fighters are. Tell me, are they powered by the pilots' own feelings of self esteem?

Quote:I was reading some of the old posts, and in one ABF mentions that the Star Wars ships can only fire from a few kilometers away.

Well---no, not applicable. The Death Star was several thousand (tens of thousands?) of kilometers away from Alderaan when it went nova on her ass. As for non-Super Laser weapons; well, I dunno.

Star Wars space combat is, like most space combat of that type, based on World War II naval combat. As in, the fighters are like WWII fighters -- they only can hit things close to them. Different weapons have different ranges, but you can't use fighters to attack something dozens of kilometers (the unit they use, I think) away... yes, the superlaser can shoot really far. But other than that, it depends on what kind of accuracy you want. As in, a Star Destroyer can roll over and turn the surface of a planet into goo from the edge of space... but don't expect it to be able to hit another ship that far away! Accuracy only works in a certain range and it seems to me that in SW it's relatively close. Which is really the only way to get cool dogfights like that to work, so I'm not exactly complaining. :)


Oh yeah, as for Trek fighters, they're dumb. :D

Ryan Wrote:If you do, you should try a different angle. Last time you tried to convince me Palpatine was a deep, well-developed character simply because he was so powerful and manipulative, when my argument was that he was one-dimensional and had only the most shallow and childish motives, and never once tries to justify himself. I am right.

*sigh*

Do I have to explain to you that the saga is not finished yet every single time we bring up Star Wars? You have a serious memory problem, Ryan. I'll say this one more time: Wait until fucking Episode III!

I doubt that he'll listen any more then, sadly... we both know that it's a lot deeper like that, but unless Weltall looks at the things which would show that -- which he clearly is not going to do -- it's hopeless...

Star Wars. Easy.

-TheBiggah-

All will be explained in Episode III.

'All'? Much, sure, and probably plenty of the backstory, but I don't think that it'll do what Weltall wants... his problem, it seems, is he doesn't like how Lucas makes characters.

No seriously, his motives, some background, will be revealed. Trust me.

How do you know this?

He's been a wooden puppet for five movies running, how do you know he suddenly becomes the tragic villain?

I mean, hell, it's quite a good thing if it were true, and it would kind of fit since Vader had that happen, but with Vader, the whole freaking series basically is about Anakin the Manakin's whiny teenager-come-evil supervillain. When he turned good at the end, it wasn't a real surprise because his redemption, and Luke's role in it, was probably the major background theme of the movie.

However, after five full movies, Palpatine is still a cookie-cutter villain, who is evil for absolutely no good reason except the story needs an all-powerful bad guy. Nothing at all in the movies has even hinted at him having some sort of personal justification or meaning to his naughty ways. He simply steals candy from babies... just because.

So no, the series isn't finished yet, but we've only got one left and there's a lot of character development missing on the character who is perhaps the most pivotal and important in the entire saga, far too much to cram into one movie. Whatever backstory we get will be hardly sufficient, and it will be vastly overshadowed by Doogie Howser's angst-ridden descent into Vaderdom.

Since when does Palps have to become a tragic villain? You think it's some ingenious new concept when a villain really isn't all that evil and is actually just a tortured soul? I hate to break it to you but just because it may be a novel concept doesn't mean that it is always the best route to take, or realistic for that matter. Some men are just plain evil. Case in point: Kahn. He's a very shallow villain if you look at it that way, basically just a copycat of Hitler but with no background info whatsoever. You've seen Space Seed, right? You should know what I'm talking about. And of course in Wrath of Kahn, he's simply out for revenge. Ooooh! What depth!!

But yes, you will get lots of backstory and motive from Palpatine come Episode III. I've read bits of the script and know most of what's going to happen. He'll have more screen presence and dialogue in Episode III then in all of the other movies combined.

Khan was created in eugenics experiments. His only motive is that he was created and designed to be what he was. Also, he did have the motive of revenge.

Simple, yeah. But much more than Palpatine. Here's a news flash: Most people who are 'evil' aren't so just for the sake of it. They have motives, goals, and they usually try to justify themselves. Hitler didn't kill Jews just because it was a bad thing to do. He had his own reasons and motives. Hitler is a deeper villain than Palpatine.

