TremblingBluStar said:
Yes you did. You said it in your post right here:
Yet the Sith ruled the galaxy in those films. Thus it appeared in the OT. So if two Sith ruling the galaxy is stupid, then the OT is stupid, and the PT merely consistent with the stupidity of the OT. Oh, the pain...
No, that says something completely different. Where in the above is there anything about "the moronic rule that there can only be two Sith is a flaw of both series because it was introduced in the prequels and the prequels take place chronologically first"? First of all, you're changing the subject to the rule itself as opposed to your "two Sith can't rule the galaxy" objection to it, which was the subject I was talking about. Where did I say anything about "the prequels take place chronologically first"? Where did I say the issue was a flaw of both series "because it was introduced in the prequels" ( which makes no sense )? I didn't In fact, I specifically said the exact opposite - that it was a flaw of both series because it first appeared in the OT. So you're just replacing my actual position with a nonsensical rewrite that has nothing to do with it.
TremblingBluStar said:
While I applaud your ability to say something absurd and then turn around and deny saying it in the very next paragraph
Except, in reality, I did no such thing. You discarded my actual statement, presumably because it was more difficult to question than the "absurd" and "moronic" one which you replaced it with. This accomplishes nothing, other than in continuing to highlight your determination to shamelessly misrepresent my positions.
Ghrakh said:
The pain of trying to figure out if you actually watched the OT.
Don't worry, you'll figure it out eventually.
Ghrakh said:
Who were they, if not part of the Sith? (And please don't reference the EU or wookiepedia or any of that, what matters is what's shown or implied in the movies.)
It's not "shown or implied in the movies" that those people were Sith ( a term not used in the OT films ). You're using a perverse form of circular logic here. It's only
your speculative and ultimately baseless assumption that they must be Sith, an assumption which happens to be debunked in the EU.
Ghrakh said:
Vader in SW was in command of a single mission: to retrieve the DS plans. Tarkin was in charge of the military, and all the DS's operations and strategy. The Emperor was portrayed more as a distant political figure. Vader was just the top SS guy as it were.
In TESB, Vader was in command of a command ship with a fleet of SDs to hunt down the rebels, and also to get Luke. I seriously can't believe that a single fleet of SDs is enough to "rule the galaxy".
In ROTJ, same thing. Remember Han's line "There are a lot of command ships". Vader wasn't on all of them was he? No, again he was a part of a larger story.
That is completely immaterial to the allegation that two Sith would not be enough to rule the galaxy, which the OT disproves. The Emperor is the ruler of the Empire, and as such it is evident that
one Sith is enough to rule the galaxy ( the second Sith being about continuation of the order ). There were no other darksiders depicted in the OT, and no indication whatsoever that any more would be required.
