Was Palpatine a great mastermind?

[Faqa]

Okay, I guess I should adopt some roundabout interpretation of his dialogue rather than taking it at face value because it directly contradicts your preconceptions. Its not as if that violates parsimony for no reason or anything.

Obviously, I was not clear enough earlier, when I said that the whole incident doesn't fit Palpatine's MO. Your theory has two very serious logical flaws:

1 - Why did Palpatine hinge everything on Anakin interfering just in time? He must know by this point that all his plans are fallible(Hell, see TPM). He can think fast, I'm sure, comeback from setbacks. But not from a lightsaber through the chest. Given that he was prepared for failure twenty years later at ROTJ, I hardly think he would risk his master plan of centuries on a conflicted Anakin being faster than a focused Mace Windu(and coming in JUST in time).

2 - Why kill the other three Jedi? Remember, Palpatine was playing the "I'm a helpless old man, Anakin! Help me!" card here. And he set this scene up to have Anakin IGNORE the corpses of three of the Order's finest? I don't think so.

I proposed an alternate theory(that the fight was a result of a misjudgement on Palpatine's part), BECAUSE of those flaws.

He clearly accounted for that. Not to mention he collected his lightsaber, entombed for decades, before they arrived. He even tells them in the ROTS novelization that he had been waiting to confront the Jedi Masters for a long time. Of course I doubt he planned to lose before Anakin even got there and nearly get killed, but he rolled with it and paid off, even though the margins were probably very narrow

So he planned on a fight, the result of which was unknown, to determine the fate of his master plan? This is supposed to prove Palpatine's intelligence how, again?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Okay, I guess I should adopt some roundabout interpretation of his dialogue rather than taking it at face value because it directly contradicts your preconceptions. Its not as if that violates parsimony for no reason or anything.

Obviously, I was not clear enough earlier, when I said that the whole incident doesn't fit Palpatine's MO. Your theory has two very serious logical flaws:

1 - Why did Palpatine hinge everything on Anakin interfering just in time? He must know by this point that all his plans are fallible(Hell, see TPM). He can think fast, I'm sure, comeback from setbacks. But not from a lightsaber through the chest. Given that he was prepared for failure twenty years later at ROTJ, I hardly think he would risk his master plan of centuries on a conflicted Anakin being faster than a focused Mace Windu(and coming in JUST in time).

2 - Why kill the other three Jedi? Remember, Palpatine was playing the "I'm a helpless old man, Anakin! Help me!" card here. And he set this scene up to have Anakin IGNORE the corpses of three of the Order's finest? I don't think so.

I proposed an alternate theory(that the fight was a result of a misjudgement on Palpatine's part), BECAUSE of those flaws.

He clearly accounted for that. Not to mention he collected his lightsaber, entombed for decades, before they arrived. He even tells them in the ROTS novelization that he had been waiting to confront the Jedi Masters for a long time. Of course I doubt he planned to lose before Anakin even got there and nearly get killed, but he rolled with it and paid off, even though the margins were probably very narrow

So he planned on a fight, the result of which was unknown, to determine the fate of his master plan? This is supposed to prove Palpatine's intelligence how, again?

Translation: I do not find the basic, face-value interpretation of the evidence personally compelling, therefore it is wrong and you should bend the evidence to suit my preferences.

He said he was waiting for Windu, Anakin obviously was going to and did say he was informing the Jedi Council, and the novelisation says he looked forward to confronting the Council and that everything (Palpatine's "shatterpoint") hinged on his trust in Anakin Skywalker. The evidence is unequivocal. I want evidence-based responses, not say-so.

I am not here to prove Palpatine is always brilliant and shrewd. Typically he is, and he is a mastermind, but the entire point of my post is largely to show that this bullshit that he somehow changed from the PT to the OT or DE is crap. He always had intricate mastermind plans that where he put everything on the line using himself as bait since the beginning. Is it a character flaw? A fatal weakness? Certainly. Can he not be a mastermind at other times? Of course he can.

[Alexian Cale]

Yes, he managed all that —or rather happened to be the right man in the right time to topple a system already rotting from within after decades or even centuries of quiet decay. But those are merely means to an end, presumably, so the question really becomes, "did Palpatine achieve his ultimate ends or did he at some point lose sight of them?". On that hinges the answer to whether or not he was the brilliant mastermind or merely a cunning schemer who, in the end, was a failure.

While none of us here have ever conquered a galaxy (and therefore could not testify as to fact), it does seem rather farfetched that the "right man in the right time" could topple a twenty-five-thousand-year-old government and replace it with the most powerful military regime in history, rule the galaxy for two decades, and then return from beyond the grave to conquer it for a second time unless he was a rather gifted thinker and strategist.

With all due respect, your line of thought perplexes me, as it defies all canon precedent. Not one single text makes Palpatine out to be a mere glorified megalomaniac who "got lucky" or whatnot; unless one takes into account the perceptions that Palpatine himself knowingly fabricated to mask his ambition. Furthermore, both the Dark Side Sourcebook and the Return of the Jedi novelization both confirm that Palpatine is "a diabolical genius" -- Palpatine's "brilliance" is unquestionable.

And as Publius has testified to on numerous occasions, Palpatine himself was largely responsible for the circumstances in which he found himself in. It's not as though he groped around and pulled out the one card that sent the whole house tumbling down. He meticulously plotted and engineered an entire war to bring the Republic to its knees.

In conclusion, if you truly find yourself asking that question, I respectfully suggest that you haven't watched any of the movies, let alone read the literature in which he is featured.

[Faqa]

Translation: I do not find the basic, face-value interpretation of the evidence personally compelling, therefore it is wrong and you should bend the evidence to suit my preferences.

I found logical flaws in the basic, face-value interpretation of the evidence. Ergo, an alternate theory. This is not difficult to grasp.

He said he was waiting for Windu, Anakin obviously was going to and did say he was informing the Jedi Council, and the novelisation says he looked forward to confronting the Council and that everything (Palpatine's "shatterpoint") hinged on his trust in Anakin Skywalker. The evidence is unequivocal. I want evidence-based responses, not say-so.

Which I find amusing, given that your evidence IS for the most part Palpatine's say-so.

Your one actual piece of evidence, is Mace's 'shatterpoint' realization, which is described in a very unclear fashion, with only one real conclusion - that Palpatine trusted Anakin fully at that time. This does not prove your point.

I am not here to prove Palpatine is always brilliant and shrewd. Typically he is, and he is a mastermind, but the entire point of my post is largely to show that this bullshit that he somehow changed from the PT to the OT or DE is crap. He always had intricate mastermind plans that where he put everything on the line using himself as bait since the beginning. Is it a character flaw? A fatal weakness? Certainly. Can he not be a mastermind at other times? Of course he can.

I haven't read DE, but in the OT and PT, he NEVER stuck his head on the chopping block to the extent that your theory supposes. This man ALWAYS hedges his bets, especially when it's his ass on the line.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I found logical flaws in the basic, face-value interpretation of the evidence. Ergo, an alternate theory. This is not difficult to grasp.

If you were gifted with the knowledge of reading comprehension, I said while he certainly set up a situation for a Jedi coup, and hopes to lure Anakin to the fight to choose him over his comrades - he probably did not plan on actually losing to Windu (he was overconfident) and his reading (or possible summoning) of Anakin was sufficient that he arrived before Windu could kill him.

You claimed that he did not intend to get ambushed by Windu et al; that it was a surprise. That's completely inconsistent with his dialogue and that of Anakin. It is perfectly rational that while he planned on the Jedi confronting him, he did not expect for Windu to actually beat him (he probably intended to toy with Windu or one of the Jedi long enough for Anakin to arrive, then contrive an excuse for Anakin to betray the Jedi). He was overconfident, but his plan was robust enough to compensate for it.

Which I find amusing, given that your evidence IS for the most part Palpatine's say-so.

Funny that I consider an in-universe character's own opinion of his motives valid evidence, and that I do not consider it in any way equal to your say-so in the form of an out-of-universe argument regarding the characters motives? Like I said, you obviously lack reading comprehension or a grasp of rational argument to compare Palpatine's "say-so" to your axiomatic claims.