Also, Star Trek has no central villain of importance like Palpatine, using a twice-occurring character is not a valid comparison. There are many Star Trek villains that are as basic and boring as Palpatine, but many of them appear only once or twice in the series, whereas Palpatine is basically the strongest impetus to the entire Star Wars universe.

Palpatine is like Ganondorf. Both want power and domination, but not for any specific reason, they are not working towards any goal. They both just want all the power in the world, basically just so they can say they do. They are poorly-developed.

Khan was created in eugenics experiments. His only motive is that he was created and designed to be what he was. Also, he did have the motive of revenge.

Simple, yeah. But much more than Palpatine. Here's a news flash: Most people who are 'evil' aren't so just for the sake of it. They have motives, goals, and they usually try to justify themselves. Hitler didn't kill Jews just because it was a bad thing to do. He had his own reasons and motives. Hitler is a deeper villain than Palpatine.

Also, Star Trek has no central villain of importance like Palpatine, using a twice-occurring character is not a valid comparison. There are many Star Trek villains that are as basic and boring as Palpatine, but many of them appear only once or twice in the series, whereas Palpatine is basically the strongest impetus to the entire Star Wars universe.

Palpatine is like Ganondorf. Both want power and domination, but not for any specific reason, they are not working towards any goal. They both just want all the power in the world, basically just so they can say they do. They are poorly-developed.

'also he did have the motive of revenge'? But Weltall haven't we described in lots of depth how Palpatine is motivated by millenia of hatred and desire for revenge that the Sith have against the Jedi? Palpatine is deeper than Khan, for sure... but I seem to have described in depth before about the Sith and you don't care. :( Yes, a major motivation of Palpatine is a hunger for power. But he's also got revenge, a legacy of hatred for the ones who defeated his kind, and a set of beliefs that lead one to taking the position that hatred and advancing ones self to more power by any means are the best things to do... okay, he's not the deepest character ever. But he's not exactly super shallow. You seem to want to ignore the whole Sith element, for starters... nto to mention whatever they will describe in episode 3.

Ganon actually HAS his motives, if you play Wind Waker you'll see... Yes though, they WERE added in hindsight, and yes, NOW he's currently evil incarnate, a being that can't exist in human form, but he's some sort of pig demon now.

Ya know, generally any humans that actually are motivated just for the sake of BEING evil just aren't clever or patient enough to actually gain a position of control over an army. That's pretty fortunate, though just getting a sniper rifle and calling yourself the specter of death as you kill random people is more than damaging enough.

Yeah, which is why Palpatine is so smart, calculating, and patient, instead of just espousing random violence. :)

... and he's beaten by his disciple and some three foot tall teddy bears. :D

Quote: In Episode 4 they go into Hyperdrive they say they are going to light speed.

Considering the Falcom could surpass Light Speed in normal space its safe to assume
Han just didn't know how Hyperdrives work.

Weltall your points are completely ridiculous as they completely ignore every point that myself and ABF have laid forth over the years. This is just getting annoying now, making us repeat ourselves over and over.

Palpatine has far greater motives for doing what he did than any Star Trek movie villain has. There's the revenge part that ABF is talking about, but that's something you'll learn more about in Episode III (among other things). But there's also the Hitler comparison, where he manipulated a people to basically hand over power to him because he seemed exactly what they needed. And when he did finally gain power he did in fact fix many of the problems with the Republic, much like Hitler did with Germany, and again like Hitler at the cost of freedom and democracy. And you get all of that information with very little screen presence across five movies, if you actually pay attention (which you apparently did not). And much, much more will be explained in Episode III.

Quote:Hitler is a deeper villain than Palpatine.

WOAH, you mean a real-life historical figure is a more complex human being with more complex motives than a fictional fairy tale villain??!! That's INSANE!!!

The first time watching Episode I I missed much of Palpatine's machinations... only watching it again did I really get it.

Yes, and the big payoff is in Episode III where he reveals his plans to a few key people and then TAKES OVER THE GALAXY! MWAHAHAHA!

