official?
DarkStar
I have a question. I looked here:
http://www.sfdebris.com/faq.html#8
... and saw the "order of canon" and the official stuff. It looked neat and
tidy...
But, then I looked here:
http://jceu.tripod.com/faq.html#4
... and saw a few conflicting interpretations, while here:
http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html
... a guy from LucasBooks says that only the films are canon, and he says
something about "continuity," but apparently he refers only to internal
consistency within the realm of the books. Meanwhile, here:
http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20000424.html
... we once again get the concept of degrees of canon, along with the
reiteration that the only true canon is the films.
Okay, so my question is, where in the world does the concept of "official"
come from, including the neat and tidy degrees of canon thing?
Phil Skayhan
"DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:x5LQ8.65405$_j6.3...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/continuity.html
DarkStar
"Phil Skayhan" <ph...@skayhan.net> wrote in message
news:LfLQ8.181$t7...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Yeah, I saw that, too, but I didn't think it helped matters any, for several
minor reasons and one main one. First, the minors:
The magazine article he quotes first says nothing about official, other than
the "between us, we've read everything" line, but that says nothing except
that the guy being interviewed reads Star Wars novels.
What I don't get at all is how the author of that webpage then says
"Therefore ... Any other form of unfilmed STAR WARS fiction may be official
...", since the magazine article never said anything about it.
However, I do like his definition of official, meaning "subordinate to canon
and required to be consistent with other official works," because it is
perfectly correct and in keeping with the statements made on the other
websites. I don't like it, though, because it renders the "official"
category meaningless ... it just says that the works aren't canon, but have
to maintain consistency with each other.
Interestingly, he uses a comment made in one of the books to prove the books
are "quasi-canon", which my readings here suggest isn't allowed (for
example, the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual calls itself "official").
And now, the major reason I don't think this webpage is of any value:
The page opens up with the following explanation/disclaimer: "Below I
describe the principles employed to resolve these difficulties as a basis
for my STAR WARS Technical Commentaries."
In other words, that's just what he's using for his own stuff, and isn't an
official statement of what is and isn't canon, official, apocryphal, and so
on. Several other websites had similar "This is how we do it" statements,
and I ignored them, too.
Chuck, Dark Lord of the Rings
exists as "those parts of the Star Wars universe that were not written by
George Lucas but is nevertheless considered part of that universe where it
does not conflict with canon." "Official" is shorter. The category itself
is based on the statements given us by Lucasfilm on the subject, including
the SWI quote and remarks about the EU on the website.
The Sansweet remarks came after the writing of the FAQ and the R&R. This is
how I (the writer of the FAQ) decided to interpret it:
"Canon" is a reference to the level of truth as far as SW is concerned.
There are many layers to that canon as Sansweet remarked, and the layers go
down the further you get from Lucas' final vision. When he says the only
"true canon" is the films, he means that the ultimate Star Wars truth is the
films. The FAQ states this. The remaining parts of the category called
"canon" are lesser truths and are (and always have been) subordinate to the
films. However, they remain true to Lucas' vision with only some minor
deviations. They are accepted as truth so long as they do not conflict with
the films. The "official" category is further from the truth because it
didn't come directly from Lucas story, but by expanding upon it (hence,
expanded universe). This level of separation means that it's not going to
be as high a level of canon as those other parts of the "canon" list (radio
dramas, scripts, novelizations), and certainly not the films. However,
since they are nevertheless part of the universe they are accepted where
they do not conflict.
DarkStar
"Chuck, Dark Lord of the Rings" <so...@biteme.com> wrote in message
news:g4OQ8.94118$X9.35...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
The Star Wars Insider #23 quote makes no reference to "official", or even
"those parts of the Star Wars universe that were not written by George Lucas
but is nevertheless considered part of that universe wehre it does not
conflict with canon." The person/people interviewed explained that "between
us, we've read everything", but that's personal testimony.
What remarks about the Expanded Universe are you referring to? The Jedi
Council pages I've referenced seem to make it pretty clear that the EU is
not canon. Without their being an "official" status created within any of
the statements of Lucas or his authorized agents, that would seem to leave
the Expanded Universe out. :(
> The Sansweet remarks came after the writing of the FAQ and the R&R. This
is
> how I (the writer of the FAQ) decided to interpret it:
> "Canon" is a reference to the level of truth as far as SW is concerned.
> There are many layers to that canon as Sansweet remarked, and the layers
go
> down the further you get from Lucas' final vision. When he says the only
> "true canon" is the films, he means that the ultimate Star Wars truth is
the
> films. The FAQ states this. The remaining parts of the category called
> "canon" are lesser truths and are (and always have been) subordinate to
the
> films. However, they remain true to Lucas' vision with only some minor
> deviations. They are accepted as truth so long as they do not conflict
with
> the films. The "official" category is further from the truth because it
> didn't come directly from Lucas story, but by expanding upon it (hence,
> expanded universe). This level of separation means that it's not going to
> be as high a level of canon as those other parts of the "canon" list
(radio
> dramas, scripts, novelizations), and certainly not the films. However,
> since they are nevertheless part of the universe they are accepted where
> they do not conflict.
The part I'm bothered by, though, is the fact that nowhere is there any
reference to an official category anywhere, and I don't just mean by name.
I mean the concept of official ... it doesn't exist. There are the levels
of canon, but nowhere is the Expanded Universe given any weight, except in
reference to other elements within the Expanded Universe. Lucas himself
said that he isn't bound by it in his movie-making.
Cmdrwilkens
<snip>
That "personal testimony" was from the continuity editors at the time. They
also explained, if you missed, that everything else is part of the SW
history. In other words they affirm that the "canon" or unmutable truth of
SW lies in the films, radio plays, novelisations, and scripts but that there
is a whole catalog of works which are part of the SW universe subordinate in
authenticity to the films, novelisations, etc.
> What remarks about the Expanded Universe are you referring to? The Jedi
> Council pages I've referenced seem to make it pretty clear that the EU is
> not canon. Without their being an "official" status created within any
of
> the statements of Lucas or his authorized agents, that would seem to leave
> the Expanded Universe out. :(
>
You may note his use of the term "quasi-canon." This is Steven Sansweet's
pet term for what we call "official." Those works which are not direct
products of Lucas's vision (again the films, novelisations, etc) are not
absolute canon but still maintain the position of "quasi-canon" in that we
must consider the means of delivery in so far as how that piece of the
expanded universe fits into the overall continuity.
Sanswet uses the term "quasi-canon" rather than "official" replace one with
the other and ask yourself which is easier to say.
--
Lcpl Burnett, G.R.
USMCR
BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG
"Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure"
- IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net)
DarkStar
"Cmdrwilkens" <burn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:af0rq4$ae3l6$1...@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de...
They don't say anything like that in the part quoted. I don't have that
magazine, so I'm just going on the quote. They define canon, but all they
say about the other stuff is that it is "a vast history -- with many
off-shoots, variations and tangents." I'm saying that doesn't actually
mean anything about "official." The old TV show Gunsmoke "comprises a vast
history" of life in the West, but has nothing to do with "canon" history.
Also, they never say it is "part of the SW universe subordinate in
authenticity" to anything. All they say is that they read it.
>
> > What remarks about the Expanded Universe are you referring to? The Jedi
> > Council pages I've referenced seem to make it pretty clear that the EU
is
> > not canon. Without their being an "official" status created within any
> of
> > the statements of Lucas or his authorized agents, that would seem to
leave
> > the Expanded Universe out. :(
> >
>
> You may note his use of the term "quasi-canon." This is Steven Sansweet's
> pet term for what we call "official." Those works which are not direct
> products of Lucas's vision (again the films, novelisations, etc) are not
> absolute canon but still maintain the position of "quasi-canon" in that we
> must consider the means of delivery in so far as how that piece of the
> expanded universe fits into the overall continuity.
"Quasi-canon" isn't on the website, so I don't think that is what he was
talking about. Those statements by Sansweet are only found in one of the
book's forewards, which I don't think is any different than how the Star
Trek TNG Technical Manual authors say their book is "official". To say
otherwise is a double-standard, and I hope we don't want to go down that
road.
Point taken. :)
Unfortunately, the deeper problem remains. There is no mention of
quasi-canon/official in canon policy statements by Lucas or his agents,
except in a book foreward, and that book foreward isn't canon (according to
stated canon policy).
Wayne Poe
Wouter Valentijn
"Wayne Poe" <lo...@h4h.com> schreef in bericht
news:uh86g77...@corp.supernews.com...
It is also here:
http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html
--
Wouter Valentijn
Cmdrwilkens
>
> "Cmdrwilkens" <burn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:af0rq4$ae3l6$1...@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de...
> > "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:I%QQ8.320253$%y.261...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > <snip>
> Unfortunately, the deeper problem remains. There is no mention of
> quasi-canon/official in canon policy statements by Lucas or his agents,
> except in a book foreward, and that book foreward isn't canon (according
to
> stated canon policy).
"...every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real'
Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are
decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them"
This is Sansweet's exact quote. We also knwo from the LucasFilm continuity
editors that "canon" is the FIlms, Novelisations, Radio Plays, and Scripts.
By common definition of the word canon (or "Gospel" as they say) these are
the immutabele truths of the SW unvierse. AS Sansweet points out on SW.com
"every piece of published SW fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars."
Now for clarity we are saying that everything not a Film, Novelisation, etc
is "official" and the rest are "canon." We use a term that LucasFilm doesn't
use but it doens't change the fact that everything that LucasFilm approves
of as a "published Star Wars fiction" is part of the continuity (excepting
those things marked with the Infinities symbol).
DarkStar
"Wayne Poe" <lo...@h4h.com> wrote in message
news:uh86g77...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > I have a question.
>
> http://h4h.com/louis/sources.html
Yes, I found your page in my research, too. I didn't reference it since the
important points were in the primary sources I referenced.
I agree that you can try to combine the Insider quote and the
Cerasi-Sansweet quote to find the canon policy between them. It is worthy
of mentioning, though, that the official order of canon isn't stated.
See, order of canon usually given (as seen on your page) is:
(a) the films
(b) the scripts
(c) the film novelizations
(d) the radio-plays
But, I don't see that order directly reflected in the quotes. The Insider
mentions the screenplays, films, radio dramas, and novelisations, in that
order. I think that is best ignored, though, in favor of the Cerasi quote
about how the "further one branches away from the movies, the more
interpretation and speculation come into play." So the films naturally
should come first, with scripts second. The movie novelisations versus the
radio-plays is tricky, but I don't see a problem with the radio stuff coming
last. After all, Cerasi says that the novels "should be regarded as very
accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies," which are the
absolute canon.
So that's fine, but here our troubles begin.
Now we get into sticky territory. Your page has the same basic idea seen
in a few other places, that "ALL other materials have the status "official"
.. not "canon" which means that if the EU novels, roleplaying games, the
cardgames, PC and console games, comics, etc. contradict the accepted
'canon', movies, novelizations, or radioplays on some particular detail,
then they do NOT hold true, ON THAT POINT."
But, nowhere is this stated by Lucas or any of his authorized agents.
Nowhere are the words "official" or "quasi-canon" in official statements by
Lucas or his authorized agents. _The_very_concept_ is missing from these
statements.
The only place we see "quasi-canon" is in a book which itself would be
"quasi-canon", much like the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual proclaims itself
"official", but is not regarded as such because Paramount has never referred
to or suggested the existence of an official category.
Don't get me wrong ... I think that idea is fine as a person's individual
view. That is, in fact, how I look at Star Wars canon. I agree with
Sansweet that issues like canon are indeed best left to an individual's
point of view.
But, we can't use an arbitrary judgement like that to determine Star Wars or
Star Trek. If I had my way, the Earth-Romulan War era of Star Trek would
look more like this: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sfmuseum/index.htm .
It's got continuity and a cool World War II theme about it.
We have to be more rigid here, I think. And so we need to find something
official that allows official things in. We don't have it.
Your page also has several quotes about official stuff. For instance, you
have a quote from Handley about Marvel comics. However, at no point does
Handley say that Lucas or Lucasfilm consider any publication besides the
movie novelisations canon, official, or anything else. That just says the
same thing shown elsewhere, that the novels, comics, and other similar
things try to stay consistent with each other and the canon. "The
continuity" they refer to doesn't mean "official/quasi-canon fact", but an
"internal" consistency with other publications.
You also have a quote from Kevin J. Anderson, where he responds to a
reader's beliefs by pointing out that the background on the Sith he had came
from Lucas. (By the way, where did you get the idea that the storylines of
Tales of the Jedi are "directly from George Lucas himself"? Anderson
doesn't say that.) This doesn't prove that the novels have some "official"
status either, but only that Anderson got a chance to talk to Lucas and pick
his brain. They are Lucas' beliefs, but if they aren't part of the stated
canon, they aren't canon. So, the person who wrote the letter saying that
his views on the Sith were wrong was not wrong for disagreeing, since he or
she has the liberty of ignoring that idea.
Finally, there is the quote from the "Star by Star" author. But, like
Saxton's comment that he was only giving the rules for use _on_his_site_,
the author is talking about the things he needs _for_a_book_, and we already
know that the books are supposed to maintain "continuity" _with_each_other_.
Do we have anything direct from Lucas/LFL about the canonicity of the
Expanded Universe, compared to the canon adventures?
DarkStar
> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:SDTQ8.378356$Oa1.27...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> >
> > "Cmdrwilkens" <burn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:af0rq4$ae3l6$1...@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de...
> > > "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:I%QQ8.320253$%y.261...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > > <snip>
> <snip>
> > Unfortunately, the deeper problem remains. There is no mention of
> > quasi-canon/official in canon policy statements by Lucas or his agents,
> > except in a book foreward, and that book foreward isn't canon (according
> to
> > stated canon policy).
>
>
> "...every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real'
> Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are
> decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them"
You're taking that meaningless quote out of context and giving it meaning it
doesn't have. It is clear, by what he said in the prior paragraph and what
he said afterward, that he's talking about the "continuity" of the Expanded
Universe. In the paragraph above, for example, he says that "the further
one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation
come into play." Speculation does not make fact, which is precisely what
you are arguing.
The very next sentence makes clear that he's talking about the Expanded
Universe, and he then gives the analogy you quote. Also, I have to point
out that the "nugget of truth" might not be something never seen in canon,
as you seem to be suggesting ... the nuggets of truth might be taken from
the canon and placed in the Expanded Universe. In other words, if I wrote
a completely fictional and counterfactual version of the second World War,
but used a real speech by Churchill, my work could be said to contain "a
nugget of truth", or be "a window into the 'real' World War II universe",
but it would still be complete crap.
http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html
> This is Sansweet's exact quote. We also knwo from the LucasFilm continuity
> editors that "canon" is the FIlms, Novelisations, Radio Plays, and
Scripts.