Your one actual piece of evidence, is Mace's 'shatterpoint' realization, which is described in a very unclear fashion, with only one real conclusion - that Palpatine trusted Anakin fully at that time. This does not prove your point.

Wrong. You claimed that perhaps Palpatine did not mean for Windu and his party to confront and attack him. That is inconsistent with Windu's revelation, with Palpatine's dialogue, and Anakin's dialogue. As I also demonstrated, but you proved incapable or unwilling to read, this was possible while not resorting to the silly conclusion he meant to be beaten by Windu and not get killed just in time for Anakin to arrive. I underlined that as the OUTCOME of his dangerous plots to prove how risky he could be in contrast with his plots in Dark Empire and Return of the Jedi.

I haven't read DE, but in the OT and PT, he NEVER stuck his head on the chopping block to the extent that your theory supposes. This man ALWAYS hedges his bets, especially when it's his ass on the line.

Of course he does; but he still uses himself as bait and places himself at significant personal risk in the pursuit - and sometimes at the crucial stage - of his plots. Just look at the Invisible Hand feint. Perhaps the fact he cut it so close in Revenge of the Sith is exactly why he takes fewer risks in Return of the Jedi and Dark Empire.

[Havok]

I haven't read DE, but in the OT and PT, he NEVER stuck his head on the chopping block to the extent that your theory supposes. This man ALWAYS hedges his bets, especially when it's his ass on the line.

"He could destroy us"

"You will bring him before me"

I don't know what you consider sticking your head on the chopping block, but he at least called the fucking executioner and had tea and crumpets with him. And hedging your bets means not risking everything on ONE thing. Palpatine continually does that with the Skywalkers in his life.

Example: If Anakin doesn't successfully crash land the Invisible Hand, Palpatine is dead.

Example: If Anakin has a change of heart or just decides to have an honest conversation with Obi Wan, Padme or Yoda, Palpatine and all his plans are undone.

Example: If Anakin chooses the Jedi and Mace, in the Chancellor's office, Palpatine is dead.

Example: Bringing a father and son together to fight each other and not even fathoming that *GASP* they gang up on him. He guess what, Palpatine died.

Palpatine may have politically hedged his bets, but when it came to the small matter of his life, he seemed to like to play Skywalker Roulette.

[Faqa]

If you were gifted with the knowledge of reading comprehension, I said while he certainly set up a situation for a Jedi coup, and hopes to lure Anakin to the fight to choose him over his comrades - he probably did not plan on actually losing to Windu (he was overconfident) and his reading (or possible summoning) of Anakin was sufficient that he arrived before Windu could kill him.

If YOU were gifted with any of the attributes you seem to find lacking in me, you would have seen that I already addressed that theory.

A - He planned to defeat the Jedi and fucked up. In which case, this is utter stupidity since it means the man based his entire master plan on being able to defeat the Order's greatest Battle Jedi and their best swordsman together. Also really out of keeping with Palpatine's MO.

Funny that I consider an in-universe character's own opinion of his motives valid evidence, and that I do not consider it in any way equal to your say-so in the form of an out-of-universe argument regarding the characters motives? Like I said, you obviously lack reading comprehension or a grasp of rational argument to compare Palpatine's "say-so" to your axiomatic claims.

Really? Because I would think that Palpatine claiming foreknowledge of everything is not exactly compelling evidence of said same WHEN WE PLAINLY SEE HE FUCKED UP.

I never claimed my say-so made anything true, fucktard. It's you who seem to be claiming that about Palpatine.

You have not answered my point - if Palpatine planned Anakin coming in to save him, WHY did he kill the other three Jedi, when that of all things weakens his plan? It stacks the deck against him from the start.

Wrong. You claimed that perhaps Palpatine did not mean for Windu and his party to confront and attack him. That is inconsistent with Windu's revelation, with Palpatine's dialogue, and Anakin's dialogue.

And far more consistent with Palpatine's established pattern of behavior.

Windu's revelation is that Palpatine trusted Skywalker. Nothing else.

Of course he does; but he still uses himself as bait and places himself at significant personal risk in the pursuit - and sometimes at the crucial stage - of his plots. Just look at the Invisible Hand feint.

Oh, so now Palpatine PLANNED to have Anakin crash land half a ship?

All things considered, that plan was not exactly risky - according to the novelization, Grievous was under orders not to flee the system anyway(was it in the movie as well? Can't recall), and betting on Anakin and Kenobi to defeat Dooku is a pretty easy bet, given that HE knows how they've evolved since AOTC, even if Dooku does not.

Even if that judgement is wrong, Dooku would've thrown the fight eventually anyway.

Example: If Anakin doesn't successfully crash land the Invisible Hand, Palpatine is dead.

See above.

Example: If Anakin has a change of heart or just decides to have an honest conversation with Obi Wan, Padme or Yoda, Palpatine and all his plans are undone.

Given that he's taken pains to practically raise the guy for a decade, this is not THAT big a risk. Although I concede that he didn't hedge his bets there.

Example: If Anakin chooses the Jedi and Mace, in the Chancellor's office, Palpatine is dead.

EXACTLY.

Example: Bringing a father and son together to fight each other and not even fathoming that *GASP* they gang up on him. He guess what, Palpatine died.

Ummmm.... they didn't. Only Mara Jade ever saw THAT picture. He had Luke at his mercy for that entire conversation. His mistake was thinking he had Vader utterly beneath his heel.

[Havok]

Of course he does; but he still uses himself as bait and places himself at significant personal risk in the pursuit - and sometimes at the crucial stage - of his plots. Just look at the Invisible Hand feint.

Oh, so now Palpatine PLANNED to have Anakin crash land half a ship?

All things considered, that plan was not exactly risky - according to the novelization, Grievous was under orders not to flee the system anyway(was it in the movie as well? Can't recall), and betting on Anakin and Kenobi to defeat Dooku is a pretty easy bet, given that HE knows how they've evolved since AOTC, even if Dooku does not.

Even if that judgement is wrong, Dooku would've thrown the fight eventually anyway.

Example: If Anakin doesn't successfully crash land the Invisible Hand, Palpatine is dead.

See above.

I don't see your point here. Hedging your bets means having more than one option. In this scenario that Palpatine has placed himself in, Anakin either lands and Palpatine lives or Anakin crashes and Palpatine dies. That is not hedging your bets. And even IF the IH didn't get blasted in half, Palpatine was still taking a ridiculous chance by putting himself on an obviously standard ship that could be destroyed by a few well placed shots.

Example: If Anakin has a change of heart or just decides to have an honest conversation with Obi Wan, Padme or Yoda, Palpatine and all his plans are undone.

Given that he's taken pains to practically raise the guy for a decade, this is not THAT big a risk. Although I concede that he didn't hedge his bets there.

Example: If Anakin chooses the Jedi and Mace, in the Chancellor's office, Palpatine is dead.

EXACTLY.

Yes, exactly. Having option A. Winning it all or option B. DYING, is not hedging your bets. That is what we call betting the farm.

Example: Bringing a father and son together to fight each other and not even fathoming that *GASP* they gang up on him. He guess what, Palpatine died.

Ummmm.... they didn't. Only Mara Jade ever saw THAT picture. He had Luke at his mercy for that entire conversation. His mistake was thinking he had Vader utterly beneath his heel.

Luke pleading for help from his father and getting it, is called ganging up. It wasn't the same thing Jade saw, but it had the same outcome. And you make a good point about Palpatine assuming that Vader was beneath his heel completely. Another example of Palpatine not hedging his bets.

[Faqa]

In this scenario that Palpatine has placed himself in, Anakin either lands and Palpatine lives or Anakin crashes and Palpatine dies. That is not hedging your bets

No, but my point is that the risk he put himself to was relatively small here. Which was that the only thing that could really hurt him was a Republic ship(and he knows the Navy as well, I'd bet. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he was influencing the battle, given ROTJ). Even then, it took a series of things going wrong for risk to him to enter the equation - getting cut off from the landing bay, Grievous launching the escape pods, AND the IH being irrevocably damaged.

Everything went wrong. Had any ONE of those things gone right, Palpatine would not have had to rely on Anakin's miraculous landing.

Yes, exactly. Having option A. Winning it all or option B. DYING, is not hedging your bets. That is what we call betting the farm.

