XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.movies.past-films   
   From: nospam@yahoo.com   
      
   Merrick Baldelli wrote:   
   > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:15:18 +0800, "C'Pi"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Merrick Baldelli wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 23:33:15 +0800, "C'Pi"  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Merrick Baldelli wrote:   
   >>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 09:02:40 +1200, Anybody   
   >>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> [snippage]   
   >>>>>> Plapatine is winning and confident, suddenly he's "losing" and   
   >>>>>> "weak", Anakin arrives, suddenly he's again strong and wins.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So the whole scarring that he suffered from his own Jedi   
   >>>>> Lightning Bolts was...  Calculated?  Ummm, sorry -- not buying   
   >>>>> because if it wasn't dangerous, he wouldn't continue to look like   
   >>>>> a misshappened toad 20 years later.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Or that was his real appearance all along.  He didn't seem to be   
   >>>> affected by the change.  He didn't scream, "Ohh, you cursed, Mace!   
   >>>> Look what you've done!  I'm melting! Melting!  What a world, what a   
   >>>> world!"   
   >>>   
   >>> All right, I'll pick up my hat now..  It's becoming a farce,   
   >>> and I'm amused (and somewhat frustrated) by it.   
   >>   
   >> I didn't make it up.  Just because it's the first time you heard   
   >> about it doesn't make it a farce.   
   >   
   > It's actually not the first time I've heard that conjecture. I   
   > have in fact heard it several times since the Phantom Edit had been   
   > created.  I still think it a farce...  And I'll explain why below.   
   >   
   >> Just means you are unimaginative or ill informed.   
   >   
   > Think what you want.  I'll continue to comment as I see fit.   
      
   I wouldn't have it any other way.   
      
   >> Even the novelization hints at the possibility.  And that's all I'm   
   >> saying, that there is that possibility.  It's what I thought   
   >> happened when I first saw the movie.   
   >   
   > You already have my opinion readily available here on this   
   > thread on the novelization.   
      
   Regarldless of how it got in the novelization it is there.  You may think   
   it's a "farce" but others don't.  Most notibly the author of the   
   novelization didn't.  I choose to take his opinion over yours.   
      
   >> Is that alright with you?  Am I allowed to express my   
   >> opinion on what I think may have happened, or do I have to conform   
   >> to your views or just not say anything at all?   
   >   
   > If you're going to get up on a cross, be prepared when folk   
   > like me instead of hand-patting you and giving you soothing platitudes   
   > decide to douse you and the cross with gasoline; so that when one   
   > throws a match, you go up like a funeral pyre.   
   >   
   > For the record, I civilly backed out of this debate given you   
   > the win, when I said I was picking up my hat.  I could've added some   
   > really good ad hominems if I felt like being uncivil about it.  As you   
   > seem to be trying to throw when you used the words unimaginative or   
   > ill-informed in my direction.   
      
   If you weren't the guy that proclaimed I was a homophobic child being   
   attacked by gay jihadist in his mother's basement I might have taken even a   
   small part of what you said above seriously.  But since you were that guy, I   
   won't.   
      
   >>>> Maybe he thought it was a good time to drop the dapper gay   
   >>>> politician look.   
   >>>   
   >>> Excuse me, what is it with you kids and thinking that   
   >>> well-manicured = gay.  Am I going to have to naturally assume that   
   >>> you kids all live in your parents basements?  No, I don't think so.   
   >>> Move along now...  And in the future hink carefully on this whole   
   >>> "gay look" think before throwing it out there and wonder why all of   
   >>> a sudden you're looking at a jihad that you could've sworn you   
   >>> didn't start.   
   >>   
   >> Wow, you certainly got some issues you need to work out.   
   >   
   > Wow...  you think those issues?  You have *no* idea do you...   
   > I'm going to safely wager you're a young 20's if that.  Allow me then   
   > to educate you as a 40-something that's seen that word used entirely   
   > too much.   
   >   
   > Swap out the word Gay for Nigger, Spic, Gook, Towel-head or   
   > some other colorful racial slurs that you can possibly think of and   
   > see how that sentence reads when you insert those words.  The use of   
   > the word GAY there is connoting a snide and derogatory meaning, one   
   > that I don't appreciate...   
   > Gay isn't the N-word of the 21st century, and having been   
   > fighting for LGBT rights longer than you've most probably been alive,   
   > I would appreciate it if semi-educated to uneducated folk such as   
   > yourself who think it's no big deal realize that the use of the word   
   > "gay" as you're using here carries all the same burdens and social   
   > misconceptions as using the N-word 50 years ago.   
      
   Again, sounds like it's all your baggage and not mine.  Something you have   
   to work to work out, not me.   
      
   >>>> Maybe his face was the result of years a messing around with the   
   >>>> dark side and had always hid it.   
   >>>   
   >>> It's certainly a thought...   
   >>   
   >> Well, thank you.  At least it's not a farce anymore.   
   >   
   > Still a farce though, one that I had only entertained with   
   > only moderate seriousness for 10 seconds.  Again, see below.   
   >   
   >>> But I don't buy that either given   
   >>> that Dooku's been at it for years as well, and he was just..  Well,   
   >>> old.   
   >>   
   >> Lot's of possibilities.  One is that Palpatine went especially deep   
   >> into the Dark Side, far deeper than Dooku.  And another possibility   
   >> is that Dooku also hid any physical signs that he was also delving   
   >> into the Dark Side, since he was also hiding his identity from those   
   >> around him.   
   >   
   > It's far too two-dimensional, sophomoric and Greek for my   
   > taste.   
      
   In a Star Wars movie?!?!?!  No, way!!   
      
   > Why must the delving into the Dark Arts always connote that an   
   > individual being physically misshapened from those studies?  Why must   
   > those of "evil" nature have to use illusions, phantasms and glamours   
   > in order to hide their true hideous nature?   
      
   Because that's what Palapatine and Duuko did throughout the PT.  Even if he   
   wasn't scarred before his encounter with Mace, that doesn't change the fact   
   that Palpatine did hide his true hideous nature. It's an integral part of   
   the story that you can't brush aside just because you don't happen to like   
   the idea.   
      
   > We are supposed to be more enlightened, therefore good and   
   > evil can come in packages that aren't readily identified by their   
   > coverings (or thereby the removal of those illusions and glamours) and   
   > should be discerned by their actions more than their appearance.   
      
   Who thinks Palpatine is evil because of how he looks and not by his actions?   
   You say "we", but then you're the only one doing the mental gymnastics   
   necessary to dismiss Palpatine's actions and proclaim Lucas meant for his   
   evil to be made evident by the way he looks and not by what he had done.   
      
   > If this is indeed Lucas' intent to use such an old-style (and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)