[Info] Minor change in canon policy
Kynes
Kynes23: I don't know if you remember, but I've spoken to you a couple of times with regard to the "canon" status of ST novels. In
the discussion group you also may or may not remember, a question has arisen about the same status of the Star Trek Magazine. I'm
not sure if you know or not, but if you do: what is it? Is it official, or is it like the novels?
ORDOVER: Abosultely nothing is canon that is not on-screen.
ORDOVER: I don't know any way of stating that that is clearer.
Kynes23: Yeah, that's a pretty clear-cut answer. :-) So Paramount doesn't make
any distinction between "more official" and "less official"? It's either canon
and on-screen or it's bunk?
ORDOVER: There is no -off-screen- source of official information save to the extent, for instance, that the Encyclopedia draws
information from the shows - example...
ORDOVER: If, in the Encyclopedia, it says that the TOS Enterprise's serial number is 1701, then that's canonical, because it
accurately reflects information from the show.
ORDOVER: But speculations from the Encyclopedia - the italics stuff - aren't.
This position is further supported by the official Paramount website, specifically, on the following questions:
http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1321
"As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes
and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts." (Indicates no distinction is made by Paramount between "official" and "canon".)
http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1374
"There have been earlier versions of technical manuals, including 'Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise' (Shane Johnson) and the
'Star Trek Starfleet Technical Manual' (Franz Joseph), but these books, although fun to read, were not written by production
personnel and are not considered 'canon.'" (This page lists the TNG and DS9 TMs among these sources as well as computer games,
without making any point to distinguish the TMs as official -- because, as Mr. Ordover stated crystal-clearly, they are not.)
http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1327
"The magazines Star Trek Communicator, Star Trek: The Magazine and Star Trek Monthly (UK) are all licensed by Viacom Consumer
Products and are not affiliated with STARTREK.COM." (Star Trek Communicator is a fanclub e-mail newsletter, and Paramount here
seems to grant ST: The Magazine similar status, further supporting Mr. Ordover's statements.)
Clearly, ASVS has misunderstood Paramount's policy on officialdom in the ST universe for a great long while. This alarming turn of
events surprised me, and I decided to ask a prominent pro-ST debater his opinion on things:
Kynes: "Paramount and Lucasfilm's standing on canon/official is the ultimate word. We can vote to sort out things in matters of
confusion (i.e. EGs over novels) but we can't add sources they think are bunk (toys, novels in ST) or remove things that they say
are legit (Star Trek V, Christmas Special).
Now, without further explanation unless the answer is no, does this represent your position accurately and honestly?"
Lord Edam de Fromage: "Yes."
My duty was and is clear. Even Edam, one of the most steadfast ST supporters, felt that Paramount's policy overrode any past votes.
This has long been my feeling as well. Clearly, all printed material falls into the category of "sources they think are bunk", so we
can't use them. No vote necessary.
With such overriding consensus on both sides of the debate, and a go-ahead from the Council, the canon policy has been modified to
include the following items as invalid source materials:
-- The TNG TM
-- The DS9 TM
-- Star Trek: The Magazine
-- Star Trek Fact Files
-- Novels
-- Comics
-- The Star Trek Encyclopedia
-- The Star Trek Chronology
A note will also, of course, be included that these are just a few of the sources now disallowed; as per Mr. Ordover's statements
(who was speaking in his capacity as a Paramount official, and certainly overrides anything we might have to say on the subject) the
*only* things admissable as pro-ST evidence are the movies and episodes -- except the two novel exceptions granted on the Paramount
website, naturally.
The Rules have already been updated to reflect this; Strowbridge and I have begun examining the Past Threads to see which will have
to be updated to reflect the newly-discovered invalidity of the Technical Manuals. We have already come up with several candidates;
if any of you can think of more (Edam, your help in particular would be useful here) please post them here so we can discuss them
and perhaps draw some new conclusions.
If there are any questions about the new policy, its origins, or if you wish to request a copy of the full transcript, please e-mail
a Council member.