Which is why I'm trying to make the point that such an action DOES NOT fit Palpatine's having a plan in place.

Luke pleading for help from his father and getting it, is called ganging up. It wasn't the same thing Jade saw, but it had the same outcome. And you make a good point about Palpatine assuming that Vader was beneath his heel completely. Another example of Palpatine not hedging his bets.

Not really. He didn't consider Vader a 'bet' at all(his fatal error). He DID consider Luke a bet, and therefore covered himself by making sure he either had Vader between them or was ready to zap him(Luke) at any given time.

[Illuminatus Primus]

If YOU were gifted with any of the attributes you seem to find lacking in me, you would have seen that I already addressed that theory.

A - He planned to defeat the Jedi and fucked up. In which case, this is utter stupidity since it means the man based his entire master plan on being able to defeat the Order's greatest Battle Jedi and their best swordsman together. Also really out of keeping with Palpatine's MO.

Yeah? Your evidence? Your say-so. Obviously he did do it. Obviously he said he expected Windu, obviously he told Anakin when it was likely that Anakin would tattle, obvious then he did know that Anakin was going to tattle as he said so, and obviously he expected their arrival because he got his lightsaber and said he'd waited a long time for this.

Besides, he IS a superlative swordsman; he effortlessly killed the Jedi party apart from Windu and dispatched Yoda handedly. Aside from Windu, only Luke Skywalker has ever bested Sidious in sword combat. He is canonically "a master of every weapon and every style." He obviously did not want to get defeated, but all his plan required was exterminate the Jedi, string one along until Skywalker is forced to choose him, and then manipulate him into doing so and sealing his allegiance to the Sith.

What contradicts all that? Your say-so. I'm sorry, but your subjective feeling "its not his MO" [which I also add, is your conclusion, so this is an example of circular reasoning] is not sufficient basis to dismiss the plain interpretation of absolutely canonical information.

Really? Because I would think that Palpatine claiming foreknowledge of everything is not exactly compelling evidence of said same WHEN WE PLAINLY SEE HE FUCKED UP.

I never claimed my say-so made anything true, fucktard. It's you who seem to be claiming that about Palpatine.

You have not answered my point - if Palpatine planned Anakin coming in to save him, WHY did he kill the other three Jedi, when that of all things weakens his plan? It stacks the deck against him from the start.

Uh, like Anakin is such a fucking moron that Palpatine expects him to believe that he's a fucking puss in a fight despite training Maul, Dooku, and knowing the secret to life and death? As if he's going to think Palpatine is still a kindly old man after he promises him unlimited dominion and knows he's a Sith Lord who has orchestrated the death of dozens of hundreds of his comrades throughout the fucking Clone War? Are you claiming the plan hinged on Anakin being simultaneously amnesiaic and fucking retarded?

His whole plan was based on Anakin believing him that the Jedi were just like the Sith - and that they were there to murder him without due process and violently seize political control of the Galactic Republic and therefore, "fuck the Jedi - don't you want your wife to survive?" Palpatine's "I might be killed" routine was essentially all about "you might lose your chance to achieve your power and save your wife, and for what? A Jedi Order that's bullshitted you the whole way?" It does not require that Palpatine be objectively weak (because Anakin isn't that fucking stupid, and Palpatine's claim of great power is not credible if that case) or that he not kill Jedi (Anakin already knows he is responsible for the deaths of many Jedi comrades, countless servicemen, and countless civilians; he's not that fucking dumb).

Apparently everyone else gets this but you. It was only, I dunno, plainly presented in the film.

And far more consistent with Palpatine's established pattern of behavior.

Neither is screwing up. So we're way past that one.

Face it, he puts himself at personal risk based on personal readings of people time and time again. Given how fast he killed off the Jedi Council aside from Windu it is hardly unreasonable he expected to be able to delay Windu until Skywalker arrived and contrive his betrayal, but screwed up and got defeated for real. Its only because of Vapaad that Windu could even hold off Sidious; and that's a combat philosophy and form developed personally by Windu that the Sith would have no experience with could hardly prepare for. A conventional Jedi Master could have been toyed with at Sidious' leisure as he waited for the arrival of the Chose One, as the corpses of Windu's party attest. This time he cut it way too close, but we can turn that to explain later behavior: he became more risk averse as a result of cutting it too close in ROTS.

Oh, so now Palpatine PLANNED to have Anakin crash land half a ship?

All things considered, that plan was not exactly risky - according to the novelization, Grievous was under orders not to flee the system anyway(was it in the movie as well? Can't recall), and betting on Anakin and Kenobi to defeat Dooku is a pretty easy bet, given that HE knows how they've evolved since AOTC, even if Dooku does not.

Even if that judgement is wrong, Dooku would've thrown the fight eventually anyway.

I suppose that there were escape pods until Grevious launched them escapes you. A bigger issue is expecting a rescue to work just right in the middle of a combat zone.

[Patrick Degan]

Yes, he managed all that —or rather happened to be the right man in the right time to topple a system already rotting from within after decades or even centuries of quiet decay. But those are merely means to an end, presumably, so the question really becomes, "did Palpatine achieve his ultimate ends or did he at some point lose sight of them?". On that hinges the answer to whether or not he was the brilliant mastermind or merely a cunning schemer who, in the end, was a failure.

While none of us here have ever conquered a galaxy (and therefore could not testify as to fact), it does seem rather farfetched that the "right man in the right time" could topple a twenty-five-thousand-year-old government and replace it with the most powerful military regime in history, rule the galaxy for two decades, and then return from beyond the grave to conquer it for a second time unless he was a rather gifted thinker and strategist.

With all due respect, your line of thought perplexes me, as it defies all canon precedent. Not one single text makes Palpatine out to be a mere glorified megalomaniac who "got lucky" or whatnot; unless one takes into account the perceptions that Palpatine himself knowingly fabricated to mask his ambition. Furthermore, both the Dark Side Sourcebook and the Return of the Jedi novelization both confirm that Palpatine is "a diabolical genius" -- Palpatine's "brilliance" is unquestionable.

And as Publius has testified to on numerous occasions, Palpatine himself was largely responsible for the circumstances in which he found himself in. It's not as though he groped around and pulled out the one card that sent the whole house tumbling down. He meticulously plotted and engineered an entire war to bring the Republic to its knees.

In conclusion, if you truly find yourself asking that question, I respectfully suggest that you haven't watched any of the movies, let alone read the literature in which he is featured.

Presumptious, aren't you?

Had the Republic been stronger, politically and socially, the rise of a Palpatine would not have been possible. Other Sith Lords had attempted to bring about the return of their dynasty in the past and failed. And the state of the Republic's decay is attested to in the preface of the ANH novelisation, plus we see very evident a Jedi order who are fossilised in their attitudes and complacent in their alleged position of superiority after millenia of endurance in their position in the old order.

Nice little non-answer to the question.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Not really, Degan, because your little diatribe was really beside the point of being an individual political and strategic genius and a mastermind. Surely a conspirator or some architect of a coup could not be called a mastermind for overthrowing the rotting Republic, but Palpatine did not merely seize control of it or overthrow it. He took control before the Clone War behind the scenes and with most of the political class none the wiser. He engineered the Clone War to acclimate the galaxy to his naked exercise of autocracy. And then he obliterated the Jedi Order and assembled the most powerful militaristic state in the galaxy's history. Moreover, he then seized control of the Empire's remnants and fragments which were ignorant to his occulted survival and convalescence and conquered the galaxy a second time without the aid of manipulating both sides of the war.

The fact that the old Republic was feeble is quite beside the point of Palpatine's genius, with the result that your point is a red herring.

[Patrick Degan]

Not really, Degan, because your little diatribe was really beside the point of being an individual political and strategic genius and a mastermind. Surely a conspirator or some architect of a coup could not be called a mastermind for overthrowing the rotting Republic, but Palpatine did not merely seize control of it or overthrow it. He took control before the Clone War behind the scenes and with most of the political class none the wiser. He engineered the Clone War to acclimate the galaxy to his naked exercise of autocracy. And then he obliterated the Jedi Order and assembled the most powerful militaristic state in the galaxy's history. Moreover, he then seized control of the Empire's remnants and fragments which were ignorant to his occulted survival and convalescence and conquered the galaxy a second time without the aid of manipulating both sides of the war.