> By common definition of the word canon (or "Gospel" as they say) these are
> the immutabele truths of the SW unvierse. AS Sansweet points out on SW.com
> "every piece of published SW fiction is a window into the 'real' Star
Wars."
If we take that quote out of context, the quote would then allow for the
stuff with the "Infinities" symbol to have happened. But, at the same time,
it leaves out anything that isn't a story, so stuff like the ICS would be
out. Context is very important. :)
Wayne Poe
"DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > http://h4h.com/louis/sources.html
>
> Yes, I found your page in my research, too. I didn't reference it since
the
> important points were in the primary sources I referenced.
>
> I agree that you can try to combine the Insider quote and the
> Cerasi-Sansweet quote to find the canon policy between them. It is worthy
> of mentioning, though, that the official order of canon isn't stated.
>
> See, order of canon usually given (as seen on your page) is:
> (a) the films
> (b) the scripts
> (c) the film novelizations
> (d) the radio-plays
>
> But, I don't see that order directly reflected in the quotes.
"The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and
speculation come into play."
What is so hard to understand?
> The Insider
> mentions the screenplays, films, radio dramas, and novelisations, in that
> order. I think that is best ignored, though, in favor of the Cerasi
quote
> about how the "further one branches away from the movies, the more
> interpretation and speculation come into play."
Ok, so you answered your own question above.
> So the films naturally
> should come first, with scripts second. The movie novelisations versus
the
> radio-plays is tricky, but I don't see a problem with the radio stuff
coming
> last.
You shouldn't, since they did, after all.
> After all, Cerasi says that the novels "should be regarded as very
> accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies," which are the
> absolute canon.
>
> So that's fine, but here our troubles begin.
> Now we get into sticky territory. Your page has the same basic idea seen
> in a few other places, that "ALL other materials have the status
"official"
> .. not "canon" which means that if the EU novels, roleplaying games, the
> cardgames, PC and console games, comics, etc. contradict the accepted
> 'canon', movies, novelizations, or radioplays on some particular detail,
> then they do NOT hold true, ON THAT POINT."
> But, nowhere is this stated by Lucas or any of his authorized agents.
> Nowhere are the words "official" or "quasi-canon" in official statements
by
> Lucas or his authorized agents. _The_very_concept_ is missing from these
> statements.
Is it really?
"The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window
into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than
others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to
them."
Again, what is so hard to understand? The novels, games, comics, etc, are
NOT the MOVIES, are they? They are NOT the SCRIPTS, are they? They are NOT
the NOVELIZATIONS, are they? They are NOT the RADIO PLAYS, are they?
Therefore, they are "official". If you have a better name for SW EU
materials that are not canon but accepted sources, fine.
> Don't get me wrong ... I think that idea is fine as a person's individual
> view. That is, in fact, how I look at Star Wars canon. I agree with
> Sansweet that issues like canon are indeed best left to an individual's
> point of view.
This isn't my personal view. This is Lucasfilm's view.
> But, we can't use an arbitrary judgement like that to determine Star Wars
or
> Star Trek.
We aren't. We are using Lucasfilm and Paramount stated policy. You seem to
be able to reference those sources, but refuse to understand the concept.
> Your page also has several quotes about official stuff. For instance,
you
> have a quote from Handley about Marvel comics. However, at no point does
> Handley say that Lucas or Lucasfilm consider any publication besides the
> movie novelisations canon, official, or anything else. That just says
the
> same thing shown elsewhere, that the novels, comics, and other similar
> things try to stay consistent with each other and the canon. "The
> continuity" they refer to doesn't mean "official/quasi-canon fact", but an
> "internal" consistency with other publications.
Other publications which are NOT the MOVIES, NOT the SCRIPTS, NOT the
NOVELIZATIONS, and NOT the RADIO PLAYS. Therefore, they are "official".
> You also have a quote from Kevin J. Anderson, where he responds to a
> reader's beliefs by pointing out that the background on the Sith he had
came
> from Lucas. (By the way, where did you get the idea that the storylines
of
> Tales of the Jedi are "directly from George Lucas himself"? Anderson
> doesn't say that.)
Do you have a problem reading?
"Sorry you don't like the framework of the Sith and Dark Jedi, Chris, but
that background came directly to us from George Lucas. We're following his
guidelines and building a story within the parameters he himself had laid
down."
No, Lucas didn't write the dialogue bubbles or number the pages, but the
story backgrounds and story parameters "came directly to us from George
Lucas." "Storylines" is not an incorrect word for me to use. I know you're
having fun attempting to be a pedantic ass, but give it a rest.
> Do we have anything direct from Lucas/LFL about the canonicity of the
> Expanded Universe, compared to the canon adventures?
Yes, and there are all in the references already pointed out. You simply
have a problem understanding them.
http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html
Cmdrwilkens
The significant difference here is that the expanded universe is part of the
"continuity." Now if you want to get technical
Main Entry: con·ti·nu·i·ty
Pronunciation: "kän-t&n-'ü-&-tE, -'yü-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 15th century
1 a : uninterrupted connection, succession, or union b : uninterrupted
duration or continuation especially without essential change
2 : something that has, exhibits, or provides continuity: as a : a script or
scenario in the performing arts b : transitional spoken or musical matter
especially for a radio or television program c : the story and dialogue of a
comic strip
3 : the property of being mathematically continuous
and
Main Entry: con·tin·u·ous
Pronunciation: k&n-'tin-yü-&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin continuus, from continEre to hold together -- more at
CONTAIN
Date: 1673
1 : marked by uninterrupted extension in space, time, or sequence
Now this means that being part of the "continuity" of star Wars means that
the EU is part of the whole, if it is part of the whole then it occupies a
position of authoritative testimony on the SW universe. We also know that
the "absolute truth" of SW is held within the films, novelisations, radio
plays, and scripts yet we also knwo that these other works exist as part of
the continuity of SW thus they are part of the SW universe BUT they are less
authoritative than the "canon" works as they are excluded from that list.
The terms we use are ones of convenience but they are vaslid as it applies
to the continuity/canon policies of Lucasfilm.
As an aside we have provide, in essence, a coherent theory to explain the
informaiton we have recieved. It is not enough to simply tooss a theory out
the window, a bad theory which explains MOST of the data is perferable to no
theory at all.
DarkStar
>
> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > > http://h4h.com/louis/sources.html
> >
> > Yes, I found your page in my research, too. I didn't reference it since
> the
> > important points were in the primary sources I referenced.
> >
> > I agree that you can try to combine the Insider quote and the
> > Cerasi-Sansweet quote to find the canon policy between them. It is
worthy
> > of mentioning, though, that the official order of canon isn't stated.
> >
> > See, order of canon usually given (as seen on your page) is:
> > (a) the films
> > (b) the scripts
> > (c) the film novelizations
> > (d) the radio-plays
> >
> > But, I don't see that order directly reflected in the quotes.
>
> "The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation
and
> speculation come into play."
>
> What is so hard to understand?
Speculation does not fact make.
>
> > The Insider
> > mentions the screenplays, films, radio dramas, and novelisations, in
that
> > order. I think that is best ignored, though, in favor of the Cerasi
> quote
> > about how the "further one branches away from the movies, the more
> > interpretation and speculation come into play."
>
> Ok, so you answered your own question above.
In reference to the canon, I think that quote applies well. We know from
the Insider quote what is considered canon, which with the Cerasi quote
defines a clear line ... after canon, it is interpretation and speculation
(unless, of course, they are directly referencing canon fact).
>
> > So the films naturally
> > should come first, with scripts second. The movie novelisations versus
> the
> > radio-plays is tricky, but I don't see a problem with the radio stuff
> coming
> > last.
>
> You shouldn't, since they did, after all.
I didn't think canon was a matter of chronology. I figure the prequel
movies are more canon than the 1981 radio dramas, for example.
As I told cmdrwilkens:
"You're taking that meaningless quote out of context and giving it meaning
it
doesn't have. It is clear, by what he said in the prior paragraph and what
he said afterward, that he's talking about the "continuity" of the Expanded
Universe. In the paragraph above, for example, he says that "the further
one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation
come into play." Speculation does not make fact, which is precisely what
you are arguing.
The very next sentence makes clear that he's talking about the Expanded
Universe, and he then gives the analogy you quote. Also, I have to point
out that the "nugget of truth" might not be something never seen in canon,
as you seem to be suggesting ... the nuggets of truth might be taken from
the canon and placed in the Expanded Universe. In other words, if I wrote
a completely fictional and counterfactual version of the second World War,
but used a real speech by Churchill, my work could be said to contain "a
nugget of truth", or be "a window into the 'real' World War II universe",
but it would still be complete crap."
> Again, what is so hard to understand? The novels, games, comics, etc, are
> NOT the MOVIES, are they? They are NOT the SCRIPTS, are they? They are NOT
> the NOVELIZATIONS, are they? They are NOT the RADIO PLAYS, are they?
>
> Therefore, they are "official". If you have a better name for SW EU
> materials that are not canon but accepted sources, fine.
You just repeated the mistake of _assuming_ they are accepted sources.
Perhaps Saxton said it best:
"Any STAR WARS material that is official but not canon is apocryphal."
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/faq.html#3.4
The only people who are forced to accept the Expanded Universe are those who
are writing for it, and are expected to maintain continuity with it.
> > Don't get me wrong ... I think that idea is fine as a person's
individual
> > view. That is, in fact, how I look at Star Wars canon. I agree with
> > Sansweet that issues like canon are indeed best left to an individual's
> > point of view.
>
> This isn't my personal view. This is Lucasfilm's view.
Says who? Not them.
> > But, we can't use an arbitrary judgement like that to determine Star
Wars
> or
> > Star Trek.
>
> We aren't. We are using Lucasfilm and Paramount stated policy. You seem to
> be able to reference those sources, but refuse to understand the concept.
You're trying to insert a concept that isn't present in the stated policy.
> > Your page also has several quotes about official stuff. For instance,
> you
> > have a quote from Handley about Marvel comics. However, at no point
does
> > Handley say that Lucas or Lucasfilm consider any publication besides the
> > movie novelisations canon, official, or anything else. That just says
> the
> > same thing shown elsewhere, that the novels, comics, and other similar
> > things try to stay consistent with each other and the canon. "The
> > continuity" they refer to doesn't mean "official/quasi-canon fact", but
an
> > "internal" consistency with other publications.
>
> Other publications which are NOT the MOVIES, NOT the SCRIPTS, NOT the
> NOVELIZATIONS, and NOT the RADIO PLAYS. Therefore, they are "official".
I do not see how this constitutes a reply to the part you quote. It seems
like you're trying to say that the Expanded Universe is official (and a
valid source of information) because the new Expanded Universe adventures
have to maintain continuity with the older Expanded Universe stuff.
So what? Just because EU must follow EU doesn't mean that all Star Wars
fans are supposed to consider the Expanded Universe factual. According to
Lucas and his authorized agents, only the canon is supposed to be considered
factual.
> > You also have a quote from Kevin J. Anderson, where he responds to a
> > reader's beliefs by pointing out that the background on the Sith he had
> came
> > from Lucas. (By the way, where did you get the idea that the
storylines
> of
> > Tales of the Jedi are "directly from George Lucas himself"? Anderson
> > doesn't say that.)
>
> Do you have a problem reading?
No.
> "Sorry you don't like the framework of the Sith and Dark Jedi, Chris, but
> that background came directly to us from George Lucas. We're following his
> guidelines and building a story within the parameters he himself had laid
> down."
>
> No, Lucas didn't write the dialogue bubbles or number the pages, but the
> story backgrounds and story parameters "came directly to us from George
> Lucas." "Storylines" is not an incorrect word for me to use. I know you're
> having fun attempting to be a pedantic ass, but give it a rest.
I'm not being a pedantic ass ... I'm just not ignoring the meaning of words,
like you are.
"Background" ... "guidelines" ... "parameters" ... "rules". You seem to
think these terms mean that Lucas snatched Anderson off the street and
ordered him to write a book with certain details and plotlines. The quote
from Anderson doesn't say that at all. The quote says that perhaps Anderson
got to pick Lucas' brain a bit and find out what Lucas thought the Sith were
like, their powers, and something of their origins. After all, Anderson is
replying to a letter about _the_characterization_ of the Sith, defending his
characterization by pointing out that he followed the rules Lucas laid down.
>
> > Do we have anything direct from Lucas/LFL about the canonicity of the
> > Expanded Universe, compared to the canon adventures?
>
> Yes, and there are all in the references already pointed out. You simply
> have a problem understanding them.
No, I understand them fine. I just don't add to them with my own
imagination like you do. :)
Wayne Poe
"DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> "Wayne Poe" <lo...@h4h.com> wrote
> > "The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation
> > and speculation come into play."
> > What is so hard to understand?
> Speculation does not fact make.
Making a nonsensical statement does not negate the EU either.
> > > The Insider
> > > mentions the screenplays, films, radio dramas, and novelisations, in
> that
> > > order. I think that is best ignored, though, in favor of the Cerasi
> > quote
> > > about how the "further one branches away from the movies, the more
> > > interpretation and speculation come into play."
> >
> > Ok, so you answered your own question above.
> In reference to the canon, I think that quote applies well. We know from
> the Insider quote what is considered canon, which with the Cerasi quote
> defines a clear line ... after canon, it is interpretation and speculation
> (unless, of course, they are directly referencing canon fact).
"These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are
written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and
much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire
catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots,
variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology."
This refers to the canon AND the EU.
You're not fooling anyone. You are just another whiny asshole who is looking
for a backdoor to invalidate the AOTC:ICS.
Too bad.
> > > So the films naturally
> > > should come first, with scripts second. The movie novelisations
versus
> > the
> > > radio-plays is tricky, but I don't see a problem with the radio stuff
> > coming
> > > last.
> >
> > You shouldn't, since they did, after all.
>
> I didn't think canon was a matter of chronology.
You would if you knew what you were talking about. Most of the backstory in
the RPs come from the novelizations. And if you were able to read what you
reference, you'd understand why the RPs are the last rung on the canon
ladder.
"The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and
speculation come into play. "
> I figure the prequel movies are more canon than the 1981 radio dramas, for
example.