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ MSN Messenger: ky...@choam.org ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"Kynes is the devil."
- Goomba [a Spacebattles baby]
sb_co...@my-deja.com
be quite misleading. The quote:
"Pocket Books have published several excellent reference guides,
but due to the overwhelming nature of the Star Trek oeuvre, it's
nearly impossible to create technical reference for every ship seen
on the show. However, they have gone a long way to help those of
you who are technically minded by publishing the following books:
"Star Trek: The Next Generation - U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-D
Blueprints" (Rick Sternbach), "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
Technical Manual" (Herman Zimmerman, Rick Sternbach and
Doug Drexler) and the "Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical
Manual" (Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda)."
the FAQs considers these as excellent reference guides, and
theses are the famed ST TMs that people use as official material.
the quote that you and strowbridge are intentionaly
misrepresenting is in the following paragraph:
"There have been earlier versions of technical manuals, including
"Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" (Shane Johnson) and the "Star
Trek Starfleet Technical Manual" (Franz Joseph), but these books,
although fun to read, were not written by production personnel and
are not considered 'canon.'"
First this is a seperate paragraph, and therefor is focusing on an
entirely different point and on entirely different sources. When they
are saying that these are not 'canon' they are reffereing to the ones
mentioned in the paragraph (anyone who has taken AP English
could easily come to this conclusion), not the previous one. How
do I know this, well, here is the very large flaw in your interpritation
where you are trying to make the quote:
"but these books, although fun to read, were not written by
production personnel and are not considered 'canon."
fit BOTH paragraphs. The problem is, the sources in the first
paragraph (The Blueprints, TNG and DS9 TMs) WERE written by
production personnel. HOW CAN YOU MAKE THAT QUOTE FIT
BOTH PARAGRAPHS WHEN THERE IS A PROBLEM LIKE
THIS?...... EASY, YOU CANT! If the quote WAS talking about the
sources mentioned in both the first and second paragraph, then
why do they say "were not written by production personnel" when
infact Herman Zimmerman and Rick Sternbach are production
personnel (that I am 100% positive of)? NOW, the sources
mentioned in the second paragraph are not production personnel,
but the ones in the first ARE. THEREFOR, the quote you are using
to back up your argument ONLY applies to Mr. Scott's Guide to the
Enterprise and the Star Trek Starfleet Technical Manual, since
those are the ONLY 2 books in that ENTIRE ARTICLE that have not
been written by production personnel. SO, this just furthers the
point that when they are talking about NON CANNON, they are
refering to the sources in the same paragraph, not both like you
and strowbridge are trying to pass off.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Elim Garak
producer, and the two people who actually write, create, and invent most of the tech on the show?
--
"I follow you, 'Vorga.' I find you, 'Vorga.'
I pay you back, me. I rot you.
I kill you, 'Vorga.' I kill you filthy."
-Alfred Bester, "Tiger! Tiger!"
PREDATOR
Elim Garak wrote:
>
> Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about what he thinks? What makes his opinions and ideas more valid than those of an ST writer and
> producer, and the two people who actually write, create, and invent most of the tech on the show?
A good question. He's an editor, I believe, of the ST novels. These are
unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the authority to
proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or garbage.
Elim Garak
--
Strowbridge
Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star Trek
Fiction." That is his job.
And he said that the only source for Star Trek Fact is the live action
movies and TV episodes.
C.S.Strowbridge
Dalton
>
> Elim Garak wrote:
> >
> > Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about what he thinks? What makes his opinions and ideas more valid than those > > of an ST writer and producer, and the two people who actually write, create, and invent most of the tech on the show?
>
He is the senior editor of the Star Trek novels.
> A good question. He's an editor, I believe, of the ST novels. These are
> unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the authority to
> proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or garbage.
They are all books and I imagine they still fall under his domain. If
anybody has any knowledge as to what canon is, he does.