The fact that the old Republic was feeble is quite beside the point of Palpatine's genius, with the result that your point is a red herring.

Wrong. As the old saying goes, "timing is everything". You simply can't handwave away the fact that the conditions of the galaxy were right to allow Palpatine's schemes a chance of working.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Wrong. As the old saying goes, "timing is everything". You simply can't handwave away the fact that the conditions of the galaxy were right to allow Palpatine's schemes a chance of working.

No, Degan, you are wrong. One could always say a so-called genius was not a genius because his acts were context-dependent. Can one say Napoleon was not a military genius simply because had it not been for the Revolution, he would not have been able to subjugate Europe? I already conceded that you are right - that the Republic was extremely vulnerable in its twilight - and had it not been for Palpatine, surely a politician or warlord could've subjugated or overthrown the Republic. But the Palpatine did more than just overthrow it. He probably could not have done that at the Republic's height, but even with that aid, he went beyond the circumstances. He subjugated a galaxy not once, but twice. He held on to power virtually unopposed for over 20 years - sole autocrat of an entire galaxy. There were other major power bases and players in the twilight of the Republic who could have supplanted his role in overthrowing the old order, but not only did he do it, but he also brought them to heel.

[Alexian Cale]

Illuminatus handled the point in a fashion greater than I. Any response I have would simply be an inferior carbon-copy of his own words, Degan.

[Patrick Degan]

Wrong. As the old saying goes, "timing is everything". You simply can't handwave away the fact that the conditions of the galaxy were right to allow Palpatine's schemes a chance of working.

No, Degan, you are wrong.

As you wish...

One could always say a so-called genius was not a genius because his acts were context-dependent. Can one say Napoleon was not a military genius simply because had it not been for the Revolution, he would not have been able to subjugate Europe? I already conceded that you are right - that the Republic was extremely vulnerable in its twilight - and had it not been for Palpatine, surely a politician or warlord could've subjugated or overthrown the Republic. But the Palpatine did more than just overthrow it. He probably could not have done that at the Republic's height, but even with that aid, he went beyond the circumstances. He subjugated a galaxy not once, but twice. He held on to power virtually unopposed for over 20 years - sole autocrat of an entire galaxy. There were other major power bases and players in the twilight of the Republic who could have supplanted his role in overthrowing the old order, but not only did he do it, but he also brought them to heel.

Uh huh. A "genius" who's entire grand, overly complex scheme depends upon one moment of being incredibly, stupidly lucky. A scheme which could have been tumbled at any time had anybody been smart enough or cared enough to ask one basic question: "who benefits". And one in which there was no real long-range object to the entire exercise. Napoleon —the man you attempt to cite as comparison— had that vision and a far simpler plan to achieve it, and failed only because he overextended himself militarily.

Palpatine succeeded because his enemies were pathetic. And when he failed, it was because he let himself get caught up in some ludicrous father-and-son drama, then afterward when he subordinated everything to the object of gaining his next young apprentice. That's not the mark of genius by any stretch of the imagination no matter how much you and Mr. Cale like to believe otherwise. The only thing you demonstrate is that he's a good mechanic. Nothing more.

[Alexian Cale]

This is where the crux of our problem rears its ugly head: my opinion (as well as the one offered by Illuminatus) has factual basis in the continuity; yours doesn't seem to afford such a luxuary.

Uh huh. A "genius" who's entire grand, overly complex scheme depends upon one moment of being incredibly, stupidly lucky.

I'm going to act "presumptious" again and assume that you're skeptical about Palpatine's status as a genius, so allow me to be absolutely clear: both the Return of the Jedi novelization (a G-canon source) and the Dark Side Sourcebook refer to Emperor Palpatine as an "evil genius" and a "diabolical genius" respectively. It is officially canonized that Palpatine's intellect is considered prodigious, so don't allow yourself to get tangled in somethint well beyond your power to contradict.

A scheme which could have been tumbled at any time had anybody been smart enough or cared enough to ask one basic question: "who benefits". And one in which there was no real long-range object to the entire exercise. Napoleon —the man you attempt to cite as comparison— had that vision and a far simpler plan to achieve it, and failed only because he overextended himself militarily.

You seem to be indulging in the vain delusion that your word can retroactively erase and nullify established canon. It can't. Furthermore, you also seem to be deluding yourself that the Jedi Order and the Republic are privy to information that you -- a member of the audience -- possesses. And even if what you say ought to be considered simple fact, it makes the victory all the more sweeter and makes the Emperor look all the more great.

Palpatine succeeded because his enemies were pathetic. And when he failed, it was because he let himself get caught up in some ludicrous father-and-son drama, then afterward when he subordinated everything to the object of gaining his next young apprentice. That's not the mark of genius by any stretch of the imagination no matter how much you and Mr. Cale like to believe otherwise. The only thing you demonstrate is that he's a good mechanic. Nothing more.

According to canon and continuity, Palpatine succeeded because he was a brilliant manipulator whom the sourcebooks and visual guides and even Jacen Solo circa 40 ABY rant and rave possessed an accomplished understanding of psychology and bureacracy and was assisted via Force precognition and arcane knowledge. That he played his enemies like instruments doesn't speak for their stupidity; it speaks for his brilliance. Alas, it seems you've failed to make the point. If you intend to challenge canon in such a way, perhaps you ought to either raise your game or get off the court.

[Patrick Degan]

This is where the crux of our problem rears its ugly head: my opinion (as well as the one offered by Illuminatus) has factual basis in the continuity; yours doesn't seem to afford such a luxuary.

Uh huh. A "genius" who's entire grand, overly complex scheme depends upon one moment of being incredibly, stupidly lucky.

I'm going to act "presumptious" again and assume that you're skeptical about Palpatine's status as a genius, so allow me to be absolutely clear: both the Return of the Jedi novelization (a G-canon source) and the Dark Side Sourcebook refer to Emperor Palpatine as an "evil genius" and a "diabolical genius" respectively. It is officially canonized that Palpatine's intellect is considered prodigious, so don't allow yourself to get tangled in somethint well beyond your power to contradict.

And this somehow negates independent analysis of his so-called "genius"... how, exactly? According to your form of "logic", we also have no business questioning or analysing anything in the canon up to and including the Empire's failed tactics in the battle at Delta-Yavin and at Endor. Pity that's not how the game is played here.

A scheme which could have been tumbled at any time had anybody been smart enough or cared enough to ask one basic question: "who benefits". And one in which there was no real long-range object to the entire exercise. Napoleon —the man you attempt to cite as comparison— had that vision and a far simpler plan to achieve it, and failed only because he overextended himself militarily.

You seem to be indulging in the vain delusion that your word can retroactively erase and nullify established canon. It can't.

No, it is you who is indulging the delusion that we cannot subject canon facts to independent analysis. Guess what —we can.

Furthermore, you also seem to be deluding yourself that the Jedi Order and the Republic are privy to information that you -- a member of the audience -- possesses. And even if what you say ought to be considered simple fact, it makes the victory all the more sweeter and makes the Emperor look all the more great.

Strawman. I said nothing about the Jedi being privy to secret information. I said nobody even bothered to ask a very basic question which is not beyond the capability of anybody of measurable intelligence, which had it been asked would have tumbled Palpatine's schemes. The fact that nobody did makes Palpatine's victory less of an achievement since his enemies were, as mentioned before, pathetic.

Palpatine succeeded because his enemies were pathetic. And when he failed, it was because he let himself get caught up in some ludicrous father-and-son drama, then afterward when he subordinated everything to the object of gaining his next young apprentice. That's not the mark of genius by any stretch of the imagination no matter how much you and Mr. Cale like to believe otherwise. The only thing you demonstrate is that he's a good mechanic. Nothing more.

According to canon and continuity, Palpatine succeeded because he was a brilliant manipulator whom the sourcebooks and visual guides and even Jacen Solo circa 40 ABY rant and rave possessed an accomplished understanding of psychology and bureacracy and was assisted via Force precognition and arcane knowledge. That he played his enemies like instruments doesn't speak for their stupidity; it speaks for his brilliance. Alas, it seems you've failed to make the point. If you intend to challenge canon in such a way, perhaps you ought to either raise your game or get off the court.