Ooh! What a zinger! You've cut our whole charade to the quick! Why, you're
like that Garrison guy exposing the JFK conspiracy! Oops wait.....the
prequels are MOVIES, aren't they?
"Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films,
the radio dramas and the novelisations."
>>> But, nowhere is this stated by Lucas or any of his authorized agents.
Nowhere are the words "official" or "quasi-canon" in >>> official statements
by Lucas or his authorized agents. _The_very_concept_ is missing from
these statements.
> > Is it really?
>> "The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a
window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some
>> windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But
each contains a nugget of truth to them."
> As I told cmdrwilkens:
As Wilkens told you:
and
> In other words, if I wrote
> a completely fictional and counterfactual version of the second World War,
> but used a real speech by Churchill, my work could be said to contain "a
> nugget of truth", or be "a window into the 'real' World War II universe",
> but it would still be complete crap."
What an idiotic analogy. First of all, you are not an authorized historian.
Secondly, such a thing wouldn't be officially sanctioned in the same way EU
novels are by Lucas Books. Grab another straw.
> > Again, what is so hard to understand? The novels, games, comics, etc,
are
> > NOT the MOVIES, are they? They are NOT the SCRIPTS, are they? They are
NOT
> > the NOVELIZATIONS, are they? They are NOT the RADIO PLAYS, are they?
> >
> > Therefore, they are "official". If you have a better name for SW EU
> > materials that are not canon but accepted sources, fine.
>
> You just repeated the mistake of _assuming_ they are accepted sources.
> Perhaps Saxton said it best:
There is no mistake, except on your part. I won't repeat all the quotes that
prove your stance wrong. You won't understand them the fifth time around
anyway.
http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html
DarkStar
I would prefer if you would stop taking quotes out of context.
The complete Insider quote is:
"Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films,
the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin out of George
Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However,
between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in
the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a
vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any
other well-developed mythology."
So, the "these works" are the canon, the rest is simply written by other
writers, and is therefore not canon. They say they've read all of it (not
that they had to), and much of it is taken into account (or was at the time
of that article). So, which parts aren't? Can you tell me what is and is
not taken into account? They sure don't let us in on it, and a lot of
non-canon was ignored for the prequels.
> You're not fooling anyone. You are just another whiny asshole who is
looking
> for a backdoor to invalidate the AOTC:ICS.
>
> Too bad.
You can claim whatever motivations you want, it doesn't change the facts.
I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate the
ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway.
> > > > So the films naturally
> > > > should come first, with scripts second. The movie novelisations
> versus
> > > the
> > > > radio-plays is tricky, but I don't see a problem with the radio
stuff
> > > coming
> > > > last.
> > >
> > > You shouldn't, since they did, after all.
> >
> > I didn't think canon was a matter of chronology.
>
> You would if you knew what you were talking about. Most of the backstory
in
> the RPs come from the novelizations. And if you were able to read what you
> reference, you'd understand why the RPs are the last rung on the canon
> ladder.
Actually, the radio-play has a few scenes that were deleted from the movie
after being filmed, so he could have been working from any number of sources
... early scripts, the novel, cut scenes, whatever. I never claimed the
ability to pull ideas out of my ass and proclaim them fact like you do.
(See, when you call me an asshole, I get less nice.) :)
"Continuity" is a term used in the primary sources I have referenced and
that you have quoted on your webpage, and it clearly refers only to the
internal consistency of the Expanded Universe. The only exception might be
the use of the term in the several-year-old Insider quote, but even then
there is no suggestion that they are using it to refer to anything that
includes the canon.
> > In other words, if I wrote
> > a completely fictional and counterfactual version of the second World
War,
> > but used a real speech by Churchill, my work could be said to contain "a
> > nugget of truth", or be "a window into the 'real' World War II
universe",
> > but it would still be complete crap."
>
> What an idiotic analogy. First of all, you are not an authorized
historian.
Analogies aren't perfect. That's why they're called analogies. Your
protest is idiotic, though... what the hell is an "authorized" historian?
> Secondly, such a thing wouldn't be officially sanctioned in the same way
EU
> novels are by Lucas Books. Grab another straw.
Big deal. Just because there is no requirement to get permission to use
the term "World War II" or "Churchill" doesn't suddenly make the Expanded
Universe any less apocryphal.
> > > Again, what is so hard to understand? The novels, games, comics, etc,
> are
> > > NOT the MOVIES, are they? They are NOT the SCRIPTS, are they? They are
> NOT
> > > the NOVELIZATIONS, are they? They are NOT the RADIO PLAYS, are they?
> > >
> > > Therefore, they are "official". If you have a better name for SW EU
> > > materials that are not canon but accepted sources, fine.
> >
> > You just repeated the mistake of _assuming_ they are accepted sources.
> > Perhaps Saxton said it best:
>
> There is no mistake, except on your part. I won't repeat all the quotes
that
> prove your stance wrong. You won't understand them the fifth time around
> anyway.
>
>
> http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html
I have no problem understanding what you are trying to say. Your problem
with me is the fact that I also have no problem understanding the fact that
what you say is wrong.
Phil Skayhan
<snip>
> > You're not fooling anyone. You are just another whiny asshole who is
> looking
> > for a backdoor to invalidate the AOTC:ICS.
> >
> > Too bad.
>
> You can claim whatever motivations you want, it doesn't change the facts.
>
> I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate the
> ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway.
Such as....?
Wayne Poe
"DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote
Keep trolling, fuckface. Your semantic retard version of Lucasfilm's
continuity policy and EU stance is a clear indication that you are
unburdened by things others take for granted. Like a thought process.
http://h4h.com/louis/vader.jpg
DarkStar
For the moment, I shall refer you to the "Incredible Cross Sections" thread,
and related threads at that time. I'm trying to avoid letting Wayne Poe
derail the thread with his red herrings, so it wouldn't be good for me to
branch off in that direction again right now. :)
Phil Skayhan
There is no such thread here. And if you're refering to something someone
over at SB.com said (if so, I realize why you're loth to repeat it), then
post the link.
Graeme Dice
>
> "Wayne Poe" <lo...@h4h.com> wrote in message
> news:uhas4ch...@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
> > "These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are
> > written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and
> > much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire
> > catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with many
> off-shoots,
> > variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology."
> >
> > This refers to the canon AND the EU.
>
> I would prefer if you would stop taking quotes out of context.
>
> The complete Insider quote is:
>
> "Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films,
> the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin out of George
> Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However,
> between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in
> the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a
> vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any
> other well-developed mythology."
>
> So, the "these works" are the canon, the rest is simply written by other
> writers, and is therefore not canon.
Red herring. We have never claimed that they were canon.
> They say they've read all of it (not
> that they had to), and much of it is taken into account (or was at the time
> of that article). So, which parts aren't? Can you tell me what is and is
> not taken into account?
Anything that is directly contradicted by canon sources closer to the
movies.
> They sure don't let us in on it, and a lot of
> non-canon was ignored for the prequels.
Out of the entirety of the EU, a very small fraction does not fit with
the prequels.
> > You're not fooling anyone. You are just another whiny asshole who is
> looking
> > for a backdoor to invalidate the AOTC:ICS.
> >
> > Too bad.
>
> You can claim whatever motivations you want, it doesn't change the facts.
>
> I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate the
> ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway.
I will point out you are bullshitting. There are no canon incidents
that contradict the ICS data.
> > Now this means that being part of the "continuity" of star Wars means that
> > the EU is part of the whole, if it is part of the whole then it occupies a
> > position of authoritative testimony on the SW universe. We also know that
> > the "absolute truth" of SW is held within the films, novelisations, radio
> > plays, and scripts yet we also knwo that these other works exist as part
> of
> > the continuity of SW thus they are part of the SW universe BUT they are
> less
> > authoritative than the "canon" works as they are excluded from that list.
> > The terms we use are ones of convenience but they are vaslid as it applies
> > to the continuity/canon policies of Lucasfilm.
>
> "Continuity" is a term used in the primary sources I have referenced and
> that you have quoted on your webpage, and it clearly refers only to the
> internal consistency of the Expanded Universe.
Only in your own mind.
> The only exception might be
> the use of the term in the several-year-old Insider quote,
The age of the quote is utterly irrelevant to its validity.
> but even then
> there is no suggestion that they are using it to refer to anything that
> includes the canon.
Red herring. We are not stating that the materials collectively known
as official are canon.
Graeme Dice
--
"Star Trek is consistent in that it is consistently inconsistent."
Graeme Dice
>
> "Phil Skayhan" <ph...@skayhan.net> wrote in message
> news:FDfR8.8529$5k6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
<snip>
> > > I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate the
> > > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway.
> >
> > Such as....?
>
> For the moment, I shall refer you to the "Incredible Cross Sections" thread,
> and related threads at that time. I'm trying to avoid letting Wayne Poe
> derail the thread with his red herrings, so it wouldn't be good for me to
> branch off in that direction again right now. :)
You're the one with the red herrings. Would you please care to point
out why the fact that official materials are not canon makes them
invalid?
Graeme Dice
--
"Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think."
— Niels Bohr.
DarkStar
Uh, yeah there is. The thread is titled "Incredible Cross Sections", the
date is 5/25/02. I started it.
DarkStar
"Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D15907F...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> DarkStar wrote:
> >
> > "Phil Skayhan" <ph...@skayhan.net> wrote in message
> > news:FDfR8.8529$5k6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate
the
> > > > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway.
> > >
> > > Such as....?
> >
> > For the moment, I shall refer you to the "Incredible Cross Sections"
thread,
> > and related threads at that time. I'm trying to avoid letting Wayne Poe
> > derail the thread with his red herrings, so it wouldn't be good for me
to
> > branch off in that direction again right now. :)
>
> You're the one with the red herrings. Would you please care to point
> out why the fact that official materials are not canon makes them
> invalid?
You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not canon
is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for an
"official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified. Nowhere is it
declared part of the official record of Star Wars. There's canon, and then
there's the internal "continuity" used by the Expanded Universe (which is
not canon), and then there's apocrypha.
DarkStar
>
> "DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> Keep trolling, fuckface. Your semantic retard version of Lucasfilm's
> continuity policy and EU stance is a clear indication that you are
> unburdened by things others take for granted. Like a thought process.
Your unwillingness to accept the facts from materials you yourself quote is
proof positive that you're the one trolling, so bite me.
DarkStar
I never claimed that you did, as you would have realized had you read my
entire paragraph in context.
> > They say they've read all of it (not
> > that they had to), and much of it is taken into account (or was at the
time
> > of that article). So, which parts aren't? Can you tell me what is and
is
> > not taken into account?
>
> Anything that is directly contradicted by canon sources closer to the
> movies.
That concept is not contained within the canon policy as stated by Lucas or
his authorized agents.
>
> > They sure don't let us in on it, and a lot of
> > non-canon was ignored for the prequels.
>
> Out of the entirety of the EU, a very small fraction does not fit with
> the prequels.
>
> > > You're not fooling anyone. You are just another whiny asshole who is
> > looking
> > > for a backdoor to invalidate the AOTC:ICS.
> > >
> > > Too bad.
> >
> > You can claim whatever motivations you want, it doesn't change the
facts.
> >
> > I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate the
> > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway.
>
> I will point out you are bullshitting. There are no canon incidents
> that contradict the ICS data.
Several firepower ratings, speed ratings, and the nature of Star Wars beam
weaponry come to mind. Go read the thread I pointed out to Phil Skayhan.
> > > Now this means that being part of the "continuity" of star Wars means
that
> > > the EU is part of the whole, if it is part of the whole then it
occupies a
> > > position of authoritative testimony on the SW universe. We also know
that
> > > the "absolute truth" of SW is held within the films, novelisations,
radio
> > > plays, and scripts yet we also knwo that these other works exist as
part
> > of
> > > the continuity of SW thus they are part of the SW universe BUT they
are
> > less
> > > authoritative than the "canon" works as they are excluded from that
list.
> > > The terms we use are ones of convenience but they are vaslid as it
applies
> > > to the continuity/canon policies of Lucasfilm.
> >
> > "Continuity" is a term used in the primary sources I have referenced and
> > that you have quoted on your webpage, and it clearly refers only to the
> > internal consistency of the Expanded Universe.
>
> Only in your own mind.
Would you care to prove the contrary?
>
> > The only exception might be
> > the use of the term in the several-year-old Insider quote,
>
> The age of the quote is utterly irrelevant to its validity.
Uh, yeah it is. Are you saying newer statements of canon policy cannot
override older statements?
> > but even then
> > there is no suggestion that they are using it to refer to anything that
> > includes the canon.
>
> Red herring. We are not stating that the materials collectively known
> as official are canon.
I never said you did. I was pointing out that there isn't even a glimmer of
canonicity to them, contrary to the use of the term "quasi-canon".
Phil Skayhan
>
> "Phil Skayhan" <ph...@skayhan.net> wrote in message
> news:rTfR8.8543$5k6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
<snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to
invalidate
> > the
> > > > > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Such as....?
> > >
> > > For the moment, I shall refer you to the "Incredible Cross Sections"
> > thread,
> > > and related threads at that time. I'm trying to avoid letting Wayne
Poe
> > > derail the thread with his red herrings, so it wouldn't be good for me
> to
> > > branch off in that direction again right now. :)
> >
> > There is no such thread here.
>
> Uh, yeah there is. The thread is titled "Incredible Cross Sections", the
> date is 5/25/02. I started it.
I looked through the entire thread, no such evidence that that ICS is
contradicted by the film (at least in the points brought up).
Your main thrust seemed to be that it was a "warsie" conspiricy intended
solely to defeat Star Trek (ie: Mike Wong recieves credit in the book and on
Saxton's website). This, as you were told, is wrong.
The other topics you mentioned were dealt with quite well, such as the Slave
I shots.
You remembered the name of the thread but little else about it apparently.
Phil Skayhan
> Uh, yeah there is. The thread is titled "Incredible Cross Sections", the
> date is 5/25/02. I started it.
Also, you apparently have the movie on disk, why don't you go to the
asteroid scene and determine the power of Slave I's mid-ship gun shots
there.
DarkStar
Huh? That was never my main thrust, as I made clear several times, even
going so far as to apologize for the mean-spirited line at the end of the
first post after my main thrust.
> The other topics you mentioned were dealt with quite well, such as the
Slave
> I shots.
>
> You remembered the name of the thread but little else about it apparently.
No, since I pointed out, correctly, that there is no canon evidence for 600
gigajoule shots from Slave 1, and other similar things. You might want to
read over it again.