--
Dalton
http://read.at/asvsfanfics
http://faq.at/asvsfuq
"I hope you have you'er tombstone picked out coffin breath" --LT.Hit-Man
PREDATOR
Strowbridge wrote:
>
> PREDATOR wrote:
> >
> > Elim Garak wrote:
>
> > > Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about what
> > > he thinks? What makes his opinions and ideas more valid than those of
> > > an ST writer and producer, and the two people who actually write,
> > > create, and invent most of the tech on the show?
> >
> > A good question. He's an editor, I believe, of the ST novels. These are
> > unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the authority to
> > proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or garbage.
>
> Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star Trek
> Fiction." That is his job.
He is in charge of what goes into novels, but nothing else. His criteria
for what can go into novels or not are not necessarily paramount's exact
view on canoon of official. He cant speak for them, he can speak for
himself only, and the novels alone. I'm awaiting word from Rick
Sternbach and Paramount, but until I get better authorised word on what
is official or canon I'll continue on my merry way with the tech manuals
etc.
Strowbridge
>
> Strowbridge wrote:
> >
> > PREDATOR wrote:
> > > > Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about
> > > > what he thinks? What makes his opinions and ideas more valid than
> > > > those of an ST writer and producer, and the two people who actually
> > > > write, create, and invent most of the tech on the show?
> > >
> > > A good question. He's an editor, I believe, of the ST novels. These
> > > are unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the
> > > authority to proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or
> > > garbage.
> >
> > Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> > novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star
> > Trek Fiction." That is his job.
>
> He is in charge of what goes into novels,
And in doing so he sets what is 'Star Trek Fact' and what is 'Star Trek
Fiction.'
> His criteria for what can go into novels or not are not necessarily
> paramount's exact view on canoon of official.
It bloody well better be. He's the ONLY one who has to keep EVERYTHING
under control. Remember, the novels deal with ALL eras of Star Trek.
Berga, Sternbach, Okuda, etc. only have one or two limited areas under
their control.
> I'm awaiting word from Rick Sternbach and Paramount, but until I get
> better authorised word on what is official or canon I'll continue on my
> merry way with the tech manuals etc.
So until you can get ANOTHER person at Paramount to confirm what this
source says you are going to ignore the clearest word we have on the
matter. Not a good way to go.
C.S.Strowbridge
Kynes
> Well, I find this news very interesting, but, I find your interpritation to
> be quite misleading. The quote:
To begin: there is NO interpretation being done here. You have totally ignored what
John Ordover has said on this matter, which is *crystal* clear -- I asked him specific
questions with the exact doubts of this newsgroup in mind.
The website is SUPPORTING evidence for his official word.
[snip]
> the FAQs considers these as excellent reference guides, and
> theses are the famed ST TMs that people use as official material.
Yeah, reference guides -- NOT source material. Read the Rules -- the Encyclopedia is
a legit "reference guide" too, insofar as it "refers" to what's on-screen. It is not a
valid source of information by itself.
> the quote that you and strowbridge are intentionaly
> misrepresenting is in the following paragraph:
Nothing is being represented about the quote "There is no off-screen source of official
information." Tell me how that's unclear for you.
[snip rest]
Strowbridge
> From a recent conversation with John Ordover (full transcript available
> at request, either from myself or from Chuck):
Ok, since it has become apparent that some people are doubting John's
credentials in this area I thought I should point out a few facts:
1.) John Ordover is in charge of the novels.
2.) The novels MUST follow Canon (I.E. Star Trek Facts.)
3.) The novels do NOT have to follow Non-Canon (I.E. Star Trek Fiction.)
Therefore, John Ordover MUST know which is which.
He said two VERY important things:
1.) The ONLY source for canon information is the live action movies and
TV episodes.
2.) If it's not Canon, it's speculation.
C.S.Strowbridge
Kynes
> Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about what he thinks?
Oh, excuse me, I was assuming turtle-level intelligence of the people reading that
notice. Didn't realize you were back. John Ordover is the chief editor for the ST
novels. He is in possibly the best position to know canon policy -- unlike Sternbach or
anyone else who might comment on the matter, a large part of John Ordover's job is
continuity. The novels have to be checked for it, his job covers all four series, etc.