No, it does indeed speak to their stupidity that they were played like fiddles so easily. And you can try putting up your idiotic strawman of my arguments all you like and it will get you nowhere. I am NOT disputing the facts of these events happening. I am subjecting these facts to analysis, which is perfectly permissable and not contraindicated by descriptors. Observable events can be analysed and reevaluated whether you like the idea or not. And as for your last little "suggestion", I think you can figure out just up which bodily orifice you can shove it, can't you?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Uh huh. A "genius" who's entire grand, overly complex scheme depends upon one moment of being incredibly, stupidly lucky. A scheme which could have been tumbled at any time had anybody been smart enough or cared enough to ask one basic question: "who benefits". And one in which there was no real long-range object to the entire exercise. Napoleon —the man you attempt to cite as comparison— had that vision and a far simpler plan to achieve it, and failed only because he overextended himself militarily.

Star Wars: Republic reveals the assassination of Jedi who came close to discovering the identity of Lord Darth Sidious. Revenge of the Sith features an entire subplot dealing with the Jedi High Council's suspicion of Supreme Chancellor Palpatine's political motives as the war draws to a close. General Kenobi treasonous conversation to General Tan Anakin Skywalker reveals quite the questioning on the part of the Jedi Order regarding Palpatine of Naboo that you would have those reading believe does not exist:

OBI-WAN: (takes a deep breath) The Council wants you to report on all of the Chancellor's dealings. They want to know what he's up to.

ANAKIN: They want me to spy on the Chancellor? That's treason!

OBI-WAN: We are at war, Anakin. The Jedi Council is sworn to uphold the principles of the Republic, even if the Chancellor does not.

ANAKIN: Why didn't the Council give me this assignment when we were in session?

OBI-WAN: This assignment is not to be on record. The Council asked me to approach you on this personally.

ANAKIN: The Chancellor is not a bad man, Obi-Wan. He befriended me. He's watched out for me ever since I arrived here.

OBI-WAN: That is why you must help us, Anakin. Our allegiance is to the Senate, not to its leader who has managed to stay in office long after his term has expired.

ANAKIN: Master, the Senate demanded that he stay longer.

OBI-WAN: Yes, but use your feelings, Anakin. Something is out of place.

Perhaps your complaint that his opponents were pathetic might hold water if they hadn't asked who benefited; unfortunately for you, the Revenge of the Sith film - the absolute canon regarding the genuine, authentic story of what is Star Wars - disagrees.

I could easily pithily claim Napoleon was not genius because he failed to acclimatize Europe to his imperial grandeur following the peace of Tilsit, disastrously insisting on continuing to challenge the British Empire. Even geniuses are allowed character flaws.

Palpatine succeeded because his enemies were pathetic. And when he failed, it was because he let himself get caught up in some ludicrous father-and-son drama, then afterward when he subordinated everything to the object of gaining his next young apprentice. That's not the mark of genius by any stretch of the imagination no matter how much you and Mr. Cale like to believe otherwise. The only thing you demonstrate is that he's a good mechanic. Nothing more.

So the definition of a genius requires no flaws? No tragic hubris? Since when? There are no geniuses with fatal flaws? You've arbitrarily defined genius so narrowly in order to justify your own claims.

And, of course, these "pathetic" enemies got within a blade's slash of killing Palpatine of Naboo as a direct result of measures they took in response to their suspicion of his political motives.

Of course, Han Solo and the Corporate Sector Sourcebook establishes that Palpatine of Naboo already surreptitiously dominated the galactic political and economic order before The Phantom Menace. Through the formation of secret deals with political groups, illicit pacts with crime and big business, and shadow factions of the elite - which by the dessicated constitutional state of the Republic prior to The Phantom Menace had become the true font of power in the galactic civilization - he was already the de facto source of power. In other words, the events of the prequel films existed not to create Palpatine's power, but to acclimatize the galaxy to his exercise of it. He had already won the political battle by The Phantom Menace. As if his election to the Supreme Chancellery was left to pure chance and electoral vagaries?

As of Attack of the Clones he already exercises overt and basically unchecked supreme political power by means of a constitutional amendment and an emergency powers resolution. He has ensconced himself in a war dictatorate in the Roman fashion (although theoretically unlimited), and commands a loyal supermajority in the legislature capable of amending the constitution at will. The Jedi Order has existed at his whim for the entire three years of the Clone War, with General Order 66 having been imprinted in the nearly absolutely loyal clones of the Army of the Republic when they were barely decanted and his being able to issue the order at will. The Jedi are already doomed and the galaxy is already his plaything by Revenge of the Sith. I have argued there were substantive dynamological reasons for his needing a superlatively powerful apprentice, but really, even if it is just a whimsical hobby - why you win as much and as often as he does, you become overconfident. That does not make his other achievements not ingenious. This is even stated as the flaw to his genius by Commander Skywalker in Return of the Jedi. And as I have stated, he arguably changed his approach after the unacceptable risk he suffered in Revenge of the Sith.

And this somehow negates independent analysis of his so-called "genius"... how, exactly? According to your form of "logic", we also have no business questioning or analysing anything in the canon up to and including the Empire's failed tactics in the battle at Delta-Yavin and at Endor. Pity that's not how the game is played here.

Uh...no. Because there's no unequivocal description in canon of those events. So we have room to discuss what really happened. You need a good reason to discard evidence. Your say-so does not qualify. Ancillary evidence should be interpreted as to retain, not discard other evidence.

No, it is you who is indulging the delusion that we cannot subject canon facts to independent analysis. Guess what —we can.

Or not. We resort to conclusions regarding Star Trek or even Star Wars where SoD prevents any attempt of objectively arriving at the conclusions presented by the medium, especially character claims and dialogue. This especially applies when characters make claims about technology or physical reality which is untenable (DS9: "The Die is Cast" being the quintessential example). In all these cases we are debating physical realities, and we have a preponderance of superior (i.e., visual) evidence. This is not the case here.

Strawman. I said nothing about the Jedi being privy to secret information. I said nobody even bothered to ask a very basic question which is not beyond the capability of anybody of measurable intelligence, which had it been asked would have tumbled Palpatine's schemes. The fact that nobody did makes Palpatine's victory less of an achievement since his enemies were, as mentioned before, pathetic.

Uh, right. Its not as if a huge aspect of the Sithian conversion of Master Jedi General Tan Anakin Skywalker depended on the fact that the Jedi High Council had not become increasingly suspicious of Supreme Chancellor Palpatine and the ultimate political aims of his war dictatorship. It is not as if this isn't directly expounded upon by Master Jedi General Kenobi to General Skywalker in an entire scene in the absolutely canonical film, Revenge of the Sith. It is not as if they hadn't specifically tasked General Skywalker with spying on the Supreme Chancellor because they suspected his motives.

No, it does indeed speak to their stupidity that they were played like fiddles so easily. And you can try putting up your idiotic strawman of my arguments all you like and it will get you nowhere. I am NOT disputing the facts of these events happening. I am subjecting these facts to analysis, which is perfectly permissible and not contraindicated by descriptors.

"Contraindicated" is a specific medical term, specifically a passive voice of the verb in this case; 'contraindicate' means "(of a symptom or condition) to give indication against the advisability of (a particular or usual remedy or treatment)," according to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. It is quite nonsensical for your "'descriptors' ('descriptors' fails to return a response in any search as any 'symptom or condition') to 'give indication against the advisability' of 'analysis' ('analysis' fails to return a response in any search as any 'particular or usual remedy or treatment')." Please refrain from pedantry if you lack the time or skill to execute it correctly. Your appraisal of your autodidacticism is clearly excessive.

Observable events can be analysed and reevaluated whether you like the idea or not. And as for your last little "suggestion", I think you can figure out just up which bodily orifice you can shove it, can't you?

Actually, they cannot, if that evaluation goes against the spirit of the canon and lacks a preponderance of evidence to support it. You have failed to meaningfully establish any rebuttal of the veracity or authenticity of the sources cited in direct contradiction of your claim; you have failed to establish the aforementioned preponderance of evidence, both to support your claim and to necessitate the dismissal of conflicting evidence; therefore your claim lacks support and is untenable.