DarkStar
I only have the second half. :( That seems to be the half more people are
interested in.
Phil Skayhan
<snip>
> > > Uh, yeah there is. The thread is titled "Incredible Cross Sections",
> the
> > > date is 5/25/02. I started it.
> >
> > I looked through the entire thread, no such evidence that that ICS is
> > contradicted by the film (at least in the points brought up).
> >
> > Your main thrust seemed to be that it was a "warsie" conspiricy intended
> > solely to defeat Star Trek (ie: Mike Wong recieves credit in the book
and
> on
> > Saxton's website). This, as you were told, is wrong.
> >
>
> Huh? That was never my main thrust, as I made clear several times, even
> going so far as to apologize for the mean-spirited line at the end of the
> first post after my main thrust.
>
> > The other topics you mentioned were dealt with quite well, such as the
> Slave
> > I shots.
> >
> > You remembered the name of the thread but little else about it
apparently.
>
> No, since I pointed out, correctly, that there is no canon evidence for
600
> gigajoule shots from Slave 1, and other similar things. You might want
to
> read over it again.
No, there is no canon evidence *contradicting* ICS in regards to the 600 GJ
shots from Slave I. This is not an unimportant distinction.
Trust me, we're going to examine/disect/quantify the asteroid scene when the
means presents itself.
I have my eye, in particular, on the missile launched by Slave I. It may
explain some anomalous items in RotJ:
Kazuaki Shimazaki
<snip>
> No, since I pointed out, correctly, that there is no canon evidence
for 600
> gigajoule shots from Slave 1, and other similar things. You might
want to
> read over it again.
Sorry, official doesn't work like that. An official source can stand on
its own. The best you can prove is that they didn't USE the setting in
the film. This is like taking ST:VI or any other unimpressive photorp
episode and saying that there is no way it can be 64MT in the days of
the TM.
You can prove that it is a Direct Contradiction, in general, only when:
1) It is explicitly stated that it is maximum power, and yet the outcome
is substantially less impressive.
2) You can see a needle that wavers deep into the red zone.
3) Something roughly equivalent to these.
I don't remember any of these things, so the book stands...
Graeme Dice
>
> "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3D159030...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > DarkStar wrote:
<snip>
> > > So, the "these works" are the canon, the rest is simply written by other
> > > writers, and is therefore not canon.
> >
> > Red herring. We have never claimed that they were canon.
>
> I never claimed that you did, as you would have realized had you read my
> entire paragraph in context.
I read the entire paragraph. The first sentence claims makes the
argument that these works were somehow considered to be canon and that
that is what you will be arguing against.
> > > not taken into account?
> >
> > Anything that is directly contradicted by canon sources closer to the
> > movies.
>
> That concept is not contained within the canon policy as stated by Lucas or
> his authorized agents.
Once again only in your mind. You'll need to do better than repeat that
same claim over and over again.
> >
> > > They sure don't let us in on it, and a lot of
> > > non-canon was ignored for the prequels.
> >
> > Out of the entirety of the EU, a very small fraction does not fit with
> > the prequels.
> >
> > > > You're not fooling anyone. You are just another whiny asshole who is
> > > looking
> > > > for a backdoor to invalidate the AOTC:ICS.
> > > >
> > > > Too bad.
> > >
> > > You can claim whatever motivations you want, it doesn't change the
> facts.
> > >
> > > I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate the
> > > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway.
> >
> > I will point out you are bullshitting. There are no canon incidents
> > that contradict the ICS data.
>
> Several firepower ratings,
No direct contradictions.
> speed ratings,
No direct contradictions.
>and the nature of Star Wars beam
> weaponry come to mind.
If there is a direct contradiction on the natire, which there isn't,
then that would be the only part that is contradicted.
>Go read the thread I pointed out to Phil Skayhan.
That thread does not show any direct contradictions.
> > > "Continuity" is a term used in the primary sources I have referenced and
> > > that you have quoted on your webpage, and it clearly refers only to the
> > > internal consistency of the Expanded Universe.
> >
> > Only in your own mind.
>
> Would you care to prove the contrary?
No, I'd like you to attempt tp prove your own statements first.
> > > The only exception might be
> > > the use of the term in the several-year-old Insider quote,
> >
> > The age of the quote is utterly irrelevant to its validity.
>
> Uh, yeah it is. Are you saying newer statements of canon policy cannot
> override older statements?
Only if they state something different, which the newer statements do
not.
Graeme Dice
--
"I guess one of the advantages of being the son of a god is that you are
the only one on the planet that can open or close doors. It's an
awesome power, really."
-- Hosun S. Lee, alt.games.baldurs-gate
Graeme Dice
>
> "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3D15907F...@sk.sympatico.ca...
<snip>
> > You're the one with the red herrings. Would you please care to point
> > out why the fact that official materials are not canon makes them
> > invalid?
>
> You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not canon
> is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for an
> "official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified. Nowhere is it
> declared part of the official record of Star Wars.
It is declared as such in the very paragraph you claim that we are not
taking "in context".
> There's canon, and then
> there's the internal "continuity" used by the Expanded Universe (which is
> not canon), and then there's apocrypha.
--
"A scientist can discover a new star, but he cannot make one. He
would have to ask an engineer to do that." — Gordon L. Glegg,
American Engineer, 1969.
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> >
> > "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3D15907F...@sk.sympatico.ca...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > You're the one with the red herrings. Would you please care to point
> > > out why the fact that official materials are not canon makes them
> > > invalid?
> >
> > You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not
canon
> > is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for an
> > "official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified. Nowhere is
it
> > declared part of the official record of Star Wars.
>
> It is declared as such in the very paragraph you claim that we are not
> taking "in context".
Where, in the "nugget of truth" sentence? That doesn't immediately mean
that the Expanded Universe is showing new, previously unknown truthful
elements of history. That can just as easily suggest that the "nuggets of
truth" in the Expanded Universe are only those things derived from the
canon.
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> >
> > "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3D159030...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > > DarkStar wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > So, the "these works" are the canon, the rest is simply written by
other
> > > > writers, and is therefore not canon.
> > >
> > > Red herring. We have never claimed that they were canon.
> >
> > I never claimed that you did, as you would have realized had you read my
> > entire paragraph in context.
>
> I read the entire paragraph. The first sentence claims makes the
> argument that these works were somehow considered to be canon and that
> that is what you will be arguing against.
There's an idea you might find interesting and helpful... look up "segue".
The quote talks about canon, whereas I was directing it back to the Expanded
Universe. See, watch:
"So, the "these works" are the canon, the rest is simply written by other
writers, and is therefore not canon. They say they've read all of it (not
that they had to), and much of it is taken into account (or was at the time
of that article). So, which parts aren't? Can you tell me what is and is
not taken into account? They sure don't let us in on it, and a lot of
non-canon was ignored for the prequels."
> > > > not taken into account?
> > >
> > > Anything that is directly contradicted by canon sources closer to the
> > > movies.
> >
> > That concept is not contained within the canon policy as stated by Lucas
or
> > his authorized agents.
>
> Once again only in your mind. You'll need to do better than repeat that
> same claim over and over again.
You'll need to do better than say "only in your mind". You have yet to
show me anything to suggest that there is something wrong with taking the
statements of Lucas and his authorized agents at face-value, instead of
adding concepts to them like you seem to want to do.
> > > > They sure don't let us in on it, and a lot of
> > > > non-canon was ignored for the prequels.
> > >
> > > Out of the entirety of the EU, a very small fraction does not fit with
> > > the prequels.
> > >
> > > > > You're not fooling anyone. You are just another whiny asshole who
is
> > > > looking
> > > > > for a backdoor to invalidate the AOTC:ICS.
> > > > >
> > > > > Too bad.
> > > >
> > > > You can claim whatever motivations you want, it doesn't change the
> > facts.
> > > >
> > > > I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate
the
> > > > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway.
> > >
> > > I will point out you are bullshitting. There are no canon incidents
> > > that contradict the ICS data.
> >
> > Several firepower ratings,
>
> No direct contradictions.
>
> > speed ratings,
>
> No direct contradictions.
>
> >and the nature of Star Wars beam
> > weaponry come to mind.
>
> If there is a direct contradiction on the natire, which there isn't,
> then that would be the only part that is contradicted.
Several threads have dealt with the inconsistencies. I suggest you read
them at face-value, instead of ignoring them. Particularly interesting to
you might be a recent thread dealing with the fact that there never seems to
be any damage from the magical invisible lightspeed beam that ICS claims to
be a part of Star Wars beam weapons.
> > > > "Continuity" is a term used in the primary sources I have referenced
and
> > > > that you have quoted on your webpage, and it clearly refers only to
the
> > > > internal consistency of the Expanded Universe.
> > >
> > > Only in your own mind.
> >
> > Would you care to prove the contrary?
>
> No, I'd like you to attempt tp prove your own statements first.
I have proved it, both by doing so directly and by demonstrating that
competing theories are false. One or two interesting counterarguments have
popped up, but these have been handled, too.
> > > > The only exception might be
> > > > the use of the term in the several-year-old Insider quote,
> > >
> > > The age of the quote is utterly irrelevant to its validity.
> >
> > Uh, yeah it is. Are you saying newer statements of canon policy cannot
> > override older statements?
>
> Only if they state something different, which the newer statements do
> not.
Well, actually, the Cerasi quote leaves out the canonicity of the
radio-plays, scripts, and even the novelisations of the scripts. Most
newer statements say that _only_ the films are canon. However, I had no
desire to argue that point, so I haven't.
DarkStar
Well, the ICS says 600 gigajoules per shot. The movie doesn't show 600
gigajoules being fired. You can try to rationalize it, but it either means
that Slave I can't do 600 gigajoules, or that Star Wars weapons take several
minutes to charge up fully, even on a craft ready to take flight.
> Trust me, we're going to examine/disect/quantify the asteroid scene when
the
> means presents itself.
I know, I can't wait to get the first half of the movie.
> I have my eye, in particular, on the missile launched by Slave I. It may
> explain some anomalous items in RotJ:
>
> http://www.skayhan.net/Torp.htm
Wow, that's a really interesting page. Those look like the proton torpedoes
from the old TIE-fighter computer game. (Concussion missiles were red,
proton torpedoes were blue, and the big heavy bombs were just sort of
there.) :)
Sir Nitram
Or they have multiple power settings, something which fits many other peices of
evidence.
--
SirNitram
ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius
The most powerful attack of them all...
DALTONDOKEN!
Brought to you by cheese.
DarkStar
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
news:20020623150731...@mb-cg.aol.com...
There's nothing canon to support that, the ICS doesn't say that, and even
the novel disagrees.
Sir Nitram
Oh? The Novel states they were fired at full power? Blow me down, I didn't
notice that.
Of course, if you want to say we can't claim power levels at all without direct
proof, it should be noted this now means all photon torpedos are as powerful as
the one that didn't touch Kirk in ST5.
C.S.Strowbridge
> You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not canon
> is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for an
> "official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified. Nowhere is it
> declared part of the official record of Star Wars. There's canon, and then
> there's the internal "continuity" used by the Expanded Universe (which is
> not canon), and then there's apocrypha.
For the Insider:
"The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with
many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other
well-developed mythology.""
For the website:
"...every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the
'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others.
Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them"
Just cause the term, 'Official' is not used doesn't mean a category
between Canon and Apocrypha doesn't exist. It's clear to anyone who
reads what's been said on the manner (and doesn't desperately want to
exclude the ICS) that there is such a category. And it contains _all_
published Star Wars fiction.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
> Your unwillingness to accept the facts from materials you yourself quote is
> proof positive that you're the one trolling, so bite me.
What part of "all published works" don't you understand?
C.S.Strowbridge
Graeme Dice
<snip>
> > > You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not
> canon
> > > is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for an
> > > "official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified. Nowhere is
> it
> > > declared part of the official record of Star Wars.
> >
> > It is declared as such in the very paragraph you claim that we are not
> > taking "in context".
>
> Where, in the "nugget of truth" sentence? That doesn't immediately mean
> that the Expanded Universe is showing new, previously unknown truthful
> elements of history. That can just as easily suggest that the "nuggets of
> truth" in the Expanded Universe are only those things derived from the
> canon.
How about we include some more recent quotes from SW Insider.
"The idea [licensing deal with Bantam] was passed to George Lucas, who
agreed that Licensing could expand upon his films with original fiction
set after /Return of the Jedi/."
"In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked closely
with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing editor of
the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the editorial
projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would be
crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none
of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision became
one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest successes."
Graeme Dice
--
"Physicists use the wave theory on Mondays, Wednesdays, and
Fridays, and the particle on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays."
-Sir William Henry Bragg
Graeme Dice
<snip>
> > > I never claimed that you did, as you would have realized had you read my
> > > entire paragraph in context.
> >
> > I read the entire paragraph. The first sentence claims makes the
> > argument that these works were somehow considered to be canon and that
> > that is what you will be arguing against.
>
> There's an idea you might find interesting and helpful... look up "segue".
> The quote talks about canon, whereas I was directing it back to the Expanded
> Universe. See, watch:
No, you directed it towards trying to build a strawman of "We can't
figure out where the contradictions are."
> "So, the "these works" are the canon, the rest is simply written by other
> writers, and is therefore not canon. They say they've read all of it (not
> that they had to), and much of it is taken into account (or was at the time
> of that article). So, which parts aren't? Can you tell me what is and is
> not taken into account? They sure don't let us in on it, and a lot of
> non-canon was ignored for the prequels."
> > > > > not taken into account?
> > > >
> > > > Anything that is directly contradicted by canon sources closer to the
> > > > movies.
> > >
> > > That concept is not contained within the canon policy as stated by Lucas
> or
> > > his authorized agents.
> >
> > Once again only in your mind. You'll need to do better than repeat that
> > same claim over and over again.
>
> You'll need to do better than say "only in your mind".
No, I really don't need to do better, because anyone with half a
functioning brain can see what the sum total of all the information
tells us.
> You have yet to
> show me anything to suggest that there is something wrong with taking the
> statements of Lucas and his authorized agents at face-value, instead of
> adding concepts to them like you seem to want to do.
You are the one who is twisting their words to try and make them say
"The EU doesn't matter".
> > > > > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway.
> > > >
> > > > I will point out you are bullshitting. There are no canon incidents
> > > > that contradict the ICS data.
> > >
> > > Several firepower ratings,
> >
> > No direct contradictions.
> >
> > > speed ratings,
> >
> > No direct contradictions.