Thus, it is *very* difficult for me to imagine anyone who could contradict him on this
one. He is not in a position to be wrong about something this important. Further, his
say is backed up by the website, indicating a Paramount-wide policy.
Kynes
> A good question. He's an editor, I believe, of the ST novels. These are
> unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the authority to
> proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or garbage.
Oh, I see -- a higher-up at Paramount who has, as a job responsbility, ensuring
continuity in the timeline, is in no position to comment about Paramount's canonity
policy? Who would be, then? You?
Eat my shit.
Kynes
> > Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> > novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star Trek
> > Fiction." That is his job.
>
> He is in charge of what goes into novels, but nothing else.
Right. And a large part of that ISN'T knowing Paramount's policy on all printed
material, and what's official and what's not. Not like it's his responsibility to know
and enforce those things... oh, wait. Yes it is.
> His criteria
> for what can go into novels or not are not necessarily paramount's exact
> view on canoon of official.
And why wouldn't they be? He's a Paramount official, one of the higher-ups in the Star
Trek world. His say on the matter is official and has NEVER been wrong before -- what
he told group members in e-mails later appeared on the Paramount website, etc. He is
obviously in a position to speak to the canon policy of Paramount, simply because such
a large portion of his job deals with continuity and canon.
> He cant speak for them, he can speak for himself only, and the novels alone.
He was speaking in his capacity as a Paramount/Star Trek official. If you don't realize
this, then you're a retard.
> I'm awaiting word from Rick Sternbach
... who is in no position to talk about these kind of things, firstly, and secondly,
will tell you exactly what Mr. Ordover did. You think that Paramount representatives to
the world at large disagree on this? Or what? Why would John Ordover NOT know the canon
policy? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
> and Paramount
You expect a booming voice from the sky, or what? John Ordover was speaking for
Paramount. We have Paramount's word on this -- in the form of John Ordover's say-so and
the website.
I might point out that the website and Mr. Ordover agree to the point that it was, in
fact, the website's information itself which prompted me to ask him about this matter;
he confirmed that the way Strowbridge and I were reading it was completely correct, in
VERY clear terms.
> but until I get better authorised word on what
> is official or canon I'll continue on my merry way with the tech manuals
> etc.
Okay, Tim.
Kynes
> Just out of curiosity, who gave you permission to change the FAQ without a vote?
The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's canon policy; we can't vote
on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I did before making this
announcement. I further conferred with the Council and it was decided that no vote was
necessary.
Anton Polinger
>
> > Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about what he thinks?
>
> Oh, excuse me, I was assuming turtle-level intelligence of the people reading that
> notice. Didn't realize you were back.
Are you of the opinion that some significant intellect is required to simply know who some flunky is? Oh, I see, it would be significant from your POV, sorry, my
bad.
> John Ordover is the chief editor for the ST
> novels. He is in possibly the best position to know canon policy -- unlike Sternbach or
> anyone else who might comment on the matter, a large part of John Ordover's job is
> continuity. The novels have to be checked for it, his job covers all four series, etc.
>
> Thus, it is *very* difficult for me to imagine anyone who could contradict him on this
> one. He is not in a position to be wrong about something this important. Further, his
> say is backed up by the website, indicating a Paramount-wide policy.
Oh? You mean the Paramount website does NOT state that the two Jeri Taylor's books are canon? Or that the TNG and DS9 TMs are 'canon'? What does it say instead
of this, in that case?
Kynes
> > Thus, it is *very* difficult for me to imagine anyone who could contradict him on this
> > one. He is not in a position to be wrong about something this important. Further, his
> > say is backed up by the website, indicating a Paramount-wide policy.
>
> Oh? You mean the Paramount website does NOT state that the two Jeri Taylor's
> books are canon?
The Rules note this exception. Since John Ordover edited the manuscripts for those novels,
I'm pretty sure he knows their status. Not mentioning them just means that he was focusing
on broader issues.
> Or that the TNG and DS9 TMs are 'canon'?