[Vympel]

I'm going to throw my hat in the ring and say that Palpatine's pre-occupation with the Skywalker family drama was quite justified. If it hadn't been for Luke, the Rebellion would've been dealt a fatal blow at Yavin, for multiple reasons (rescue of Princess Leia, delivery of the plans to the Rebellion, destruction of the Death Star itself).

The next time we see Palpatine, he's discussing with Vader how Luke is their enemy and he could destroy them.

If Luke hadn't been at Endor, what's the worst that could've happened? Let's assume the Rebels talk their way out of getting eaten by the Ewoks, and everything goes according to the film - the Death Star 2 is destroyed, and Palpatine and Vader get away. Nothing changes.

Worse, Palpatine's influence maintains Imperial cohesion in battle, and the Rebel fleet is destroyed utterly. Perhaps even the fighter attack on the Death Star 2 fails due to a far more coordinated TIE response.

[Patrick Degan]

Uh huh. A "genius" who's entire grand, overly complex scheme depends upon one moment of being incredibly, stupidly lucky. A scheme which could have been tumbled at any time had anybody been smart enough or cared enough to ask one basic question: "who benefits". And one in which there was no real long-range object to the entire exercise. Napoleon —the man you attempt to cite as comparison— had that vision and a far simpler plan to achieve it, and failed only because he overextended himself militarily.

Star Wars: Republic reveals the assassination of Jedi who came close to discovering the identity of Lord Darth Sidious. Revenge of the Sith features an entire subplot dealing with the Jedi High Council's suspicion of Supreme Chancellor Palpatine's political motives as the war draws to a close. General Kenobi treasonous conversation to General Tan Anakin Skywalker reveals quite the questioning on the part of the Jedi Order regarding Palpatine of Naboo that you would have those reading believe does not exist

Perhaps your complaint that his opponents were pathetic might hold water if they hadn't asked who benefited; unfortunately for you, the Revenge of the Sith film - the absolute canon regarding the genuine, authentic story of what is Star Wars - disagrees.

They observe that the Chancellor may have suspect dealings. They do not even begin to suspect that the entire war is suspiciously arranged for Palpatine's benefit nor question the underlying assumptions of the war.

I could easily pithily claim Napoleon was not genius because he failed to acclimatize Europe to his imperial grandeur following the peace of Tilsit, disastrously insisting on continuing to challenge the British Empire. Even geniuses are allowed character flaws.

Cuuuuute. Pretending that Napoleon's failure to accomplish his larger plan is at all comparable to Palpatine not really having a larger plan than "unlimited POWERRRRR" and using an overly complicated scheme to bring it about.

Palpatine succeeded because his enemies were pathetic. And when he failed, it was because he let himself get caught up in some ludicrous father-and-son drama, then afterward when he subordinated everything to the object of gaining his next young apprentice. That's not the mark of genius by any stretch of the imagination no matter how much you and Mr. Cale like to believe otherwise. The only thing you demonstrate is that he's a good mechanic. Nothing more.

So the definition of a genius requires no flaws? No tragic hubris? Since when? There are no geniuses with fatal flaws? You've arbitrarily defined genius so narrowly in order to justify your own claims.

And you've defined it so broadly so as to allow any claim you care to pluck out of the sky to be used to justify your own position.

And, of course, these "pathetic" enemies got within a blade's slash of killing Palpatine of Naboo as a direct result of measures they took in response to their suspicion of his political motives.

The point is that had they not been so pathetic, it would never have gotten down to getting within a blade's slash of ending the entire matter. It would have been ended a lot sooner.

Of course, Han Solo and the Corporate Sector Sourcebook establishes that Palpatine of Naboo already surreptitiously dominated the galactic political and economic order before The Phantom Menace. Through the formation of secret deals with political groups, illicit pacts with crime and big business, and shadow factions of the elite - which by the dessicated constitutional state of the Republic prior to The Phantom Menace had become the true font of power in the galactic civilization - he was already the de facto source of power. In other words, the events of the prequel films existed not to create Palpatine's power, but to acclimatize the galaxy to his exercise of it. He had already won the political battle by The Phantom Menace. As if his election to the Supreme Chancellery was left to pure chance and electoral vagaries?

As of Attack of the Clones he already exercises overt and basically unchecked supreme political power by means of a constitutional amendment and an emergency powers resolution. He has ensconced himself in a war dictatorate in the Roman fashion (although theoretically unlimited), and commands a loyal supermajority in the legislature capable of amending the constitution at will. The Jedi Order has existed at his whim for the entire three years of the Clone War, with General Order 66 having been imprinted in the nearly absolutely loyal clones of the Army of the Republic when they were barely decanted and his being able to issue the order at will. The Jedi are already doomed and the galaxy is already his plaything by Revenge of the Sith. I have argued there were substantive dynamological reasons for his needing a superlatively powerful apprentice, but really, even if it is just a whimsical hobby - why you win as much and as often as he does, you become overconfident. That does not make his other achievements not ingenious. This is even stated as the flaw to his genius by Commander Skywalker in Return of the Jedi. And as I have stated, he arguably changed his approach after the unacceptable risk he suffered in Revenge of the Sith.

Again, Palpatine is a mechanic. Hitler took power in Germany with far less effort involved and in a far shorter timespan.

And this somehow negates independent analysis of his so-called "genius"... how, exactly? According to your form of "logic", we also have no business questioning or analysing anything in the canon up to and including the Empire's failed tactics in the battle at Delta-Yavin and at Endor. Pity that's not how the game is played here.

Uh...no. Because there's no unequivocal description in canon of those events. So we have room to discuss what really happened. You need a good reason to discard evidence. Your say-so does not qualify. Ancillary evidence should be interpreted as to retain, not discard other evidence.

Who said anything about discarding evidence, strawmanderer?

No, it is you who is indulging the delusion that we cannot subject canon facts to independent analysis. Guess what —we can.

Or not. We resort to conclusions regarding Star Trek or even Star Wars where SoD prevents any attempt of objectively arriving at the conclusions presented by the medium, especially character claims and dialogue. This especially applies when characters make claims about technology or physical reality which is untenable (DS9: "The Die is Cast" being the quintessential example). In all these cases we are debating physical realities, and we have a preponderance of superior (i.e., visual) evidence. This is not the case here.

The fuck it isn't the case here. We have a sheaf of observed events and the observable behaviour of a man which is as much fair game for analysis as power calcs or physical manifestations of the Force. We can indeed evaluate Palpatine's actions and his observed behaviour to determine whether or not he was a genius or a lucky mechanic, and later whether or not he is insane.

Strawman. I said nothing about the Jedi being privy to secret information. I said nobody even bothered to ask a very basic question which is not beyond the capability of anybody of measurable intelligence, which had it been asked would have tumbled Palpatine's schemes. The fact that nobody did makes Palpatine's victory less of an achievement since his enemies were, as mentioned before, pathetic.

Uh, right. Its not as if a huge aspect of the Sithian conversion of Master Jedi General Tan Anakin Skywalker depended on the fact that the Jedi High Council had not become increasingly suspicious of Supreme Chancellor Palpatine and the ultimate political aims of his war dictatorship. It is not as if this isn't directly expounded upon by Master Jedi General Kenobi to General Skywalker in an entire scene in the absolutely canonical film, Revenge of the Sith. It is not as if they hadn't specifically tasked General Skywalker with spying on the Supreme Chancellor because they suspected his motives.

Their suspicions coming when it is just about too late to reverse the course of events. And the only thing they're suspicious of at the point of the very scene you quote is how Palpatine has managed to stay in power long after his term was supposed to be up and why he is interfering in the affairs of the Jedi Council by insisting on Anakin's appointment.

No, it does indeed speak to their stupidity that they were played like fiddles so easily. And you can try putting up your idiotic strawman of my arguments all you like and it will get you nowhere. I am NOT disputing the facts of these events happening. I am subjecting these facts to analysis, which is perfectly permissible and not contraindicated by descriptors.

"Contraindicated" is a specific medical term, specifically a passive voice of the verb in this case; 'contraindicate' means "(of a symptom or condition) to give indication against the advisability of (a particular or usual remedy or treatment)," according to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. Please refrain from pedantry if you lack the time or skill to execute it correctly. Your appraisal of your autodidacticism is clearly excessive.