> >
> > >and the nature of Star Wars beam
> > > weaponry come to mind.
> >
> > If there is a direct contradiction on the natire, which there isn't,
> > then that would be the only part that is contradicted.
>
> Several threads have dealt with the inconsistencies.
What "several threads"? If you want to claim that there are
inconsistencies, then you must either provide those inconsistencies or
concede that you are trying to throw up a misdirection to bring the
thread off topic. Further, inconsistencies are not direct
contradictions.
>I suggest you read
> them at face-value, instead of ignoring them.
I have read them. They display no direct contradictions so they are
ultimately unimportant.
> Particularly interesting to
> you might be a recent thread dealing with the fact that there never seems to
> be any damage from the magical invisible lightspeed beam that ICS claims to
> be a part of Star Wars beam weapons.
Luke's hand in ROTJ, asteroids in TESB. We don't know how much energy
is transferred at lightspeed, so there is no way for that to be a
contradiction.
> > > > Only in your own mind.
> > >
> > > Would you care to prove the contrary?
> >
> > No, I'd like you to attempt tp prove your own statements first.
>
> I have proved it, both by doing so directly and by demonstrating that
> competing theories are false.
Really, you proved it? Would you care to show us where? You waffle a
lot about "reading it in context", yet fail to actually explain why your
opinion (and that's all it is) is valid.
>One or two interesting counterarguments have
> popped up, but these have been handled, too.
No, those counter-arguments have not been handled. You have retreated
to your "Look at it in context". I have, and you are incorrect.
> > Only if they state something different, which the newer statements do
> > not.
>
> Well, actually, the Cerasi quote leaves out the canonicity of the
> radio-plays, scripts, and even the novelisations of the scripts. Most
> newer statements say that _only_ the films are canon.
I'd like you to provide these statements that state that only the films
are canon. Even if you do, it won't make any difference, because we
already know that the official materials have been authorized by Lucas,
and that they aren't canon, but that they are consistent. Since they
are authorized by Lucasfilm as being extensions of the universe, then
they are valid sources of information.
"The idea [licensing deal with Bantam] was passed to George Lucas, who
agreed that Licensing could expand upon his films with original fiction
set after /Return of the Jedi/."
"In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked closely
with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing editor of
the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the editorial
projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would be
crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none
of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision became
> However, I had no
> desire to argue that point, so I haven't.
Then don't bring that point up.
Graeme Dice
--
"Theft from a single author is plagiarism — from three or more it
is research."
Graeme Dice
>
> "Phil Skayhan" <ph...@skayhan.net> wrote in message
> news:KdiR8.9287$5k6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
<snip>
> > No, there is no canon evidence *contradicting* ICS in regards to the 600
> GJ
> > shots from Slave I. This is not an unimportant distinction.
>
> Well, the ICS says 600 gigajoules per shot. The movie doesn't show 600
> gigajoules being fired. You can try to rationalize it, but it either means
> that Slave I can't do 600 gigajoules, or that Star Wars weapons take several
> minutes to charge up fully, even on a craft ready to take flight.
Where's the direct unexlainable contradiction?
Graeme Dice
--
Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers
Sir Nitram
He found it in his ass, where he stows his head.
Cmdrwilkens
So in other words you have no real proof other than "it doesn't look like
600 GJ to me?"
--
Lcpl Burnett, G.R.
USMCR
BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG
"Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure"
- IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net)
Cmdrwilkens
news:3D162146...@shaw.ca...
> DarkStar wrote:
>
> > You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not
canon
> > is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for an
> > "official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified. Nowhere is
it
> > declared part of the official record of Star Wars. There's canon, and
then
> > there's the internal "continuity" used by the Expanded Universe (which
is
> > not canon), and then there's apocrypha.
>
> For the Insider:
>
> "The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with
> many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other
> well-developed mythology.""
>
Now DarkStar before you jump on this let me clarify...this means that they
EU wokrs are part of the history of SW, if they are part of the history then
they ust be a true and accurate represenation of that history in as much as
any modern non-fiction work.
DarkStar
Perfect!!!!!!!!
Thanks!
DarkStar
Where do you get the idea, from the quotes provided, that a Quasi-Canon
category of information that is official Star Wars fact exists between Canon
and Apocrypha? I don't see anything like that. In fact, all I see is that
there is an EU Continuity, with its only basis in Star Wars fact involving
the use of Canon.
DarkStar
I understand it fine. However, your brain is jumping from "all published
works" to the idea that "all published works are part of the official Star
Wars history".
Phil Skayhan
"Cmdrwilkens" <burn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:af5ehh$bjl2d$1...@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de...
And allow me to add the following.
From StarWars.com main page: "Welcome to the official site"
Now what do they mean by official there?
Then we have the EU incorporated within said official site. It says on the
main page of the EU category:
"If your experience with Star Wars has been just the movies, you're only
getting a fraction of the entire tale. Since the start, the Star Wars saga
has been expanded through novels, comics, and games."
They say that the films -->radio plays are canon and yet we have the above
quote.
How do you reconcile the two statements?
And then there's
http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/feature/20020618/index.html
Disregarding the nitpicking over application of the term official, there is
an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that the EU is included in the
overall continuality. Therefore we can not disregard it.
DarkStar
> > You have yet to
> > show me anything to suggest that there is something wrong with taking
the
> > statements of Lucas and his authorized agents at face-value, instead of
> > adding concepts to them like you seem to want to do.
>
> You are the one who is twisting their words to try and make them say
> "The EU doesn't matter".
You cannot twist words by using their direct, face-value meanings.
>
> > > > > > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will point out you are bullshitting. There are no canon
incidents
> > > > > that contradict the ICS data.
> > > >
> > > > Several firepower ratings,
> > >
> > > No direct contradictions.
> > >
> > > > speed ratings,
> > >
> > > No direct contradictions.
> > >
> > > >and the nature of Star Wars beam
> > > > weaponry come to mind.
> > >
> > > If there is a direct contradiction on the natire, which there isn't,
> > > then that would be the only part that is contradicted.
> >
> > Several threads have dealt with the inconsistencies.
>
> What "several threads"? If you want to claim that there are
> inconsistencies, then you must either provide those inconsistencies or
> concede that you are trying to throw up a misdirection to bring the
> thread off topic. Further, inconsistencies are not direct
> contradictions.
You're the one trying to throw this thread off-topic by trying to make it
branch into other areas besides Canon, so bite me. Save it for another
thread.
> "The idea [licensing deal with Bantam] was passed to George Lucas, who
> agreed that Licensing could expand upon his films with original fiction
> set after /Return of the Jedi/."
Yes, it has expanded on it ... "Expanded Universe". Expanding upon
something doesn't alter that something. The old movie "Clash of the Titans"
expands upon myth, but doesn't change the myth, nor is it part of the
history of the myths or the myths themselves.
> "In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked closely
> with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing editor of
> the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the editorial
> projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would be
> crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none
> of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision became
You cut part of the quote out. But, it makes plain that the Continuity
idea is internal to the Expanded Universe, and does not mean that it is a
continuity with historical accuracy within the official Star Wars history.
Thanks for the quotes! They support my view quite nicely, and I'll be sure
to use them.
Graeme Dice
I'm glad you agree that the canon policy as we have described it is
correct.
Graeme Dice
--
HEALTH WARNING: Care Should Be Taken When Lifting This Product, Since
Its
Mass, and Thus Its Weight, Is Dependent on Its Velocity Relative to the
User.
C.S.Strowbridge
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>>DarkStar wrote:
>>>You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not
>>>canon is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for
>>>an "official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified.
>>>Nowhere is it declared part of the official record of Star Wars.
>>>There's canon, and then there's the internal "continuity" used by the
>>>Expanded Universe (which is not canon), and then there's apocrypha.
>>
>>For the Insider:
>>
>>"The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history
>>-- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other
>>well-developed mythology.""
>>
>>For the website:
>>
>>"...every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the
>>'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others.
>>Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them"
>>
>>Just cause the term, 'Official' is not used doesn't mean a category
>>between Canon and Apocrypha doesn't exist. It's clear to anyone who
>>reads what's been said on the manner (and doesn't desperately want to
>>exclude the ICS) that there is such a category. And it contains _all_
>>published Star Wars fiction.
>
> Where do you get the idea, from the quotes provided, that a Quasi-Canon
> category of information that is official Star Wars fact exists between Canon
> and Apocrypha? I don't see anything like that.
Then you're a fucking moron. Simple as that.
Canon = Real Star Wars.
Real Star Wars = Canon.
"The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history ..."
How can the history not be considered part of Star Wars?
_/*EVERY*/_ piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the
'real' Star Wars universe.
The people writing the material were given the specific mandate to
expand Star Wars reality.
The Star Wars Encyclopedia states that the movies, novelizations,
scripts and radio dramas are canon. Everything else is quasi-canon.
Anything else? That's convinced everyone else except on notable supreme
moron.
C.S.Strowbridge
DarkStar
I think you misunderstood the quotes, and my reaction. They help my view.
DarkStar
A history is not THE history, especially if A history has many offshoots,
tangents, and variants. This is from the same quote where the guy talks
about the gospel/Canon, and we know from Cerasi that "the real story of Star
Wars" is the Canon.
> _/*EVERY*/_ piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the
> 'real' Star Wars universe.
Some are foggy, some are abstract. Each contains a nugget of truth... you
assume that they carry truth in the new material. I assume that the truth
comes when they use Canon. Canon is the only place to get the real story
of Star Wars, so how do you get elements of the real story out of non-Canon?
>
> The people writing the material were given the specific mandate to
> expand Star Wars reality.
No, Lucas agreed that licensing could expand upon his films with original
fiction. But, we also know that Lucas is not bound by this original
fiction, and that only the Canon contains the real story of Star Wars, so
obviously this original fiction is not part of the official history, and
does not expand the Star Wars reality.
> The Star Wars Encyclopedia states that the movies, novelizations,
> scripts and radio dramas are canon. Everything else is quasi-canon.
The Star Wars Encyclopedia is not a valid source for Canon Policy any more
than the Star Trek TNG Tech Manual is. No book can declare itself Canon
and override the Canon Policy. Okuda and Sternbach made similarly
"authorized statements" in their foreward to the Star Trek TNG Technical
Manual, which was never specifically excluded from the canon, but is
considered by many to have no value as a source of information. Paramount
has never defined a place for "official", just as Lucas/LFL has not.
It's funny to see what happens when you try to get people to follow their
own rules. The people who are most upset about this thread are the same ones
who think the Star Trek TNG Tech Manuals should be thrown out.
C.S.Strowbridge
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
Let's simplify this, cause you're obviously retarded.
>>The Star Wars Encyclopedia states that the movies, novelizations,
>>scripts and radio dramas are canon. Everything else is quasi-canon.
>
> The Star Wars Encyclopedia is not a valid source for Canon Policy any
> more than the Star Trek TNG Tech Manual is. No book can declare itself
> Canon and override the Canon Policy.
It doesn't declare itself canon. It stats what the canon policy is and
where it fits within it.
We read all the evidence and have come to the conclusion Lucas's Canon
Policy is this:
Canon: Movies, Scripts, Novelizations and Radio Dramas - In that order.
Quasi Canon: Nearly everything else.
Non Canon: Game play adjustments to interactive products.
When we read the SW:E we see that our interpretation is correct.
When you have your wet nurse read you the evidence you conclude:
Canon: Movies
Crap: Everything else.
When she reads you the SW:E you declare it's contradicting Canon Policy
and must be wrong.
However, when your interpretation contradicts the evidence, it's your
opinion that is wrong.
> Okuda and Sternbach made similarly "authorized statements" in their
> foreward to the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual,
No they don't. They minimize the value of the text. 'close to official'
'Not required reading' 'shouldn't get in the way of the storytelling.'
> which was never specifically excluded from the canon,
'There are no written sources of Star Trek canon.' - That was said by
Ordove, Moore, Gaskill, etc.
> but is considered by many to have no value as a source of information.
> Paramount has never defined a place for "official",
No, they went one better. 'Live action Star Trek is canon. Everything
else is speculation.'
> just as Lucas/LFL has not.
Quasi Canon.
> It's funny to see what happens when you try to get people to follow
> their own rules. The people who are most upset about this thread are
> the same ones who think the Star Trek TNG Tech Manuals should be
> thrown out.
Wrong again. Wayne Poe wants the Star Trek Manuals to be included. So
does Cmdwilkens, IIRC.
C.S.Strowbridge
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>
> Let's simplify this, cause you're obviously retarded.
>
> >>The Star Wars Encyclopedia states that the movies, novelizations,
> >>scripts and radio dramas are canon. Everything else is quasi-canon.
> >
> > The Star Wars Encyclopedia is not a valid source for Canon Policy any
> > more than the Star Trek TNG Tech Manual is. No book can declare itself
> > Canon and override the Canon Policy.
>
> It doesn't declare itself canon. It stats what the canon policy is and
> where it fits within it.
The canon policy in that book is different than the Canon Policy elsewhere,
and it is a double standard to claim otherwise. LucasBooks' Cerasi, who
Sansweet (of the Encyclopedia foreward) quotes(!), says otherwise. Nowhere
does the Canon Policy make room for your Quasi-Canon category to exist.
> We read all the evidence and have come to the conclusion Lucas's Canon
> Policy is this:
>
> Canon: Movies, Scripts, Novelizations and Radio Dramas - In that order.
> Quasi Canon: Nearly everything else.
> Non Canon: Game play adjustments to interactive products.
>
> When we read the SW:E we see that our interpretation is correct.
So, you feel that your misreading and misrepresentation of the Canon Policy
is confirmed by an invalid authority? Hey, great, go have fun with that.
Just don't pretend it is the law that all Star Wars fans must follow. It is
your personal opinion.
> > Okuda and Sternbach made similarly "authorized statements" in their
> > foreward to the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual,
>
> No they don't. They minimize the value of the text. 'close to official'
> 'Not required reading' 'shouldn't get in the way of the storytelling.'
Similarly, the Star Wars Canon Policy severely minimizes the value of the
Expanded Universe. "Interpretation and speculation" ... "the real story of
Star Wars" is the Canon ... and Lucas' belief that the EU will not limit
(i.e. get in the way of) his storytelling.
> > which was never specifically excluded from the canon,
>
> 'There are no written sources of Star Trek canon.' - That was said by
> Ordove, Moore, Gaskill, etc.
Gaskill would disagree with that.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gaskill+trek&hl=en&rnum=15&selm=MPG.159c44
17505e1691989697%40news.cis.dfn.de
> > but is considered by many to have no value as a source of information.