And then stars killing off the Jedi...

But I think the best part is how after all that the key factor in his defeat are the Ewoks... :)

Haha, not really. If Vader hadn't killed Palps the Empire would have been just fine.

Well yeah, but Vader betraying the Emperor had been long set up and you could see that happeneing, especially when Luke was thrown into the mix. But the Ewoks? :)

Totally.

OB1 Wrote:Weltall your points are completely ridiculous as they completely ignore every point that myself and ABF have laid forth over the years. This is just getting annoying now, making us repeat ourselves over and over.

Well, you CAN just stop anytime you want!

Quote:Palpatine has far greater motives for doing what he did than any Star Trek movie villain has. There's the revenge part that ABF is talking about, but that's something you'll learn more about in Episode III (among other things).

Yes, I keep seeing that line from you, but it is meaningless to me, because regardless of whether YOU know any hidden motives, I sure as hell don't, because they don't appear in any of the movies. And revenge? It's a very, very broad and impersonal revenge, nowhere near as compelling as the very personal hatred Khan feels for Kirk, and it's silly to suggest otherwise.

Quote:But there's also the Hitler comparison, where he manipulated a people to basically hand over power to him because he seemed exactly what they needed. And when he did finally gain power he did in fact fix many of the problems with the Republic, much like Hitler did with Germany, and again like Hitler at the cost of freedom and democracy. And you get all of that information with very little screen presence across five movies, if you actually pay attention (which you apparently did not). And much, much more will be explained in Episode III.

That he rose to power in a creative way does not make him a deep villain. It's more interesting than the average "he conquered with brute force" idea, but it doesn't in any way add depth to Palpatine's character. We know his methods, what we don't know is his reasons. So far, he has none.

Quote:WOAH, you mean a real-life historical figure is a more complex human being with more complex motives than a fictional fairy tale villain??!! That's INSANE!!!

No, I said that Hitler was a more complex VILLAIN. There are many fake villains who are nowhere near as interesting, and yet there are some that have motivations far deeper and more stringent than Hitler did. Great figures in history like Ghengis Khan and Atilla the Hun were voracious conquerers, inspiring countless villains of fiction, and were terrible foes, but they had very base motives: Greed. They are interesting in their methods and in their successes, but they only conquered for the sake of conquering. What makes those men interesting is that we know details of their lives, their quirks, their mannerisms and such. With Palpatine, we know nothing of these.

Statements like that are why it doesn't surprise me you'd drown in the shallow pool here.

Quote:Well, you CAN just stop anytime you want!

Hey you started it.

Quote:Yes, I keep seeing that line from you, but it is meaningless to me, because regardless of whether YOU know any hidden motives, I sure as hell don't, because they don't appear in any of the movies. And revenge? It's a very, very broad and impersonal revenge, nowhere near as compelling as the very personal hatred Khan feels for Kirk, and it's silly to suggest otherwise.

How could you not see the decay and problems with the Old Republic in the prequels and the aftermath in the OT and not get this extremely obvious point? But don't worry beause it will be spelled out for people like you in Episode III, as well as an explanation of the whole revenge thing (hence the title).

Quote:That he rose to power in a creative way does not make him a deep villain. It's more interesting than the average "he conquered with brute force" idea, but it doesn't in any way add depth to Palpatine's character. We know his methods, what we don't know is his reasons. So far, he has none.

I've already explained them to you. If you're not willing to understand a thing either of us has to say then you should just stop trying to discuss this.

Quote:No, I said that Hitler was a more complex VILLAIN. There are many fake villains who are nowhere near as interesting, and yet there are some that have motivations far deeper and more stringent than Hitler did. Great figures in history like Ghengis Khan and Atilla the Hun were voracious conquerers, inspiring countless villains of fiction, and were terrible foes, but they had very base motives: Greed. They are interesting in their methods and in their successes, but they only conquered for the sake of conquering. What makes those men interesting is that we know details of their lives, their quirks, their mannerisms and such. With Palpatine, we know nothing of these.

Statements like that are why it doesn't surprise me you'd drown in the shallow pool here.