Borrowing terminology is not an uncommon practise if it serves a particular purpose in the borrowing. As Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams do in their article on game development:

There is a reason for this difficulty: The concept of gameplay is extremely difficult to define. Each designer has his or her own personal definition of gameplay, formed from exposure to many examples over the course of a career. Gameplay is so difficult to define because there is no single entity that we can point to and say, "There! That's the gameplay." Gameplay is the result of a large number of contributing elements. The presence, or lack thereof, of gameplay can be deduced by examining a particular game for indications and contraindications of these elements. (These terms are borrowed from medical terminology: An indication is a positive sign that implies the existence of gameplay, and a contraindication is a negative sign that implies that gameplay does not exist.)

Satisfied? Or shall we be treated to more of your pendantry?

Observable events can be analysed and reevaluated whether you like the idea or not. And as for your last little "suggestion", I think you can figure out just up which bodily orifice you can shove it, can't you?

Actually, they cannot, if that evaluation goes against the spirit of the canon and lacks a preponderance of evidence to support it. You have failed to meaningfully establish any rebuttal of the veracity or authenticity of the sources cited in direct contradiction of your claim; you have failed to establish the aforementioned preponderance of evidence, both to support your claim and to necessitate the dismissal of conflicting evidence; therefore your claim lacks support and is untenable.

Actually, they can. To reiterate: We have a sheaf of observed events and the observable behaviour of a man which is as much fair game for analysis as power calcs or physical manifestations of the Force. We can indeed evaluate Palpatine's actions and his observed behaviour to determine whether or not he was a genius or a lucky mechanic. "Spirit of the canon" does not cut it as an objection no matter how much you think it does.

Try again.

[Illuminatus Primus]

They observe that the Chancellor may have suspect dealings. They do not even begin to suspect that the entire war is suspiciously arranged for Palpatine's benefit nor question the underlying assumptions of the war.

Perhaps because the evidence available to them does not support such a conclusion, and to simply suppose so would be an absurd leap in logic. So the Jedi are 'pathetic' because they are not conspiracy theorists? Just keep stretching terms, Degan. Keep moving those goalposts.

The evidence speaks for itself. All you have is say-so. Guess how much that weighs in on the discussion?

Cuuuuute. Pretending that Napoleon's failure to accomplish his larger plan is at all comparable to Palpatine not really having a larger plan than "unlimited POWERRRRR" and using an overly complicated scheme to bring it about.

His larger plan was firstly, establishing an unchallenged autocracy of the galaxy by the reigning Sith Master. This necessitated a capable and superlatively powerful and influential apprentice. The Chosen One, the "Hero with No Fear", filled both requirements. Later, his larger plan evolved to include practical immortality and apotheosis. This necessitates amplification of his personal potential through the assimilation of subordinates; again requiring a superlatively powerful apprentice, a role which General Skywalker the Younger qualifies amply. And he was succeeding at both.

And you've defined it so broadly so as to allow any claim you care to pluck out of the sky to be used to justify your own position.

My position is the same as canonical material, which unless contradicted by a preponderance of canonical material or canonical material of greater authenticity, is the indisputable and authentic story of Star Wars. Your position is say-so. Guess which matters more in this discussion?

Again, Palpatine is a mechanic. Hitler took power in Germany with far less effort involved and in a far shorter timespan.

Have you ever even heard of apples and oranges? Simply because a demagogue ever seized control of a state makes it an automatically equivalent comparison as a standard of genius? I suppose Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus was simply a "mechanic" since his autocracy similarly took decades to fully realize? And enough of your smarmy, know-nothing bullshit: you want to make a substantive comparison? Actually make it; explain how it is analogous and in what context and why.

Who said anything about discarding evidence, strawmanderer?

Uh, you, with regard to every item cited by Mr. Cale? You need a good reason to discard it, and so far you've only provided wannabe pedantry and false analogies.

I think a more appropriate verb would be "strawmanner"; "gerrymandering" was named for Mr. Elbridge Thomas Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts, whose wildly improbable districts were compared to an undulating creature; and from "Gerry" and "Salamander," came "gerrymander."

The fuck it isn't the case here. We have a sheaf of observed events and the observable behaviour of a man which is as much fair game for analysis as power calcs or physical manifestations of the Force.

Uhm, no. Those physical events are quantifiable and objective, Degan. Your interpretation of genius is not quite the same as physical constraints on the heat of vaporization of a nickel-iron asteroid, et al. I wouldn't be surprised if your rampant narcissism left you to believe your fiat is equal to physics, but I'm afraid it simply is not.

We can indeed evaluate Palpatine's actions and his observed behavior to determine whether or not he was a genius or a lucky mechanic, and later whether or not he is insane.

You've failed to adequately define "genius"; you've failed to adequately define "mechanic"; and you've failed to adequately define "insane". You've also failed to substantiate evidence that he would qualify or disqualify for any of the terms here. You've failed to substantiate said definitions as being in common usage or conforming to rigorous or scholarly-understood standards. Also, you've failed to dispel canonical citations; which represent the authentic story of what is Star Wars insofar that this discussion is concerned. If you have the intention of fabricating your own personal standard of evidence at will, this discussion cannot continue because it is obvious you are not willing to play by the rules.

Their suspicions coming when it is just about too late to reverse the course of events. And the only thing they're suspicious of at the point of the very scene you quote is how Palpatine has managed to stay in power long after his term was supposed to be up and why he is interfering in the affairs of the Jedi Council by insisting on Anakin's appointment.

Ah, so now it not that they do not ask questions, it is that they ask them too late. Nice goalpost shifting. Perhaps they ask these limited questions because it is the real evidence they have access too, and because more aggressive interference would be unconstitutional and antidemocratic? Especially bereft of any, even circumstantial evidence? Maybe?

[snip]

Some usages are less appropriate than others; furthermore, their usage was considerably less pretentious and unwieldy than yours. As to your complaints, don't worry: I'll be sure to make a note of it on my invisible typewriter.

Actually, they can. To reiterate: We have a sheaf of observed events and the observable behaviour of a man which is as much fair game for analysis as power calcs or physical manifestations of the Force.

Uh, no, because those are physically and visually mandated constraints.

We can indeed evaluate Palpatine's actions and his observed behaviour to determine whether or not he was a genius or a lucky mechanic. "Spirit of the canon" does not cut it as an objection no matter how much you think it does.

Try again.

Right. Cale openly cited that he is a genius. Substantiate that it is incorrect, or retract your claims. No "spirit" required. Furthermore, it is you who're arguing through the force of your say-so alone, not me. Furthermore, you've failed to define the standards by which you make your claim or to substantiate that those standards conform to common or scholarly usage. A (not very) clever sleight of hand, unfortunately, its a textbook example of audiatur et altera pars.

[Alexian Cale]

In relative conclusion, the question regarding the Galactic Emperor's intellect and status as a mastermind has already been answered -- through the citation of several canon sources -- and it is a unanimous "yes". Should you feel compelled to challenge the result, the burden of proof is on you, and since you have no factual basis in terms of continuity or canon, I don't expect that your claims will make it very far.

[TC Pilot]

I think it is safe to qualify Palpatine as a genius, perhaps unrivaled.

Rising from a nearly insignificant senatorial posting to supreme ruler of most of the galaxy and holding hegmonic dominion over the rest is hardly an insignficant task, particularly when one remembes he essentially orchestrated all the events leading to his acclamation, or adapted to them rapidly. Not only did he effectively destroy a thousand-year old republic with millenia-old traditions, but crafted a wildly popular new regime.

One may fault him for risking too much in his gamble to turn Anakin Skywalker, but as a faithful Sith Lord, it is his responsibilty to perpetuate his religious order and to eliminate the greatest threat to it i.e. the Chosen One. Considering he was, arguably, invincible against all other threats, it may be that Palpatine actually was in absolutely no danger in his duel with Windu, and thus risked nothing.

[Patrick Degan]

They observe that the Chancellor may have suspect dealings. They do not even begin to suspect that the entire war is suspiciously arranged for Palpatine's benefit nor question the underlying assumptions of the war.