Find me the statement that says this. Oh, it isn't there; it's just your lack of English
skills playing tricks on you.
Lord Edam de Fromage
happened to him?" "umm, take a look at this message from Kynes..it gave
him a heart attack"
> The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's canon policy; we can't vote
> on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I did before making this
> announcement. I further conferred with the Council and it was decided that no vote was
> necessary.
Yes, and I support you in your stance on the matter, I just think
you have rushed into it without thinking it through properly.
I busy sorting out old arguments and other ramifications of your
actions at this very moment, and believe this could be the best thing
that could happen for the debates in this newsgroup. We can no longer fob
people off with the been-there-done-that attitude many of the regulars
have been using over the past twelve months. All debates will have to be
re-assesed incase the corrected policy changes anything.
--
Lord Edam de Fromage
AIM:Sorborus
WEB:www.trek-wars.co.uk
They had a system there pretty close to ours - but it had only 7 stars
and one gas giant -- Elim Garak
Paul Cassidy
Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3982951B...@home.com...
> PREDATOR wrote:
> >
> > Elim Garak wrote:
>
> > > Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about what
> > > an ST writer and producer, and the two people who actually write,
> > > create, and invent most of the tech on the show?
> >
> > unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the authority to
> > proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or garbage.
>
> novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star Trek
> Fiction." That is his job.
>
The novels are not currently considered canon. However, if your explanation
is true and he determines star trek facts, then if he does his job properly,
surely non-historical facts from the novels should now be considered canon.
Paul Cassidy
Sternbach quotes have been used, have been rejected on the basis that he
does not speak for Star Trek, and merely works for the franchise. If that
holds true for Rick, then surely it also holds true for John Ordovers, who
doesn't even work for "canon" star trek. If we are to take the "creators"
word, then surely like everything else it should be ranked. Those who work
for canon sources (ie shows and movies) ranked highest, and everyone else
lower or ignored.
> > From a recent conversation with John Ordover (full transcript available
> > at request, either from myself or from Chuck):
>
> Ok, since it has become apparent that some people are doubting John's
> credentials in this area I thought I should point out a few facts:
>
> 1.) John Ordover is in charge of the novels.
>
Which are themselves outside of ST canon.
> 2.) The novels MUST follow Canon (I.E. Star Trek Facts.)
>
If this is the case, then Star trek "facts" and explanations (ie phaser
operation etc) from the novels should be accepted as part of this group.
> 3.) The novels do NOT have to follow Non-Canon (I.E. Star Trek Fiction.)
>
Agreed. Events in books do NOT happen in the real timeline.
> Therefore, John Ordover MUST know which is which.
>
Maybe, but as I showed in point 2, this group does NOT currently accept that
definition. If it does, then all non-historical facts and explanations from
the books should become valid for debate in this group.
> He said two VERY important things:
>
> 1.) The ONLY source for canon information is the live action movies and
> TV episodes.
>
True.
> 2.) If it's not Canon, it's speculation.
>
That is why we have traditionally had the "official" designation, to cover
things like the technical manuals, which are even used by the writers of the
show. This is stated quite clearly in TNG:TM Author's introduction section.
Paul Cassidy
> PREDATOR wrote:
> >
> > Strowbridge wrote:
> > >
> > > PREDATOR wrote:
>
> > > > > Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about
> > > > > what he thinks? What makes his opinions and ideas more valid than
> > > > > those of an ST writer and producer, and the two people who
actually
> > > > > write, create, and invent most of the tech on the show?
> > > >
> > > > A good question. He's an editor, I believe, of the ST novels. These
> > > > are unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the
> > > > authority to proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or
> > > > garbage.
> > >
> > > Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> > > novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star
> > > Trek Fiction." That is his job.
> >
>
> Fiction.'
>
Since novels are not considered canon, he must by definition have a
different view to the rest of the franchise. He can allow things to occur in
a novel that cannot occur in the show, since the show has to stick to the
official timeline.
> > His criteria for what can go into novels or not are not necessarily
> > paramount's exact view on canoon of official.