> > Paramount has never defined a place for "official",
>
> No, they went one better. 'Live action Star Trek is canon. Everything
> else is speculation.'
Is that supposed to be a "quote", or your 'interpretation'? If a quote,
please give a reference.
> > just as Lucas/LFL has not.
>
> Quasi Canon.
Nowhere stated in Canon Policy.
> > It's funny to see what happens when you try to get people to follow
> > their own rules. The people who are most upset about this thread are
> > the same ones who think the Star Trek TNG Tech Manuals should be
> > thrown out.
>
> Wrong again. Wayne Poe wants the Star Trek Manuals to be included. So
> does Cmdwilkens, IIRC.
Well, they certainly don't let it show. :)
Dalton
I've said it before and I'll say it again...here's my stance on the
canon/official issue:
If the Trekkies get to have six hundred hours of canon, then we get to
have our books.
Christ already, come on now.
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
C.S.Strowbridge
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>>>>The Star Wars Encyclopedia states that the movies, novelizations,
>>>>scripts and radio dramas are canon. Everything else is quasi-canon.
>>>
>>> The Star Wars Encyclopedia is not a valid source for Canon Policy any
>>> more than the Star Trek TNG Tech Manual is. No book can declare itself
>>> Canon and override the Canon Policy.
>>
>>It doesn't declare itself canon. It stats what the canon policy is and
>>where it fits within it.
>
> The canon policy in that book is different than the Canon Policy
> elsewhere,
No it isn't. It's different to _your_ interpretation of canon policy.
>>We read all the evidence and have come to the conclusion Lucas's Canon
>>Policy is this:
>>
>>Canon: Movies, Scripts, Novelizations and Radio Dramas - In that order.
>>Quasi Canon: Nearly everything else.
>>Non Canon: Game play adjustments to interactive products.
>>
>>When we read the SW:E we see that our interpretation is correct.
>
> So, you feel that your misreading and misrepresentation of the Canon
> Policy is confirmed by an invalid authority?
Who says it's invalid? You. Who gives a shit.
>> > Okuda and Sternbach made similarly "authorized statements" in their
>> > foreward to the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual,
>>
>>No they don't. They minimize the value of the text. 'close to official'
>>'Not required reading' 'shouldn't get in the way of the storytelling.'
>
> Similarly, the Star Wars Canon Policy severely minimizes the value of the
> Expanded Universe. "Interpretation and speculation" ... "the real story of
> Star Wars" is the Canon ... and Lucas' belief that the EU will not limit
> (i.e. get in the way of) his storytelling.
But direct quotes still call it quasi-canon.
>>>which was never specifically excluded from the canon,
>>
>>'There are no written sources of Star Trek canon.' - That was said by
>>Ordove, Moore, Gaskill, etc.
>
> Gaskill would disagree with that.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gaskill+trek&hl=en&rnum=15&selm=MPG.159c44
> 17505e1691989697%40news.cis.dfn.de
Gaskill said it.
"*strive* to be canon, i.e. match up what appears on screen"
Canon = Live Action Star Trek.
>> > but is considered by many to have no value as a source of information.
>> > Paramount has never defined a place for "official",
>>
>>No, they went one better. 'Live action Star Trek is canon. Everything
>>else is speculation.'
>
> Is that supposed to be a "quote", or your 'interpretation'? If a quote,
> please give a reference.
Direct quote from Ordover, Moore said, "There are no written sources of
Star Trek Canon." A Gaskill quote is above, Okuda said something
similar, but I don't have the exact quote.
>>> just as Lucas/LFL has not.
>>
>>Quasi Canon.
>
> Nowhere stated in Canon Policy.
Star Wars Encyclopedia /is/ stating the canon policy.
>> > It's funny to see what happens when you try to get people to follow
>> > their own rules. The people who are most upset about this thread are
>> > the same ones who think the Star Trek TNG Tech Manuals should be
>> > thrown out.
>>
>>Wrong again. Wayne Poe wants the Star Trek Manuals to be included. So
>>does Cmdwilkens, IIRC.
>
> Well, they certainly don't let it show. :)
Putting a smiley at the end doesn't change the fact that you're fucking
wrong.
Here's the main problem:
All evidence can be interpreted to agree with our interpretation of Star
Wars Canon Policy.
Not all evidence can be interpreted to agree with your interpretation of
Star Wars Canon Policy. That's why you need to get rid of the Star Wars
Encyclopedia.
C.S.Strowbridge
DarkStar
> If the Trekkies get to have six hundred hours of canon, then we get to
> have our books.
>
> Christ already, come on now.
:)
C.S.Strowbridge
> I'm sick of this.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again...here's my stance on the
> canon/official issue:
>
> If the Trekkies get to have six hundred hours of canon, then we get to
> have our books.
>
> Christ already, come on now.
It's not like we want to use the Ewoks Cartoon series.
C.S.Strowbridge
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>
> >>>>The Star Wars Encyclopedia states that the movies, novelizations,
> >>>>scripts and radio dramas are canon. Everything else is quasi-canon.
> >>>
> >>> The Star Wars Encyclopedia is not a valid source for Canon Policy any
> >>> more than the Star Trek TNG Tech Manual is. No book can declare itself
> >>> Canon and override the Canon Policy.
> >>
> >>It doesn't declare itself canon. It stats what the canon policy is and
> >>where it fits within it.
> >
> > The canon policy in that book is different than the Canon Policy
> > elsewhere,
>
> No it isn't. It's different to _your_ interpretation of canon policy.
Wow, it occurred simultaneously here and on Spacebattles. All the sudden,
people start opening up the Pandora's Box of "everything is interpretation,
who is to say what really exists?"
I won't fall for that crap. Words have meaning, based on their denotation,
connotation, and context. My so-called interpretation is based on the
denotations, connotations, and the context of the words used. Therefore, my
so-called interpretation is keeping with the meanings, and is not trying to
override or circumvent them as my opponents keep trying to do.
> >>No they don't. They minimize the value of the text. 'close to official'
> >>'Not required reading' 'shouldn't get in the way of the storytelling.'
> >
> > Similarly, the Star Wars Canon Policy severely minimizes the value of
the
> > Expanded Universe. "Interpretation and speculation" ... "the real story
of
> > Star Wars" is the Canon ... and Lucas' belief that the EU will not limit
> > (i.e. get in the way of) his storytelling.
>
> But direct quotes still call it quasi-canon.
These quotes are not part of the Star Wars Canon Policy, and Sansweet (the
author of the Encyclopedia Foreward) quotes Cerasi on the website when such
a question is asked. There is the Canon, which is the real story of Star
Wars, and then there is "a vast history" that is not Canon. The Canon
Policy has no place for Quasi-Canon the way you want to use it.
In fact, Quasi-Canon can only refer to the internal Continuity that the EU
wants to maintain, so it seems to me those terms mean the same thing.
> >>>which was never specifically excluded from the canon,
> >>
> >>'There are no written sources of Star Trek canon.' - That was said by
> >>Ordove, Moore, Gaskill, etc.
> >
> > Gaskill would disagree with that.
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gaskill+trek&hl=en&rnum=15&selm=MPG.159c44
> > 17505e1691989697%40news.cis.dfn.de
>
> Gaskill said it.
>
> "*strive* to be canon, i.e. match up what appears on screen"
>
> Canon = Live Action Star Trek.
>
Oh, please. The website he wrote says there are written sources of Star
Trek canon, such as Jeri Taylor's Pathways novel.
Jeez.
> >> > but is considered by many to have no value as a source of
information.
> >> > Paramount has never defined a place for "official",
> >>
> >>No, they went one better. 'Live action Star Trek is canon. Everything
> >>else is speculation.'
> >
> > Is that supposed to be a "quote", or your 'interpretation'? If a
quote,
> > please give a reference.
>
> Direct quote from Ordover, Moore said, "There are no written sources of
> Star Trek Canon." A Gaskill quote is above, Okuda said something
> similar, but I don't have the exact quote.
"Speculation" and Gaskill's "pretty much" canon don't sound the same.
Besides, Ordover is not on Paramount's payroll, so he's pretty easy to
overrule.
>
> >>> just as Lucas/LFL has not.
> >>
> >>Quasi Canon.
> >
> > Nowhere stated in Canon Policy.
>
> Star Wars Encyclopedia /is/ stating the canon policy.
It can't.
> >> > It's funny to see what happens when you try to get people to follow
> >> > their own rules. The people who are most upset about this thread are
> >> > the same ones who think the Star Trek TNG Tech Manuals should be
> >> > thrown out.
> >>
> >>Wrong again. Wayne Poe wants the Star Trek Manuals to be included. So
> >>does Cmdwilkens, IIRC.
> >
> > Well, they certainly don't let it show. :)
>
> Putting a smiley at the end doesn't change the fact that you're fucking
> wrong.
Actually, no, since I don't think the people you mentioned are the ones who
are most pissy on this topic. :)
>
> Here's the main problem:
>
> All evidence can be interpreted to agree with our interpretation of Star
> Wars Canon Policy.
>
> Not all evidence can be interpreted to agree with your interpretation of
> Star Wars Canon Policy. That's why you need to get rid of the Star Wars
> Encyclopedia.
Even if you were right -- which you aren't -- that would be a bullshit
argument.
You're saying that any theory that includes all the evidence is better than
any theory that doesn't. Well, that's crazy, and a physics professor will
beat you silly for saying so.
DarkStar
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
As a last word on the subject, here's what George Lucas has to say:
From Cinescape magazine, July 2002
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
And while rumors persist that an outline for a third trilogy exists (a joke
Lucas made in passing to Rolling Stone, which then printed it as a fact),
the director insists that the only continuation to the saga will be in the
form of licensed properties.
"There are two worlds here," explains Lucas. "There's my world, which is the
movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is
the parallel universe-the licensing world of books, games and comic books.
They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they
do intrude in between the movies. I dont get to involved in the parallel
universe."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
DarkStar
Well, you could use the Holiday Special to prove that Trek is more stupid.
After all, Lucas left the singing on TV, but in Insurrection (and Nemesis,
according to spoilers) they put it right there in the middle of the movie!
:)
Graeme Dice
> > DarkStar wrote:
<snip>
That's odd, because the quotes very specifically state that the official
materials expand upon the films, and that they are consistent with each
other. When combined with all other sources, this is a confirmation of
what we have always stated.
Graeme Dice
--
Linda Emery: A philosophy major? Now, what can you do with a
philosophy major?
Bruce Lee: You can think deep thoughts about being unemployed.
-- from "Dragon - the Bruce Lee Story"
Graeme Dice
>
> "C.S.Strowbridge" <csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:3D168EAC...@shaw.ca...
> > Then you're a fucking moron. Simple as that.
> >
> > Canon = Real Star Wars.
> >
> > Real Star Wars = Canon.
> >
> > "The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history ..."
> >
> > How can the history not be considered part of Star Wars?
>
> A history is not THE history, especially if A history has many offshoots,
> tangents, and variants. This is from the same quote where the guy talks
> about the gospel/Canon, and we know from Cerasi that "the real story of Star
> Wars" is the Canon.
In this case, A history, _is_ THE history, because the word "the"
doesn't fit grammatically inside the sentence. For it to be "the"
history in that context, it would have to be complete.
Graeme Dice
--
Include Your Children when Baking Cookies
Graeme Dice
>
> (Posted by Watchdog on Spacebattles)
>
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> As a last word on the subject, here's what George Lucas has to say:
> From Cinescape magazine, July 2002
Yep. It confirms that the material is valid Star Wars where it doesn't
conflict with his own movies.
> quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> And while rumors persist that an outline for a third trilogy exists (a joke
> Lucas made in passing to Rolling Stone, which then printed it as a fact),
> the director insists that the only continuation to the saga will be in the
> form of licensed properties.
>
> "There are two worlds here," explains Lucas. "There's my world, which is the
> movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is
> the parallel universe-the licensing world of books, games and comic books.
> They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they
> do intrude in between the movies. I dont get to involved in the parallel
> universe."
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
--
Every instructor assumes you have nothing to do but study for his
course.
C.S.Strowbridge
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>>>>>>The Star Wars Encyclopedia states that the movies, novelizations,
>>>>>>scripts and radio dramas are canon. Everything else is quasi-canon.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Star Wars Encyclopedia is not a valid source for Canon Policy any
>>>>>more than the Star Trek TNG Tech Manual is. No book can declare itself
>>>>>Canon and override the Canon Policy.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't declare itself canon. It stats what the canon policy is and
>>>>where it fits within it.
>>>
>>> The canon policy in that book is different than the Canon Policy
>>> elsewhere,
>>
>>No it isn't. It's different to _your_ interpretation of canon policy.
>
> Wow, it occurred simultaneously here and on Spacebattles. All the sudden,
> people start opening up the Pandora's Box of "everything is interpretation,
> who is to say what really exists?"
That's not what I'm saying you lying fucker. I'm saying your
interpretation of Star Wars Canon Policy contradicts the evidence. So
it's fucking wrong.
>>>>No they don't. They minimize the value of the text. 'close to official'
>>>>'Not required reading' 'shouldn't get in the way of the storytelling.'
>>>
>>>Similarly, the Star Wars Canon Policy severely minimizes the value of
>>>the Expanded Universe. "Interpretation and speculation" ... "the
>>>real story of Star Wars" is the Canon ... and Lucas' belief that the
>>>EU will not limit (i.e. get in the way of) his storytelling.
>>
>>But direct quotes still call it quasi-canon.
>
> These quotes are not part of the Star Wars Canon Policy,
Really? So when he says he's describing the Star Wars Canon Policy he's
lying. Fuck off, it proves you're wrong.
> In fact, Quasi-Canon can only refer to the internal Continuity that
> the EU wants to maintain, so it seems to me those terms mean the same
> thing.
Except that interpretation isn't even hinted at.
>>Gaskill said it.
>>
>>"*strive* to be canon, i.e. match up what appears on screen"
>>
>>Canon = Live Action Star Trek.
>
> Oh, please. The website he wrote says there are written sources of
> Star Trek canon, such as Jeri Taylor's Pathways novel.
That's cause they've been used in the show.
>>Direct quote from Ordover, Moore said, "There are no written sources of
>>Star Trek Canon." A Gaskill quote is above, Okuda said something
>>similar, but I don't have the exact quote.
>
> "Speculation" and Gaskill's "pretty much" canon don't sound the same.
