ST how different do you think a Lucas ST would've been?

I don’t think you did understand the example... like at all... The ‘poor form’ is you resorting to personal insults. If you do believe that the ST was hugely flawed by making it ‘all about the blood’, then strap on a pair and call it out, rather than painting yourself into a corner and trying to deflect each and every criticism of the ST like your very life depended on it.

 

Oh no my friend, you aren't going to turn this around on me, and force me to declare a position on something that I never had any interest in commenting about in the first place. My post was specific, about the depiction of a theme element in two earlier sets of movies, and a direct comparison of those. I had nothing whatsoever to say about it in the Sequel Trilogy. Nothing. I may have made criticism of it at some point in the future, I may have expressed approval of it. But at the time, I was making a comparison very specifically about A and B, no particular interest at that time about C.

The longer this goes on, and the longer you avoid saying "Yup, my bad. I shouldn't have made the presumption" then the more the description I made of your approach looks accurate.

 

Fella... you got yourself into an uncomfortable debate only yesterday re. Leia meaning ‘yes’ when she said ‘no’ (TESB)... and I’m not even sure that you believed what you were trying to argue... but you painted yourself into that particular corner simply because you were trying to defend the ST. And where did that get you? You literally have multiple arguments with multiple posters going on concurrently, just because you have some inbuilt need to defend the ST regardless. So I stand by what I originally stated I.e that the ST is predicated on the notion that ‘it’s all about the blood’.

 

Absolutely nothing to do with this. And nothing to do with the Sequel Trilogy either.

You can stand by that predication until your heart is content, but what I would ask that you didn't do please is presume my tacit approval of it simply because I have not, according to you, "called it out when I had plenty of opportunity" nor made any commentary on it at all.

Thanks so much.

 

Nice try, but it was about the sequel trilogy. It was originally in the ST thread, and was about whether Leia and Han should have been together in the ST... and as per usual it was derailed by the constant deflection of the criticisms.

It has nothing to do with your ‘tacit approval’... it’s more about the deafening silence...

 

Nice try yourself. I didn't introduce that particular topic into the Sequel Trilogy thread. I was happy to talk specifically about the scene in question though and ultimately moved over to the thread that it was migrated to. I couldn't care less about how it related to the Sequel Trilogy, it just appeared there.

I haven't called out or spoken here yet on the topics of anti-vaxxers, the moon-landing hoax, Donald Trump or the fact that chocolate bars are continually getting smaller. What deafening silence inference do you want to draw from that? It's a ******* ridiculous premise. If I make a comment on something, then feel free to respond. If I don't, then the status quo is that you have absolutely no idea what my thoughts are on it.

 

You ran with that argument as others were trying to debate why Han and Leia should have been together in the ST. That was the topic... and (IMO) you took the opportunity to deflect the criticism by latching onto a conversation which, at best, was misjudged.

We’re talking Star Wars... not Donald Trump or moon landings. And as soon as I see you peddling anti-vaxxer nonsense, I’ll of course call that out too.

 

Okay guys...calm down. Please.

 

It was a valid topic of conversation, just in the wrong thread. I moved with it.

That's a relief, at least you would be waiting until I actually made some sort of comment on it. We're getting somewhere now.

 

It was a valid thread within an ST forum. You derailed it...

Like I say, silence speaks volumes. The ST had every opportunity to move away from the notion that everything was about the ‘force power’ inherent in the blood, but the sequels doubled down on that idea. Not wanting to discuss the issues with the ST, doesn’t make them go away.

 

Lobot. You sound upset that someone is ignoring your words, or lack thereof. and assuming how you really feel about something, even though you haven’t verbally expressed your support of it.

I understand how that would make someone mad.

Reminds me of a certain discussion. Hmmm.

 

Yah, me and everybody else who joined in, including at least one moderator, who kindly moved it. Take your complaint there.

By its very nature, silence speaks nothing. If I wanted to make a contribution about this element within the sequels, I would have. Not that I have to with you apparently able to speak for me.