I expected more from you, Ryan. Now you're actually saying that there are fictional characters with "far deeper" motivations than real people like Hitler and Genghis Khan?? By all means, name some! Your pointing out the fact that these historical figures had what you consider to be simple motives for doing evil things shows just how bizarre your entire argument is. To say that Palpatine is a shallow villain and then to follow that up by saying the same thing about Hitler and Attila the Hun is almost as ridiculous as some of the things I've heard ABF say in the past. You find Hitler interesting because of what he liked to eat for breakfast and the kinds of suits he liked to wear, while I find him interesting because he was an actual living, breathing villain, the type that's hard to believe ever existed. The same thing goes for serial killers. I don't give a damn about their life story but the fact that they could actually commit such horrors is almost beyond my comprehension. If the only way you're going to be able to appreciate a villain is by knowing the details of their childhood, well then I find you strange but more power to you. I think I completely understand your opinion now and don't feel the need to continue this.

Quote:If Vader hadn't killed Palps the Empire would have been just fine.

No...Palpatine would have killed Luke sure but then he and Vader would have died when the Death Star 2 went nova.

Palps and Vader would have been able to escape from the Death Star before it blew up. Easily. Luke did!

Palps was pretty arrogant though, so like Tarkin he might have stayed on the Death Star 2 believing that the Rebellion couldn't possibly destroy it. Although, Vader wasn't nearly as arrogant as either of them so its possible he could have convinced the Emporer to leave, or kill him and leave.

Arrogant yes, stupid no. He wouldn't just let himself die out of stubborness.

I wonder if the death star is going to be in episode III? Or just a quick glimpse like that holographic model of the death star in episode II.

I'm pretty sure that Ep3 ends with Anakin becoming Darth Vader, so it's unlikely that they'll have the Death Star by then.

Actually, Episode III ends with Jimmy Smits eating pie.

...

...

...

I don't remember hearing about that...

Well it's a twist ending that no one is supposed to know about.

OB1 Wrote:How could you not see the decay and problems with the Old Republic in the prequels and the aftermath in the OT and not get this extremely obvious point? But don't worry beause it will be spelled out for people like you in Episode III, as well as an explanation of the whole revenge thing (hence the title).

I'm not saying there aren't social and economic problems in the Republic. That there are is obvious. What I am saying is that Palpatine uses this as a stepping stone to power, but shows not the slightest overt interest in actually FIXING the problem. He doesn't want to make things better, he just wants to be boss.

Quote: I've already explained them to you. If you're not willing to understand a thing either of us has to say then you should just stop trying to discuss this.

Your explanations did not satisfy me. You and ABF seem to confuse the concepts of 'all-powerful villain' with 'villain with actual character depth'. And again, I am going by what I have seen in the movies, most of which I have seen multiple times. The movies do not even begin to explain any possible motives.

Quote:I expected more from you, Ryan. Now you're actually saying that there are fictional characters with "far deeper" motivations than real people like Hitler and Genghis Khan?? By all means, name some! Your pointing out the fact that these historical figures had what you consider to be simple motives for doing evil things shows just how bizarre your entire argument is. To say that Palpatine is a shallow villain and then to follow that up by saying the same thing about Hitler and Attila the Hun is almost as ridiculous as some of the things I've heard ABF say in the past. You find Hitler interesting because of what he liked to eat for breakfast and the kinds of suits he liked to wear, while I find him interesting because he was an actual living, breathing villain, the type that's hard to believe ever existed. The same thing goes for serial killers. I don't give a damn about their life story but the fact that they could actually commit such horrors is almost beyond my comprehension. If the only way you're going to be able to appreciate a villain is by knowing the details of their childhood, well then I find you strange but more power to you. I think I completely understand your opinion now and don't feel the need to continue this.

Boy, you are so totally misunderstanding, it makes me want to cry.

I look at historical villains through the same eyes as I do a fictional villain. After all, the only thing that seperates them is that one was real and one was not, but both are known to me only by stories I hear or read. Now, obviously, when you get down to minute details, a real person is going to be infinitely deeper than a fictional villain, but not necessarily in the factors relating to what actually MAKES them do wrong. What Hitler had for breakfast has nothing to do with why he was so evil. However, his childhood experiences, as a student, his time in the German army, and after in the Freikorps, all DID have a tremendous impact, and shaped him into the monster he was.