> Besides, Ordover is not on Paramount's payroll, so he's pretty easy to
> overrule.
Fuck you, bitch. Ordover was in charge of the Pocket Book division.
Those books had to follow canon, therefore he had to know what is and is
not canon.
BTW, Gaskill's just a web monkey. He has no direct role in Star Trek.
>>>>>just as Lucas/LFL has not.
>>>>
>>>>Quasi Canon.
>>>
>>>Nowhere stated in Canon Policy.
>>
>>Star Wars Encyclopedia /is/ stating the canon policy.
>
> It can't.
Well it does, deal with it.
>>Here's the main problem:
>>
>>All evidence can be interpreted to agree with our interpretation of Star
>>Wars Canon Policy.
>>
>>Not all evidence can be interpreted to agree with your interpretation of
>>Star Wars Canon Policy. That's why you need to get rid of the Star Wars
>>Encyclopedia.
>
> Even if you were right -- which you aren't -- that would be a bullshit
> argument.
>
> You're saying that any theory that includes all the evidence is better
> than any theory that doesn't.
Yes. A theory that takes into account all evidence is better than one
that contradicts some of the evidence.
> Well, that's crazy, and a physics professor will beat you silly for
> saying so.
Fucking liar.
C.S.Strowbridge
Chuck, Dark Lord of the Rings
> You're saying that any theory that includes all the evidence is better
than
> any theory that doesn't. Well, that's crazy, and a physics professor
will
> beat you silly for saying so.
>
a text book.
Iceberg
Sweet Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, he actually SAID THAT??? That's
about the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read, and since I've been
fighting his inane brain-droolings on sb.com since yesterday, that's
saying something.
-- Ice
"This day will always be remembered! How it's remembered is up to us!
Right here, right now! Let's make history!" - Vyse the Legend
Skies of Arcadia: Sega Dreamcast (11/4/2000), Nintendo GameCube (Q4
2002), Sony PlayStation 2 (Q1-Q2, 2003).
Chuck, Dark Lord of the Rings
"Iceberg" <ice...@crius.net> wrote in message
news:0sffhus5h747k224k...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:44:43 GMT, "Chuck, Dark Lord of the Rings"
> <so...@ubiteme.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"DarkStar" <afina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:HZMR8.424291$Oa1.30...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> >> You're saying that any theory that includes all the evidence is better
> >than
> >> any theory that doesn't. Well, that's crazy, and a physics professor
> >will
> >> beat you silly for saying so.
> >>
> >This is the most glaring use of a strawman I've ever seen. It should go
in
> >a text book.
>
> Sweet Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, he actually SAID THAT??? That's
> about the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read, and since I've been
> fighting his inane brain-droolings on sb.com since yesterday, that's
> saying something.
>
facts is better than a theory that can't explain all the facts. If, for
example, I see the last piece of cake is gone I might say "my wife ate the
cake." But, someone could point out, that doesn't explain how she could get
the cake off the fridge when she's so short and all the chairs are out being
washed. Therefore it must have been a traveling group of circus acrobats
that ate the cake. It explains all the evidence, but that doesn't mean it's
probably correct (it was probably my wife using a means I haven't figured
out). However, since CS never stated that ANY theory that includes all the
evidence must be better than any theory that doesn't, this is a strawman.
Instead CS shows how his theory fits all the facts and DarkStar's doesn't.
You then ask "is it a reasonable theory?" The idea earlier was clearly
unreasonable, since circus acrobats do not routinely break into peoples'
houses with the intent of consuming fattening desserts, so it was unlikely.
CS theory, however, is not unreasonable: it fits all the facts and is
internally consistent. Hence, there is no reason to disgard the theory
unless evidence is brought forward to show it is wrong.
DarkStar
(Sigh)
(Shakes head)
Whatever, dude. If you're not going to listen, I'm not going to talk.
Sir Nitram
Pot. Kettle. Black.
--
SirNitram
ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius
The most powerful attack of them all...
DALTONDOKEN!
Brought to you by cheese.
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>
> >>>>>>The Star Wars Encyclopedia states that the movies, novelizations,
> >>>>>>scripts and radio dramas are canon. Everything else is quasi-canon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The Star Wars Encyclopedia is not a valid source for Canon Policy any
> >>>>>more than the Star Trek TNG Tech Manual is. No book can declare
itself
> >>>>>Canon and override the Canon Policy.
> >>>>
> >>>>It doesn't declare itself canon. It stats what the canon policy is and
> >>>>where it fits within it.
> >>>
> >>> The canon policy in that book is different than the Canon Policy
> >>> elsewhere,
> >>
> >>No it isn't. It's different to _your_ interpretation of canon policy.
> >
> > Wow, it occurred simultaneously here and on Spacebattles. All the
sudden,
> > people start opening up the Pandora's Box of "everything is
interpretation,
> > who is to say what really exists?"
>
> That's not what I'm saying you lying fucker. I'm saying your
> interpretation of Star Wars Canon Policy contradicts the evidence. So
> it's fucking wrong.
I'm not interpreting, you donkey-fucker, I'm reading what they say right
fucking there! Just because your masturbatory fanboy fantasies don't agree
with that isn't my problem, so eat shit and die.
It isn't that I disagree with your right to hold whatever opinion on the
canon you want, but I'll be damned if you can claim that your
misinterpretation of the canon policy is the correct variation. Let's just
leave out the variations and read what they say, hmm?
>
> >>>>No they don't. They minimize the value of the text. 'close to
official'
> >>>>'Not required reading' 'shouldn't get in the way of the storytelling.'
> >>>
> >>>Similarly, the Star Wars Canon Policy severely minimizes the value of
> >>>the Expanded Universe. "Interpretation and speculation" ... "the
> >>>real story of Star Wars" is the Canon ... and Lucas' belief that the
> >>>EU will not limit (i.e. get in the way of) his storytelling.
> >>
> >>But direct quotes still call it quasi-canon.
> >
> > These quotes are not part of the Star Wars Canon Policy,
>
> Really? So when he says he's describing the Star Wars Canon Policy he's
> lying. Fuck off, it proves you're wrong.
Well, he quotes Cerasi, who disagrees with that, and so does Lucas, so suck
shit.
>
> > In fact, Quasi-Canon can only refer to the internal Continuity that
> > the EU wants to maintain, so it seems to me those terms mean the same
> > thing.
>
> Except that interpretation isn't even hinted at.
I didn't say they said that directly, but it does follow.
>
> >>Gaskill said it.
> >>
> >>"*strive* to be canon, i.e. match up what appears on screen"
> >>
> >>Canon = Live Action Star Trek.
> >
> > Oh, please. The website he wrote says there are written sources of
> > Star Trek canon, such as Jeri Taylor's Pathways novel.
>
> That's cause they've been used in the show.
So has Franz Joseph's Technical Manual (Star Trek II ship displays), the
Star Trek TNG Technical Manual, and so on.
> >>Direct quote from Ordover, Moore said, "There are no written sources of
> >>Star Trek Canon." A Gaskill quote is above, Okuda said something
> >>similar, but I don't have the exact quote.
> >
> > "Speculation" and Gaskill's "pretty much" canon don't sound the same.
> > Besides, Ordover is not on Paramount's payroll, so he's pretty easy to
> > overrule.
>
> Fuck you, bitch. Ordover was in charge of the Pocket Book division.
> Those books had to follow canon, therefore he had to know what is and is
> not canon.
Maybe so, but I don't hear you saying that some guy from Bantam or Del Rey
overrides someone from LucasBooks or LucasFilm.
Double-standards might work nicely for shitheads like you, but I don't buy
into them.
>
> BTW, Gaskill's just a web monkey. He has no direct role in Star Trek.
He's the editor of StarTrek.com and answers the FAQ, so his role isn't too
different from that of Sansweet.
> >>>>>just as Lucas/LFL has not.
> >>>>
> >>>>Quasi Canon.
> >>>
> >>>Nowhere stated in Canon Policy.
> >>
> >>Star Wars Encyclopedia /is/ stating the canon policy.
> >
> > It can't.
>
> Well it does, deal with it.
Lucas and Cerasi disagree with Sansweet's Encyclopedia adventure, so it
doesn't matter anyway. The funny part is that Sansweet quotes Cerasi
disagreeing with him!
> >>Here's the main problem:
> >>
> >>All evidence can be interpreted to agree with our interpretation of Star
> >>Wars Canon Policy.
> >>
> >>Not all evidence can be interpreted to agree with your interpretation of
> >>Star Wars Canon Policy. That's why you need to get rid of the Star Wars
> >>Encyclopedia.
> >
> > Even if you were right -- which you aren't -- that would be a bullshit
> > argument.
> >
> > You're saying that any theory that includes all the evidence is better
> > than any theory that doesn't.
>
> Yes. A theory that takes into account all evidence is better than one
> that contradicts some of the evidence.
>
> > Well, that's crazy, and a physics professor will beat you silly for
> > saying so.
>
> Fucking liar.
Quick, shithead, tell me again why people don't use the various attempts or
partial versions of the Grand Unified Theory to figure out the amps
necessary to make a car start.
DarkStar
"Chuck, Dark Lord of the Rings" <so...@ubiteme.com> wrote in message
news:%1PR8.96772$X9.36...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
Straw man? Bullshit. He claims that his version of the SW Canon Policy is
better than what they actually say, because his version doesn't leave
anything out. I pointed out, correctly, that the general thought he was
using was fucked in the head to begin with. That's not a straw man, that's
pointing out an error in reasoning.
Learn the terms you're using before you use them.
DarkStar
> > A history is not THE history, especially if A history has many
offshoots,
> > tangents, and variants. This is from the same quote where the guy
talks
> > about the gospel/Canon, and we know from Cerasi that "the real story of
Star
> > Wars" is the Canon.
>
> In this case, A history, _is_ THE history, because the word "the"
> doesn't fit grammatically inside the sentence. For it to be "the"
> history in that context, it would have to be complete.
"The vast history" would have worked just fine in that context, but what is
most amusing is that we see that Cerasi says "the real story of Star Wars"
(as you even quoted above), which is a use that totally defies what you
claim despite the similar context.
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> >
> > (Posted by Watchdog on Spacebattles)
> >
> >
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> > :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> > As a last word on the subject, here's what George Lucas has to say:
> > From Cinescape magazine, July 2002
>
> Yep. It confirms that the material is valid Star Wars where it doesn't
> conflict with his own movies.
Don't lie, you know damn good and well it doesn't do that. It proves my
case beyond doubt.
Chuck, Dark Lord of the Rings
he did not say to him, then criticized that instead of what he said. That
is a strawman. The fact that you insist it isn't doesn't make it true, any
more than your insistance that your interpretation of canon is correct makes
it true. You are the one who needs to take a course in logic. Take it
after your course in manners.
DarkStar
"Chuck, Dark Lord of the Rings" <so...@ubiteme.com> wrote in message
news:T2QR8.96779$X9.36...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
My theory fits all the facts, while his theory (the common misconception)
invents new ones. As with your example, the renegade band of acrobats
constitutes a new fact.
Both the common misconception and the renegade circus performers (but worse
with the latter) call into creation new entities, new complexities, and
leaps of logic. The Principle of Parsimony (a.k.a. Ockham's Razor) kills
them both.
Graeme Dice
>
> "Chuck, Dark Lord of the Rings" <so...@ubiteme.com> wrote in message
> news:T2QR8.96779$X9.36...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
<snip>
> My theory fits all the facts,
Except, of course, for the minor point that it doesn't fit the facts,
and only even comes close if you warp and twist the words to make it
look that way.
Graeme Dice
--
When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty.
I only think about how to solve the problem. But when
I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I
know it is wrong.
-- Buckminster Fuller
Graeme Dice
>
> "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3D17A8B2...@sk.sympatico.ca...
>
> > > A history is not THE history, especially if A history has many
> offshoots,
> > > tangents, and variants. This is from the same quote where the guy
> talks
> > > about the gospel/Canon, and we know from Cerasi that "the real story of
> Star
> > > Wars" is the Canon.
> >
> > In this case, A history, _is_ THE history, because the word "the"
> > doesn't fit grammatically inside the sentence. For it to be "the"
> > history in that context, it would have to be complete.
>
> "The vast history" would have worked just fine in that context,
No, it would not fit. "The entire catalog of published works comprises
_THE_ vast history ..." means that it is complete.
> but what is
> most amusing is that we see that Cerasi says "the real story of Star Wars"
> (as you even quoted above), which is a use that totally defies what you
> claim despite the similar context.
Would you care to point out how the movies being real Star Wars affects
the other material in any way?
Graeme Dice
--
Local High School Dropouts Cut in Half
Iceberg
Nitram) wrote:
We should be so lucky.
Graeme Dice
Yes, it does confirm it.
"There are two worlds here," explains Lucas. "There's my world, which is
the
movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say
is
the parallel universe-the licensing world of books, games and comic
books.
They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but]
they
do intrude in between the movies. I dont get to involved in the parallel
universe."
All this states is that the licensed materials don't get in the way of
the period of time he has set aside for himself. And he is also correct
that he doesn't get too involved in the EU. That doesn't make it any
less correct.
>It proves my
> case beyond doubt.
No, it doesn't prove your case unless you are thinking in a language
other than English.
Graeme Dice
--
"The simplest schoolboy is now familiar with truths for which
Archimedes would have sacrificed his life." — Ernest Renan
(1823-92), French philosopher and theologian.
DarkStar
You're absolutely correct, I did not specifically criticize his exact words.
However, I criticized the concept he was using with those words.
example: "The '96 Dodgers could beat the '72 Yankees because all the
Yankees drove Chevrolet cars."
My reply would be that even if the person was right about which team could
beat the other (I don't know or care), the kind of car they drove wouldn't
matter a damn. What he called a problem with my theory was that, in his
opinion, it didn't include all the evidence. Well, that doesn't matter a
damn.
Besides, part of being able to make theories, here and in life, is being
able to weigh the evidence and facts and know where they fit in. He wants
to include every bit of evidence and give it equal weight no matter the
source. Well, you just can't do that, because it will lead to crap theories
like his.
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> >
> > "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3D17A8B2...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> >
> > > > A history is not THE history, especially if A history has many
> > offshoots,
> > > > tangents, and variants. This is from the same quote where the guy
> > talks
> > > > about the gospel/Canon, and we know from Cerasi that "the real story
of
> > Star
> > > > Wars" is the Canon.
> > >
> > > In this case, A history, _is_ THE history, because the word "the"
> > > doesn't fit grammatically inside the sentence. For it to be "the"
> > > history in that context, it would have to be complete.
