Again, read Publius. He demolished this argument almost two weeks ago.Darth Fanboy wrote:So the Jedi did not have the type of authority where they could go and arrest PAlpatine. Fine, that doesn't change the fact that from the beginning I think Mace Windu fucked up and it doesn't change the fact that evidence for Palpatine being a Sith Lord existed.
For the sake of brevity, I'm going to paraphrase us:What point? All you've done is alternate between "Jedi have no evidence" and "you're missing the point" without explaining a damn thing.
Darth Fanboy: Don't you think Palpatine being outed as the guy who committed treason would be proof of his crimes?
TC Pilot: Uh...yeah, duh. Except he wasn't outed. It's like saying Palpatine and Yoda fighting with the Senate still in session would be proof too.
Darth Fanboy: That's actually not evidence, since it happened after Mace tried to arrest Palpatine!
TC Pilot: I think you missed the point...
Darth Fanboy: No I didn't! Strawman!
Seriously, just go back and read.
I'm operating under the presumption that proof and evidence are not simpy interchangable synonyms, in that one would need enough evidence for proof that he was guilty.Here you are saying That you didn't say the Jedi had no evidence, and now you're saying the "visible majority of your post is about the Jedi having no proof".
Clear now?