A fictional character doesn't have to have a past and motives as complex and detailed as Hitler to be an effective and believable villain. There are few fictional characters out there who are that complex. But they don't HAVE to be. Since they are part of a story, all that really matters is why they are, and what made them that way. What drives them to be this way. What are they looking to gain and to accomplish? These things can be quite simple and still produce a memorable character.

But Palpatine doesn't have any of that, except for the most ridiculously simple motive: Desire for total power. That's what makes him a crappy and shallow character, when characters like Darth Vader are much more believable and empathetic.

Hell, I could give Palpatine a backstory and motives in about ten minutes that would totally transform him into a character you could hate but still feel sorry for, or at least understand. It's not so hard. It's just that George Lucas got lazy with this very important catalyst, and it drives me crazy.

If our explanations of Palpatine's history and motivations can't show you that there is a lot more to him than just a man with a pure power grab you have not paid any attention to anything we have said and have not watched TPM or AotC while looking for anything about Palpatine, because we've made it pretty blindingly obvious that he has a lot more going on than something as simple as that. It's pretty pititful that given all this you still can't see that he has a lot going on... pitiful in the 'willful ignorance' way. Like OB1 in arguements you clearly have no intrest in the facts of the situation.

As I've said a million times, to understand Palpatine you have to undestand the Sith. You, despite repeat explanations, still show zero comprehension of them. So go watch the movies again, learn about the Sith, and understand why Palpatine is really doing what he's doing... it's not just for power! Sure that's great too and the Sith encourage it, but that's hardly it.

All that Palpatine as a character is missing is a story that explains how he first became a Sith. And honestly this does not necessarially have to be some super deep thing... at some point he learned he was force-sensitive but became dissafected with the Jedi society or what he knew about them or something happened and he was pushed towards evil. Then at some point the Sith lord learned about him and began grooming him as his successor and the rest is history...

Quote:I'm not saying there aren't social and economic problems in the Republic. That there are is obvious. What I am saying is that Palpatine uses this as a stepping stone to power, but shows not the slightest overt interest in actually FIXING the problem. He doesn't want to make things better, he just wants to be boss.

Quote:Your explanations did not satisfy me. You and ABF seem to confuse the concepts of 'all-powerful villain' with 'villain with actual character depth'. And again, I am going by what I have seen in the movies, most of which I have seen multiple times. The movies do not even begin to explain any possible motives.

You are missing a very large piece of the puzzle. In Episodes I and II you see how Palpatine gains power, and then fast forward several decades to Episodes IV, V, and VI and you see what happened long after that. You're complaining about not getting a few key facts when the third and most important chapter (in Palpatine's story) has not been released yet. But even still, there is enough evidence in the five existing movies to understand a lot.

Quote:Boy, you are so totally misunderstanding, it makes me want to cry.

I look at historical villains through the same eyes as I do a fictional villain. After all, the only thing that seperates them is that one was real and one was not, but both are known to me only by stories I hear or read. Now, obviously, when you get down to minute details, a real person is going to be infinitely deeper than a fictional villain, but not necessarily in the factors relating to what actually MAKES them do wrong. What Hitler had for breakfast has nothing to do with why he was so evil. However, his childhood experiences, as a student, his time in the German army, and after in the Freikorps, all DID have a tremendous impact, and shaped him into the monster he was.

A fictional character doesn't have to have a past and motives as complex and detailed as Hitler to be an effective and believable villain. There are few fictional characters out there who are that complex. But they don't HAVE to be. Since they are part of a story, all that really matters is why they are, and what made them that way. What drives them to be this way. What are they looking to gain and to accomplish? These things can be quite simple and still produce a memorable character.

But Palpatine doesn't have any of that, except for the most ridiculously simple motive: Desire for total power. That's what makes him a crappy and shallow character, when characters like Darth Vader are much more believable and empathetic.