Perhaps because the evidence available to them does not support such a conclusion, and to simply suppose so would be an absurd leap in logic. So the Jedi are 'pathetic' because they are not conspiracy theorists? Just keep stretching terms, Degan. Keep moving those goalposts.

Wrong. It is not "moving the goalposts" to state that the Jedi clearly don't suspect the truth of the fucking war or just how deeply Palpatine is involved in it.

The evidence speaks for itself. All you have is say-so. Guess how much that weighs in on the discussion?

The evidence does indeed speak for itself. All you have is preconceived notion attempting to warp that evidence in its direction. Guess how much that weighs in on the discussion?

Cuuuuute. Pretending that Napoleon's failure to accomplish his larger plan is at all comparable to Palpatine not really having a larger plan than "unlimited POWERRRRR" and using an overly complicated scheme to bring it about.

His larger plan was firstly, establishing an unchallenged autocracy of the galaxy by the reigning Sith Master. This necessitated a capable and superlatively powerful and influential apprentice. The Chosen One, the "Hero with No Fear", filled both requirements. Later, his larger plan evolved to include practical immortality and apotheosis. This necessitates amplification of his personal potential through the assimilation of subordinates; again requiring a superlatively powerful apprentice, a role which General Skywalker the Younger qualifies amply. And he was succeeding at both.

In other words, a gigantic ego-trip with no vision other than the service of that ego. And this, according to you, is "genius".

And you've defined it so broadly so as to allow any claim you care to pluck out of the sky to be used to justify your own position.

My position is the same as canonical material, which unless contradicted by a preponderance of canonical material or canonical material of greater authenticity, is the indisputable and authentic story of Star Wars. Your position is say-so. Guess which matters more in this discussion?

No, your position is a Bible-Fundamentalist view of canonical material which according to you is not subject to question, discussion, analysis or evaluation.

Again, Palpatine is a mechanic. Hitler took power in Germany with far less effort involved and in a far shorter timespan.

Have you ever even heard of apples and oranges? Simply because a demagogue ever seized control of a state makes it an automatically equivalent comparison as a standard of genius? I suppose Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus was simply a "mechanic" since his autocracy similarly took decades to fully realize? And enough of your smarmy, know-nothing bullshit: you want to make a substantive comparison? Actually make it; explain how it is analogous and in what context and why.

I wouldn't be accusing anybody else of spewing smarmy, no-nothing bullshit if I were you, Mr. Primus. Your comparison with Caesar Augustus is even more ridiculous than your attempted comparison of Palpatine with Napoleon. Augustus actually had a far grander vision for his state and one which would endure past his lifetime. He brought an end to his state's civil wars, recreated a political order which was clearly in fatal breakdown, reestablished stability, made Rome's military a more effective and efficient unit, and brought peace and prosperity to a nation rent by years of strife. Autocratic it may have been but the result was an empire which endured for half a millenia even given the lack of an orderly imperial succession mechanism. Unlike Palpatine, Augustus achieved his vision, replaced a broken system with one which was guaranteed to work, and made it durable while advancing the greatness of Rome. For Palpatine, by contrast, it was all about his ego, and his methods —heedless of consequences— brought chaos and decades of civil war. But, according to you, this is "genius".

Who said anything about discarding evidence, strawmanderer?

Uh, you, with regard to every item cited by Mr. Cale? You need a good reason to discard it, and so far you've only provided wannabe pedantry and false analogies.

Uh, wrong. The facts of the movie events are not being discarded. It is, rather, the evaluation of those facts which is subject to this discussion. Sorry if it doesn't suit your Bible-Fundamentalist view of the canon but I'm not responsible for that.

I think a more appropriate verb would be "strawmanner"; "gerrymandering" was named for Mr. Elbridge Thomas Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts, whose wildly improbable districts were compared to an undulating creature; and from "Gerry" and "Salamander," came "gerrymander."

"Strawmanderer" has been used here before in other discussions, you little semantics-whore. Kindly stick to the actual topic at hand.

The fuck it isn't the case here. We have a sheaf of observed events and the observable behaviour of a man which is as much fair game for analysis as power calcs or physical manifestations of the Force.

Uhm, no. Those physical events are quantifiable and objective, Degan. Your interpretation of genius is not quite the same as physical constraints on the heat of vaporization of a nickel-iron asteroid, et al. I wouldn't be surprised if your rampant narcissism left you to believe your fiat is equal to physics, but I'm afraid it simply is not.

Doubtless you thought you were making a point with all that spew of yours, but of course you failed utterly. Observations of character, behaviour, and consequences of a man's actions are perfectly subject to evaluation. Again, sorry if this doesn't suit your Bible-Fundamentalist view of the canon, but that is not my problem.

We can indeed evaluate Palpatine's actions and his observed behavior to determine whether or not he was a genius or a lucky mechanic, and later whether or not he is insane.

You've failed to adequately define "genius"; you've failed to adequately define "mechanic"; and you've failed to adequately define "insane". You've also failed to substantiate evidence that he would qualify or disqualify for any of the terms here. You've failed to substantiate said definitions as being in common usage or conforming to rigorous or scholarly-understood standards. Also, you've failed to dispel canonical citations; which represent the authentic story of what is Star Wars insofar that this discussion is concerned. If you have the intention of fabricating your own personal standard of evidence at will, this discussion cannot continue because it is obvious you are not willing to play by the rules.

Sayeth the man who is essentially taking the position that Palpatine's alleged "genius" is not to be subject to question, in accordance to a Bible-Fundamentalist view of the canon. How droll.

As for your other charges, it is assumed that anybody reading this thread is able to understand what the terms "genius" and "insane" are, and how the word "mechanic" was used in context to the discussion. Anybody, that is, except for yourself and your little playmate of course.

Their suspicions coming when it is just about too late to reverse the course of events. And the only thing they're suspicious of at the point of the very scene you quote is how Palpatine has managed to stay in power long after his term was supposed to be up and why he is interfering in the affairs of the Jedi Council by insisting on Anakin's appointment.

Ah, so now it not that they do not ask questions, it is that they ask them too late. Nice goalpost shifting. Perhaps they ask these limited questions because it is the real evidence they have access too, and because more aggressive interference would be unconstitutional and antidemocratic? Especially bereft of any, even circumstantial evidence? Maybe?

They did not ask questions. They did not bother to question the underlying assumptions of the war. In other words, the Jedi failed to do what us poor ordinary mortals have managed to do in regards to George Bush and the war against an abstraction. What suspicions they had only went so far as Palpatine's respect of constitutional limitations and his involvement in getting Anakin appointed to the Jedi Council, which they regarded as interference. Even as they pondered whether Palpatine might be planning to extend himself in office indefinitely, they accepted at face-value the reality of Palpatine's war as thoughtlessly as the Senate and the population at large.

Some usages are less appropriate than others; furthermore, their usage was considerably less pretentious and unwieldy than yours. As to your complaints, don't worry: I'll be sure to make a note of it on my invisible typewriter.

The only thing worse than your semantics-whoring is your defence of your semantics-whoring and its pretensions to cleverness.

Actually, they can. To reiterate: We have a sheaf of observed events and the observable behaviour of a man which is as much fair game for analysis as power calcs or physical manifestations of the Force.

Uh, no, because those are physically and visually mandated constraints.

And observable behaviour, character, and consequences of actions are perfectly available for evaluation. Which, BTW, is the practise of both historical biography and psychology.

We can indeed evaluate Palpatine's actions and his observed behaviour to determine whether or not he was a genius or a lucky mechanic. "Spirit of the canon" does not cut it as an objection no matter how much you think it does.

Try again.

Right. Cale openly cited that he is a genius. Substantiate that it is incorrect, or retract your claims. No "spirit" required. Furthermore, it is you who're arguing through the force of your say-so alone blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah...

Cale cited a secondary-source description of Palpatine as a "genius" and, like you, locked onto it as a self-evident assertion not subject to question. Indeed, you have both proceeded to make the evidence conform to that assertion instead of evaluating independently the facts of the matter. You have placed yourself in the position of defending a Bible-Fundamentalist view of canon instead of taking a scientific approach, which is to ask questions and examine the evidence without fear or favour. To sum up your "argument": "Palpatine is a genius. Everything points to his being a genius especially because a secondary-source guidebook says he's a genius. Therefore, Palpatine is a genius."