Just think on in future, if I haven’t contributed or commented on a specific detail, don’t presume to state my position on it. Just ask and I will clarify it for you.

Let that be the end of it.

 

Leia never actually tells Han "no" when he's making his move on her.

 

It was you who derailed the thread. And it was you who were being told to desist with the notion that ‘no’ means ‘yes’.

I was pointing out the entirely selective nature of your defence of the ST... that you call it out in one and not the other is exactly the point being made... especially as you take pretty much every opportunity to contest criticisms of the ST. This has been pointed out by other posters too. That you don’t like it being pointed out to you is to be expected, but please don’t resort to personal insults.

 

I don’t care, it has nothing to do with this.

First, it wasn’t a personal insult, it was an accurate observation of your ongoing attitude to this. And that is because if I have never made any comment on a particular issue, you cannot presume to know my thoughts on it. I was not being selective, it just did not figure as part of the comparison I wanted to make, simple as that.

If I am making a direct comparison between A and B to another poster and have never even once mentioned C, then your pointing to my “not calling it out” as some kind of discovery of a discrepancy in my comparison is presumptuous, ill-mannered and bad form.

Either ask what my position is on it or wait until I declare before you rush to point out any double-standard that you think you have spotted. That is generally the done thing to do. I am somewhat aghast that this basic courtesy eludes you and that you persist on making this out to be an issue that I have.

 

It has everything to do with this as you turn everything into an argument in an effort to derail threads

it was an insult and you admitted it in a previous post... I asked why you were resorting to personal insults and you stated “Because you deserve it’... You can’t even be consistent in your responses to me now...

As with pretty much everything you argue, you’re putting all your efforts into deflecting the point. I specifically said in one of my original posts, that you were discounting the notion of the importance of blood (read midichorians) in one, and ignoring it the other. I was not being ‘presumptuous’. I was accurately reflecting your inexplicable need to defend (and thus have multiple arguments with multiple posters) the ST at the expense of a consistent approach to how you respond.

 

Don't talk nonsense.

You deserved the comment about your attitude for certain, whether you took it as a personal insult is up to you.

This is beyond the stupidity of anything I have read here so far. How can I be discounting or ignoring a point of importance if it is not even part of the comparison I wanted to make? You threw that into the mix and then highlighted it as some kind of double-standard. It was not even on my radar for the point I wanted to make to the other poster, and I have never made any comment on it previously. Thus my stance on it was not even known to you. For the love of God, let that sink in.

I'm done here, this has gone on long enough. I am going to have to put you on ignore before I say something I regret.

 

You seem to think you have the right to hurl insults about, yet see yourself above it all. Which is why other posters have called you out for it. I tried to do it in a ‘friendly’ way, but you’ve seemingly descended into this combative position with pretty much everyone you’re debating. A shame really.

I took it as a personal insult as clearly that is how you intended it. Why pretend otherwise?

Not really. I believed you were being inconsistent in your approach. But continue to hurl personal insults if it helps.

Of course it wasn’t ‘on your radar’... which I was I called it out.

 

This is where your definition of a personal insult differs from mine. I am referring to the content of your contribution, not you.

And presumed that it was some form of double-standard, even though I have never made any commentary on it either way, and thus never declared what my thoughts were on it. Why didn't you think to ask me what my thoughts were on it instead of concluding thus from my complete lack on commentary either way? Wouldn't be down to some hauteur presumptuousness would it?

 

@Darth PJ

 

Maybe the people who like the ST can make positive comments on it without constant haranguing.. and those that really don't like it can make negative comments without too much defence and that don't result in endless back and forth like above. maybe we should have a gushing and trashing threads? i personality don't have the energy for endless back and forth lol

 

Kylo would have lost a hand at some point, and the trilogy would have been all the better for it.

 

There was concept art of the Jedi Hunter looking somewhat cyborg, with gas mask, etc. At some point they ditched that and went with ... beauty scar.