So you're saying that you need to know the life story of a villain in order for him to be interesting and effective? Unless you are a criminal psychologist that is completely unnecessary to know. Hitler's life and circumstances are not solely responsible for the person he became. Plenty of people go through rough times and have had far more difficult lives than Hitler, yet they did not become evil dictators. We will never know why Hitler became so evil because that is not something he would ever talk about. There's a difference between the reasoning and justification for his actions and the actual truth as to why he was such an evil human being. Those are two very different things yet so many people think they're the same. Some people are just devoid of good, and you will not find out why that is by looking at their childhood. No matter how tough someone's life is they still have the choice to do good or bad.

Quote:Hell, I could give Palpatine a backstory and motives in about ten minutes that would totally transform him into a character you could hate but still feel sorry for, or at least understand. It's not so hard. It's just that George Lucas got lazy with this very important catalyst, and it drives me crazy.

Yeah totally, it's not like he's even going to make another movie explaining all of this.

You're worse than ABF!

Man... Star Wars fans are the biggest assholes in the universe.

I gotta hand it to you, that was a pretty good comeback.

Well plaayed, Clerks.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:Ah this debate... It's always hilarious to hear them debate who has the better technology. To be honest, not that I'm a fan of Trek or anything, but they do seem to outclass the SW universe in pretty much every technical field. Of course, as far as warriors, I do believe the Jedi could easy take on any Klingon, well, except maybe that one Klingon my trekkie friend goes on about that supposedly forged one of those weird Klingon blade weapon thingies by dipping his very hair into some volcano. But, he's a hero unit from some long agon era of might and magic, so he doesn't count, or does he?

Anyway, back when "The Force" was magic, I do believe a Jedi could actually destroy a Q, beings so intuned with the laws of physics they could easily control them, but would be damaged by something that actually breaks the laws of physics, magic, but now that ol' George is giving a scientific explanation of the force, and slowly removing it's magical nature, I think they could be snapped out of existance like any other non-magical being.

Oh well, in the end, Samus could take 'em all on. The Fett family greatest bounty hunter? Pah, they both died pathetic anti-climactic deaths, using such inferior weapons as a "laser gun" and a true flamethrower, and a jet pack. Samus however has space jumping, a plasma based "flamethrower", armor that can easily stand a blow by the strongest beam or material based weapons, a cool energy arm cannon, and a morphing ball. All created with technology so advanced that it looks magical even to the era she's from. Of course, like the Xel'Naga, the poor Chozo ended up being destroyed for all their advancements, by one of their very creations ("wisely" made by them to counter the Metroid world's version of the Zerg before it could gain too much genetic advancements, like genetically cloning and improoving upon the ultimate warrior).

I never noticed this post before. The force is still magical, contrary to popular belief the whole midichlorians thing merely explained the means by which the force was able to physically manifest itself in living beings.

Quote:I never noticed this post before. The force is still magical, contrary to popular belief the whole midichlorians thing merely explained the means by which the force was able to physically manifest itself in living beings.

Midichlorions are magical symbiotes who give Jedis their powers, then? Fine with me, more explanation for why the Force exists in some and not others is a good thing, IMO...

Quote:Man... Star Wars fans are the biggest assholes in the universe.

You just can't bring yourself to admit how wrong you are, so you give up. Okay... :)

A Black Falcon Wrote:You just can't bring yourself to admit how wrong you are, so you give up. Okay... :)

I'm hardly wrong. Palpatine is a villain that is about as complex as Marvin the Martian. I've explained many times why this is, and its your blind love for Star Wars that makes you unable to accept facts.

However, the line I used is a joke, and OB1 understands it.

I meant that you didn't respond to the last few posts... and you didn't... though it wouldn't matter much. You have consistently displayed your ignorance about Star Wars and Palpatine and your utter lack of interest in understanding Palpatine, so it really wouldn't do any good to one again show how you are unwilling to actually think and not just repeat the same thing over and over despite proof positive that you are wrong... I know that that's OB1's favorite arguing tactic, but do other people here have to use it too?

Honestly ABF, I liked just thinking the force didn't exist in some people because it was THEIR FAULT they didn't look into it. You know, personal accountance :D.