> >
> > "The vast history" would have worked just fine in that context,
>
> No, it would not fit. "The entire catalog of published works comprises
> _THE_ vast history ..." means that it is complete.
The catalog of published works was and is growing. Creation of BS semantics
issues doesn't help you.
> > but what is
> > most amusing is that we see that Cerasi says "the real story of Star
Wars"
> > (as you even quoted above), which is a use that totally defies what you
> > claim despite the similar context.
>
> Would you care to point out how the movies being real Star Wars affects
> the other material in any way?
The real story of Star Wars (the Canon), like the catalog of published
works, is growing.
Wow, sounds like a future-inclusive "the" exists after all!
DarkStar
How the hell does a "parallel universe" -- a "other world" -- coexist in the
same reality with reality?
If there is a parallel universe with another Earth and another you and
another me, how does what happens there have any bearing on our reality?
Ours is the only reality of consequence, just like Lucas is declaring that
his is the only world of consequence. The Expanded Universe constitutes a
separate world.
> >It proves my
> > case beyond doubt.
>
> No, it doesn't prove your case unless you are thinking in a language
> other than English.
Parallel lines do not meet, and parallel universes have no bearing on each
other.
Graeme Dice
> > DarkStar wrote:
<snip>
> > No, it would not fit. "The entire catalog of published works comprises
> > _THE_ vast history ..." means that it is complete.
>
> The catalog of published works was and is growing.
Which using the word "the" does not allow for.
> Creation of BS semantics
> issues doesn't help you.
Excuse me?! You are the one creating the BS semantic issues and
claiming that "a" history doesn't mean that it is a correct history.
> > > but what is
> > > most amusing is that we see that Cerasi says "the real story of Star
> Wars"
> > > (as you even quoted above), which is a use that totally defies what you
> > > claim despite the similar context.
> >
> > Would you care to point out how the movies being real Star Wars affects
> > the other material in any way?
>
> The real story of Star Wars (the Canon), like the catalog of published
> works, is growing.
I'll ask you again. Would you care to point out how the movies being
canon and real Star Wars affects the validity of any of the other
sources in any way shape or form? I've asked you to do this about five
times now, and each time you simply dodge the question and re-iterate
the same statement that somehow it matters.
> Wow, sounds like a future-inclusive "the" exists after all!
Except in the sentence they used, where it is referring to the present
state of the works.
Graeme Dice
--
The Briggs/Chase Law of Program Development:
To determine how long it will take to write and debug a
program, take your best estimate, multiply that by two,
add one, and convert to the next higher units.
Graeme Dice
> > DarkStar wrote:
<snip>
> > All this states is that the licensed materials don't get in the way of
> > the period of time he has set aside for himself. And he is also correct
> > that he doesn't get too involved in the EU. That doesn't make it any
> > less correct.
>
> How the hell does a "parallel universe" -- a "other world" -- coexist in the
> same reality with reality?
>
> If there is a parallel universe with another Earth and another you and
> another me, how does what happens there have any bearing on our reality?
> Ours is the only reality of consequence, just like Lucas is declaring that
> his is the only world of consequence.
No, he is declaring that the movies exist in a time period that the rest
of the EU doesn't discuss.
> The Expanded Universe constitutes a
> separate world.
No, it constitutes a world that does not take place at the same time as
the rest of the movies, which is exactly what he said.
> > >It proves my
> > > case beyond doubt.
> >
> > No, it doesn't prove your case unless you are thinking in a language
> > other than English.
>
> Parallel lines do not meet, and parallel universes have no bearing on each
> other.
That's nice, and ultimately irrelevant when taken in the context of the
entire quote.
Graeme Dice
--
"Give me a firm place to stand and I will move the earth."
— Archimedes (287-212 BC)
Chuck, Dark Lord of the Rings
It seems to me that his concept is that a theory that includes all relavent
facts is usually better than one that can't.
>
> example: "The '96 Dodgers could beat the '72 Yankees because all the
> Yankees drove Chevrolet cars."
>
> My reply would be that even if the person was right about which team could
> beat the other (I don't know or care), the kind of car they drove wouldn't
> matter a damn. What he called a problem with my theory was that, in his
> opinion, it didn't include all the evidence. Well, that doesn't matter a
> damn.
That all Yankees drove Cheverolet cars is not evidence. That all Yankees
drove cars (if it were true) is merely fact. However, if it were true that
the Yankees consistantly went scoreless against left-handed pitchers, that
is evidence, and a theory that doesn't address is is probably going to be
inferior to one that does. Evidence is "A thing or things helpful in
forming a conclusion or judgment."(dictionary.com) Since the cars fact
doesn't do that, it isn't evidence. Applying it to the discussion at hand,
anything that addresses the issue of canonicity is evidence. A theory that
explains all of that evidence is more likely to be correct than one that
can't.
>
> Besides, part of being able to make theories, here and in life, is being
> able to weigh the evidence and facts and know where they fit in. He wants
> to include every bit of evidence and give it equal weight no matter the
> source. Well, you just can't do that, because it will lead to crap
theories
> like his.
>
But at the same time, you don't discard evidence without a reason. If
twenty people say a guy shot someone in public but his mother says he
didn't, it's reasonable to assume she's incorrect. If twenty people say he
did, and three total strangers say it was a gunman wearing the same coat and
hat that ran off, that needs to be taken into account even though a vast
majority said he did it. Any theory to explain those events should consider
the three person minority.
Durandal
> How the hell does a "parallel universe" -- a "other world" -- coexist
> in the same reality with reality?
>
> If there is a parallel universe with another Earth and another you and
> another me, how does what happens there have any bearing on our
> reality? Ours is the only reality of consequence, just like Lucas is
> declaring that his is the only world of consequence. The Expanded
> Universe constitutes a separate world.
That's the thing ... what happens in the films DOES have bearing on what
happens in the EU.
--
Damien Sorresso
[AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859]
http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64
"Note: The movie is rated R, consistent with the policy of the flywheels
at the MPAA that any movie involving the intelligent treatment of
teenagers must be declared off-limits for them."
-Roger Ebert, in a post-script of his review of The Dangerous Lives of
Altar Boys.
Durandal
> than any theory that doesn't. Well, that's crazy, and a physics
> professor will beat you silly for saying so.
Not my physics professors. Please show me an example of a theory in
physics which does not fit all the evidence that is regarded as "better"
than a theory which does fit all the evidence.
Did you, by chance, take a physics course at Vanguard University or a
similar creationist diploma mill?
DarkStar
> > > > Straw man? Bullshit. He claims that his version of the SW Canon
> Policy
> > > is
> > > > better than what they actually say, because his version doesn't
leave
> > > > anything out. I pointed out, correctly, that the general thought
he
> > was
> > > > using was fucked in the head to begin with. That's not a straw
man,
> > > that's
> > > > pointing out an error in reasoning.
> > > >
> > > > Learn the terms you're using before you use them.
> > > >
> > > Wow, you're a contradictory little fuck, aren't you. You assigned
> > something
> > > he did not say to him, then criticized that instead of what he said.
> >
> > You're absolutely correct, I did not specifically criticize his exact
> words.
> > However, I criticized the concept he was using with those words.
>
> It seems to me that his concept is that a theory that includes all
relavent
> facts is usually better than one that can't.
I have no problem with that idea. If that was his concept, then the
question would be what a relevant fact is. He was including all facts
without regard to relevance, which is the problem, and why I attacked the
concept I attacked.
> >
> > example: "The '96 Dodgers could beat the '72 Yankees because all the
> > Yankees drove Chevrolet cars."
> >
> > My reply would be that even if the person was right about which team
could
> > beat the other (I don't know or care), the kind of car they drove
wouldn't
> > matter a damn. What he called a problem with my theory was that, in
his
> > opinion, it didn't include all the evidence. Well, that doesn't matter
a
> > damn.
> That all Yankees drove Cheverolet cars is not evidence. That all Yankees
> drove cars (if it were true) is merely fact. However, if it were true
that
> the Yankees consistantly went scoreless against left-handed pitchers, that
> is evidence, and a theory that doesn't address is is probably going to be
> inferior to one that does. Evidence is "A thing or things helpful in
> forming a conclusion or judgment."(dictionary.com) Since the cars fact
> doesn't do that, it isn't evidence. Applying it to the discussion at
hand,
> anything that addresses the issue of canonicity is evidence. A theory
that
> explains all of that evidence is more likely to be correct than one that
> can't.
But, comments in the Encyclopedia are not things helpful in forming a
conclusion or judgement, because we already know that unless Canon Policy
includes a Quasi-Canon or Official category, a book can't make it up. That
is the rule as applied to the Paramount canon policy, where the Technical
Manuals are not specifically excluded by appropriate parties, and I deny the
notion that a double-standard is okay.
It doesn't matter now anyway, though, since recent comments by Lucas refer
to the Expanded Universe as a parallel universe to the Star Wars Canon.
> > Besides, part of being able to make theories, here and in life, is being
> > able to weigh the evidence and facts and know where they fit in. He
wants
> > to include every bit of evidence and give it equal weight no matter the
> > source. Well, you just can't do that, because it will lead to crap
> theories
> > like his.
> >
> But at the same time, you don't discard evidence without a reason. If
> twenty people say a guy shot someone in public but his mother says he
> didn't, it's reasonable to assume she's incorrect. If twenty people say
he
> did, and three total strangers say it was a gunman wearing the same coat
and
> hat that ran off, that needs to be taken into account even though a vast
> majority said he did it. Any theory to explain those events should
consider
> the three person minority.
I agree totally.
In this case, though, we have about ten witnesses. However, to extend the
analogy, legal precedent has shown that one particular sort of witness is
not allowed to testify, and one of our ten is just that sort of witness.
Now, it just so happens that this witness says things contrary to the other
nine, too.
So, do I refuse to prosecute because I cannot use all ten? No, of course
not. A crime has been committed. And those individuals who defend the
accused (the old notion of SW canon) keep bringing up the tenth witness,
claiming that witness defeats my case.
Well, the witness is invalid. In the absence of a judge, I'm forced to
explain why the witness is invalid to everyone else, but that doesn't change
the fact that the witness' testimony is worthless.
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> >
> > "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3D17D79B...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > > DarkStar wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > No, it would not fit. "The entire catalog of published works
comprises
> > > _THE_ vast history ..." means that it is complete.
> >
> > The catalog of published works was and is growing.
>
> Which using the word "the" does not allow for.
Cerasi doesn't agree with you ... if he did, then the Star Wars canon could
not extend beyond August of 2001.
>
> > Creation of BS semantics
> > issues doesn't help you.
>
> Excuse me?! You are the one creating the BS semantic issues and
> claiming that "a" history doesn't mean that it is a correct history.
That uses the actual meanings of the words, unlike your "th3 WoRd 'the'
cAn't inc1uDe da futur3!!" bullshit.
>
> > > > but what is
> > > > most amusing is that we see that Cerasi says "the real story of Star
> > Wars"
> > > > (as you even quoted above), which is a use that totally defies what
you
> > > > claim despite the similar context.
> > >
> > > Would you care to point out how the movies being real Star Wars
affects
> > > the other material in any way?
> >
> > The real story of Star Wars (the Canon), like the catalog of published
> > works, is growing.
>
> I'll ask you again. Would you care to point out how the movies being
> canon and real Star Wars affects the validity of any of the other
> sources in any way shape or form? I've asked you to do this about five
> times now, and each time you simply dodge the question and re-iterate
> the same statement that somehow it matters.
What the hell does this have to do with the future-inclusive "the", which is
what I've been talking about for the last few posts?
>
> > Wow, sounds like a future-inclusive "the" exists after all!
>
> Except in the sentence they used, where it is referring to the present
> state of the works.
As opposed to Cerasi, who wasn't? Oh, please.
DarkStar
> DarkStar wrote:
> >
> > "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3D17D81E...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > > DarkStar wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > All this states is that the licensed materials don't get in the way of
> > > the period of time he has set aside for himself. And he is also
correct
> > > that he doesn't get too involved in the EU. That doesn't make it any
> > > less correct.
> >
> > How the hell does a "parallel universe" -- a "other world" -- coexist in
the
> > same reality with reality?
> >
> > If there is a parallel universe with another Earth and another you and
> > another me, how does what happens there have any bearing on our reality?
> > Ours is the only reality of consequence, just like Lucas is declaring
that
> > his is the only world of consequence.
>
> No, he is declaring that the movies exist in a time period that the rest
> of the EU doesn't discuss.
>
Oh my God ... that is the stupidest quote-mangling I have ever seen.
The past, future, and other events in the present do not occur on other
worlds, and are not part of a parallel universe, you dumb bastard!
DarkStar
"Durandal" <duran...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:20020624222...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> The voice in my head named DarkStar told me:
> > You're saying that any theory that includes all the evidence is better
> > than any theory that doesn't. Well, that's crazy, and a physics
> > professor will beat you silly for saying so.
>
> Not my physics professors. Please show me an example of a theory in
> physics which does not fit all the evidence that is regarded as "better"
> than a theory which does fit all the evidence.
Chuck and I are discussing that in this thread, I'll send you there.
> Did you, by chance, take a physics course at Vanguard University or a
> similar creationist diploma mill?
(growl) ... I'll let you slide for suggesting I'm a creationist, this time.
Next time, I make you dead. :)
DarkStar
> > How the hell does a "parallel universe" -- a "other world" -- coexist
> > in the same reality with reality?
> >
> > If there is a parallel universe with another Earth and another you and
> > another me, how does what happens there have any bearing on our
> > reality? Ours is the only reality of consequence, just like Lucas is
> > declaring that his is the only world of consequence. The Expanded
> > Universe constitutes a separate world.
>
> That's the thing ... what happens in the films DOES have bearing on what
> happens in the EU.
... So? The EU is inconsequential to the real story of Star Wars, and is
not in the same universe as that real story. Just because the EU can grab
parts of the real story doesn't make it part of the real story, since Lucas
makes it clear he thinks that is part of another world, and a parallel
universe.
Cmdrwilkens
news:20020624220713...@mb-cg.aol.com...
> >"Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:3D17A859...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> >> DarkStar wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Graeme Dice" <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >> > news:3D166B0D...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> >> > > DarkStar wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >
> >(Sigh)
> >
> >(Shakes head)
> >
> >Whatever, dude. If you're not going to listen, I'm not going to talk.
> >
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
Damn you beat me to it.
--
Lcpl Burnett, G.R.
USMCR
BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG
"Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure"
- IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net)