Given both Triana and the Jedi had normal access to their power, Triana would kick ass. Jedi morality prevents the use of the more effective ways to kill using the Force. Triana has no such compunction concerning the All. A Sith Lord might give her some trouble, as they have no moral restrictions, but the versatility of the All should squash any wielder of the Force who should stand against her.
DigitalMaestro
A verses B
-
DigitalMaestro
- Sui'Kun
- Posts: 268
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:01 pm
- Contact:
Re: A verses B
DigitalMaestro wrote:Given both Triana and the Jedi had normal access to their power, Triana would kick ass. Jedi morality prevents the use of the more effective ways to kill using the Force. Triana has no such compunction concerning the All. A Sith Lord might give her some trouble, as they have no moral restrictions, but the versatility of the All should squash any wielder of the Force who should stand against her.
DigitalMaestro
Sith lord by a whisker.Even then it would be close.
Cant see that good old were health whatever holding up too long verses a lightsaber. The damage would be too severe,plus don't count out the force, quite yet.
-
DigitalMaestro
- Sui'Kun
- Posts: 268
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:01 pm
- Contact:
Re: A verses B
Fel,
I think this requires an answer from the dark master. Short story? ....
We NEEeeD an answer!! preferably in narrative about 3 chapters long. lol.
--DigitalMaestro
I think this requires an answer from the dark master. Short story? ....
We NEEeeD an answer!! preferably in narrative about 3 chapters long. lol.
--DigitalMaestro
Re: A verses B
2nd or 3rd stage Lensman vs Jedi? Does anyone read space opera anymore?
J-Man5
J-Man5
Re: A verses B
Paul Maudib vs The Borg
Predator vs Species 8742
Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever vs Darth Vader
Predator vs Species 8742
Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever vs Darth Vader
Re: A verses B
I am going to have to look up the lensman series , before I can reply.
Obviously Vader cause hes the Number one badass with out all the neuroses!Thomas is pretty kool , but come on!~J-Man5 wrote: Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever vs Darth Vader
Re: A verses B
which actually is Fel most popular series of all time?
Re: A verses B
Does this really matter?
I am Aussie and I see no reason why not to leave things as they are, (and no, I am not a protestant) Historically, the Royalty of England has been what it is. Its like asking the Pope , if he wouldn't mind becoming a Protestant , Muslim or Jewish or any other belief, i have failed to mention.This is bullshit political correctness for the sake of being politically correct.
Anyways here's the article.
Britain contemplates a Catholic queen
THE British monarchy faces an overhaul under plans drawn up by the Government that would end the 300-year-old exclusion of Catholics from the throne and change the succession laws so a first-born daughter could inherit the throne.
Geoffrey Robertson, QC, who has led court challenges to succession laws citing the Sex Discrimination and Human Rights Acts, described the current system as "arcane and archaic legislation [that] enshrined religious intolerance" and said royals should be able to retain their succession rights regardless of whom they marry, whether Catholic, "Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Rastafarian".
The plans were drafted by Chris Bryant, the MP who was charged by the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, with reviewing the constitution.
It is understood the Brown Government would like the legislation to be passed quickly should Labour win a fourth term in government at the next British general election.
Mr Bryant briefed constitutional pressure groups on the plans at a private seminar in Manchester during the Labour conference there this week.
Any change in legislation would, among other things, require the consent of member nations of the Commonwealth.
Government ministers have long thought it anomalous that it is unlawful for a Catholic to be monarch but have not had the political will to change the law.
The 1688 Bill of Rights , the Act of Settlement in 1701 and Act of Union in 1707 - reinforced by the provisions of the Coronation Oath Act 1688 - effectively excluded Catholics or their spouses from the succession and provided for a Protestant succession.
Neither Catholics, nor those who marry them, nor those born to them out of wedlock may be in the line of succession. The law also requires the monarch to make a declaration before Parliament rejecting Catholicism on accession.
Though the Act of Settlement remains a cornerstone of the British constitution, critics have long argued about its relevance in the 21st century, saying it institutionalises religious discrimination and male primogeniture.
