You call this mess, this assortment of sarcastic questions and false sentences whilst not truly saying anything, a post? I thought there was an unspoken rule on the forums that posts must be constructive, i.e. worthwhile posting, not just to have something written back when one is called on out on all their bull crap (of which George Lucas does not understand democracy a single example of many). You see, responding would be appropriate if I was dealing with a valid and/or insightful argument. Dismantling though, is the appropriate response when facts are made up (that George Lucas doesn't understand democracy), subjective loosely-arrived-at conclusions are made(Jedi offer paths to goodness in the OT), and then used as a basis for even more erroneous conclusions(Everything else in your first post and this one). Don't complain about it; I've just rolled with what you've given. I'm sorry to hear that you find raking the PT over the coals a strange "concept" (it's not what a concept) when you have frequently indulge in it. At least now your post has a semblance to coherence after I've trimmed down all those petulant, irrelevant, and rhetorical questions. Don't clog up your post, only one kenobi; you write obscurely enough as it is. I haven't misunderstood anything; I read each parts of your post and subsequently, as I've stated before, dismantle them. You "suggest" that I am I implying? You cannot suggest another person to imply, only one kenobi. The sentence doesn't make sense. Your last line, regardless of your intentions, is not apparent within your post. Formulating your own incorrect, inaccurate condemnation of the PT and the OT and then noting the "alterations" in perception between the two does not arrive at a correct conclusion. So you're saying that the present, paltry amount of concision is "as [much as you] can put together? Informative, yet ultimately unsurprising and irrelevant. I stated that concision is a backdrop to sound reasoning yet you quip on the lesser of the two. Well, as the "great shining sir of knowledge," my first advice to you would be to remove all this sardonic, obstructive, clutter from your posts. It's the very opposite of concision. Can you read my post? I raised the question of your diction, i.e "reasonable," very clearly. Yet you continue to miss the clear-cut and instead rattle off more petulant and rhetorical questions. Yet you have been incapable of expressing anything correctly or reasonably. Hard time understanding, huh? Let me explain once again. The PT is the story of the fall of the Republic and of how Anakin became Darth Vader. That's it. It is not mean to "inform one about the OT." "Meant" indicates purpose and the purpose of the PT is not to inform one about the OT. Repeat after me. The PT is meant to be the PT. It's purpose is to tell its own story. It's purpose is not to be an information booklet on the OT despite the greater understanding that it might bring to the entire SW universe. Now continue repeating that, only one kenobi, until you can grasp that simple fact. There is no hyphen between non and sequitur: the phrase is pure Latin. And everything else in you paragraph is similarly wrong. Breaking down a sentence is not a "false premise." What you believe happens is not an argument. It is an opinion. Know the difference. If your view of the OT changes due to things outside of explicit contradictions, i.e personal perception, then it is an opinion. And yet you still have not showed any examples of elaboration. You've seemingly missed my entire post. Read it again to learn that you cannot simple state a Jedi to have a "path," which you have done so, when it is incorrect. But you haven't shown it ... at all. So now you resort to lying. Don't insert things which I haven't said. But you haven't explained either of those things in your initial post. Regardless, they are both wrong for reasons I stated in my last post. Read what I said. No, it doesn't. The removal of Valorum does not equate into "the ousting of a benign despot." You cannot just state someone to be a "benign despot" without any proof pointing towards it. Once again, you're making unfounded conclusions and then spouting off a a bunch of more unsupported statements on top of it. No, because one has to agree that there is a subtle difference before one can miss it. Hence, why you cannot base things off of your subjectivity. If one does not see a subtle difference then nothing is lost. You don't have anything to offer, basic or otherwise, seen in my breakdown of your initial post and now here in your post filled with unnecessary question, verbage, and other clutter. More fake shock and bravado at being called out for the fake exclamations. It still stings, doesn't it? Keep spouting lies: it doesn't change the fact that George Lucas knows what democracy is and the politics of his own story. You do not. More tangents. Well then, "let me put this as simply as I can": you are not in a position to lecture on George Lucas' understanding of democracy and your reasoning for all your statements is non-existent. Why would you watch the second bonus disc if you dislike the PT so much? So rather than move on, content with your dislike, you further incite it by willingly watching bonus material of content that you fundamentally dislike. So lack of reasoning doesn't just apply to your rhetoric, huh? And no you did not reference them in your post. The emboldened part remains my line to your entire post. Your whole post here, which I had to filter of all the fake, sarcastic questions you posited still lacks anything of substance. Now you're playing mind-reader that I view the OT through the lens of the PT? Wrong and irrelevant. You cannot say there is no such truth to be argued when you are incapable of making a valid argument with even traces of correctness in them as I pointed out in my last, and gave examples of, in my last post. And yet you have watched the bonus disc even though it's not for you... Furthermore, you can't profess to different conceptions or ideas when you're woefully confused regarding either of them. All in all, only one kenobi, you have shown that you are incapable of forming an actual response to my post. Your last reply was nothing but a combination of sarcastic questions, things not previously stated in your initial post, even more far-fetched, incorrect conclusions, and so forth. Basically, all that is antithetical to the word "argument." Feel free to keep 'em coming though: I'll keep on calling you out on everyone of the aforementioned things. @Darth_Nub: I thought being overly sarcastic, i.e. endlessly asking rhetorical questions one clearly knows the answer to or is simply irrelevant, was disallowed.