Eight years ago The Guardian launched a campaign for a change in the law, supporting a legal challenge on the grounds that the Act of Settlement clashed with the Human Rights Act.
Mr Robertson, who has represented the newspaper in challenges to the constitutional restrictions, said: "I welcome this as two small steps towards a more rational constitution.
"The Act of Settlement determined that the crown shall descend only on Protestant heads and that anyone 'who holds communion with the church of Rome or marries a Papist' - not to mention a Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Rastafarian - is excluded by force of law.
"This arcane and archaic legislation enshrined religious intolerance in the bedrock of the British constitution.
"In order to hold the office of head of state you must be white Anglo-German Protestant - a descendant of Princess Sophia of Hanover - down the male line on the feudal principle of primogeniture.
"This is in blatant contravention of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Act."
The next stage, Mr Robertson said, was for the Government to challenge the notion of a head of state who achieved the position through inheritance.
The Act of Settlement has barred dozens of people from taking their place in the order of succession. In recent years, the Earl of St Andrews and Prince Michael of Kent lost the right of succession through marriage to Catholics.
Guardian News & Media
I am Aussie and I see no reason why not to leave things as they are, (and no, I am not a protestant) Historically, the Royalty of England has been what it is. Its like asking the Pope , if he wouldn't mind becoming a Protestant , Muslim or Jewish or any other belief, i have failed to mention.This is bullshit political correctness for the sake of being politically correct.
Anyways here's the article.
Britain contemplates a Catholic queen
THE British monarchy faces an overhaul under plans drawn up by the Government that would end the 300-year-old exclusion of Catholics from the throne and change the succession laws so a first-born daughter could inherit the throne.
Geoffrey Robertson, QC, who has led court challenges to succession laws citing the Sex Discrimination and Human Rights Acts, described the current system as "arcane and archaic legislation [that] enshrined religious intolerance" and said royals should be able to retain their succession rights regardless of whom they marry, whether Catholic, "Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Rastafarian".
The plans were drafted by Chris Bryant, the MP who was charged by the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, with reviewing the constitution.
It is understood the Brown Government would like the legislation to be passed quickly should Labour win a fourth term in government at the next British general election.
Mr Bryant briefed constitutional pressure groups on the plans at a private seminar in Manchester during the Labour conference there this week.
Any change in legislation would, among other things, require the consent of member nations of the Commonwealth.
Government ministers have long thought it anomalous that it is unlawful for a Catholic to be monarch but have not had the political will to change the law.
The 1688 Bill of Rights , the Act of Settlement in 1701 and Act of Union in 1707 - reinforced by the provisions of the Coronation Oath Act 1688 - effectively excluded Catholics or their spouses from the succession and provided for a Protestant succession.
Neither Catholics, nor those who marry them, nor those born to them out of wedlock may be in the line of succession. The law also requires the monarch to make a declaration before Parliament rejecting Catholicism on accession.
Though the Act of Settlement remains a cornerstone of the British constitution, critics have long argued about its relevance in the 21st century, saying it institutionalises religious discrimination and male primogeniture.
Eight years ago The Guardian launched a campaign for a change in the law, supporting a legal challenge on the grounds that the Act of Settlement clashed with the Human Rights Act.
Mr Robertson, who has represented the newspaper in challenges to the constitutional restrictions, said: "I welcome this as two small steps towards a more rational constitution.
"The Act of Settlement determined that the crown shall descend only on Protestant heads and that anyone 'who holds communion with the church of Rome or marries a Papist' - not to mention a Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Rastafarian - is excluded by force of law.
"This arcane and archaic legislation enshrined religious intolerance in the bedrock of the British constitution.
"In order to hold the office of head of state you must be white Anglo-German Protestant - a descendant of Princess Sophia of Hanover - down the male line on the feudal principle of primogeniture.
"This is in blatant contravention of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Act."
The next stage, Mr Robertson said, was for the Government to challenge the notion of a head of state who achieved the position through inheritance.
The Act of Settlement has barred dozens of people from taking their place in the order of succession. In recent years, the Earl of St Andrews and Prince Michael of Kent lost the right of succession through marriage to Catholics.
Guardian News & Media