>
> It bloody well better be. He's the ONLY one who has to keep EVERYTHING
> under control. Remember, the novels deal with ALL eras of Star Trek.
> Berga, Sternbach, Okuda, etc. only have one or two limited areas under
> their control.
>
Exactly, but the events in the books do not happen. He can allow a book
through which has a story about Picards early days, but that doesn't mean
it's right. It certainly is not considered canon. The problem here is that
he only deals with the novels. He has no say whatsoever regarding the show,
or any technical manuals that are released. Its a bit like the chairman of
Ford Europe stating policy for Ford America. It wouldn't be accepted a
gospel. It might be true, but until confirmed by those responsible for that
area, no one would accept it as the absolute truth.
> > I'm awaiting word from Rick Sternbach and Paramount, but until I get
> > better authorised word on what is official or canon I'll continue on my
> > merry way with the tech manuals etc.
>
> So until you can get ANOTHER person at Paramount to confirm what this
> source says you are going to ignore the clearest word we have on the
> matter. Not a good way to go.
>
Why not? Surely if the policy is correct, then Sternbach and/or Paramount
will agree, and the debate will be over. We can sit here arguing for months,
but why not find out for certain? I think that finding out information is a
very good way to go, and something that's not done often enough on this
group! Beats burying our head in the sand and refusing to listen IMHO!
Lord Edam de Fromage
> > It bloody well better be. He's the ONLY one who has to keep EVERYTHING
> > under control.
Except for the parts controlled by the senior editor for Star Trek non
fiction at Pocket Books (Mr. Ordover is the senior editor for Star Trek
Fiction at Pocket Books for those who hadn't realised)
Ho hum. Back to telling people their web sites are wrong coz
Ky...@choam.org says so.
Two Mikes down. Who's left?
iceberg3k
>Two medics rushed into the room pulling the crash cart. "My god
what
>happened to him?" "umm, take a look at this message from Paul
Cassidy..it
>gave him a heart attack"
>
>> > It bloody well better be. He's the ONLY one who has to keep
EVERYTHING
>> > under control.
>
>Except for the parts controlled by the senior editor for Star
Trek non
>fiction at Pocket Books (Mr. Ordover is the senior editor for
Star Trek
>Fiction at Pocket Books for those who hadn't realised)
There is no bloody such thing as Star Trek non fiction, from a
literary perspective. Saying this is like saying there's such a
thing as Star Wars non fiction. My copy of the Star Trek: TNG TM
says, "Pocket Books - SCIENCE FICTION" (emphasis mine) It's a
ludicrous statement to say that there is such a thing as Star
Trek non fiction.
-- Mark
-ARK, ASVS, ARCR-C
-"Purpose of karate: Make perfect person." - Shihan Fumio Demura
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Elim Garak
>
> > Just out of curiosity, who gave you permission to change the FAQ without a vote?
>
> on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I did before making this
> announcement. I further conferred with the Council and it was decided that no vote was
> necessary.
Ah, thought so. A warsie plot. Thanks for clarifying this.
iceberg3k
>Kynes wrote:
>>
>> > Just out of curiosity, who gave you permission to change the
FAQ without a vote?
>>
canon policy; we can't vote
>> on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I
did before making this
>> announcement. I further conferred with the Council and it was
decided that no vote was
>> necessary.
>
>Ah, thought so. A warsie plot. Thanks for clarifying this.
ROFLOL!
Read that again. "The rules have always reflected Paramount and
Lucasfilm's canon policy; we can't vote on that."
Don't blame us, we're not the culprits. Blame Paramount.
Elim Garak
>
> > From a recent conversation with John Ordover (full transcript available
> > at request, either from myself or from Chuck):
>
> credentials in this area I thought I should point out a few facts:
>
> 1.) John Ordover is in charge of the novels.
>
Excuse me? Didn't we throw out the ST novels exactly because they don't follow canon? Besides, these are just rules for the novels, not the entire Paramount. The
www.startrek.com web site states quite clearly that the TMs are still 'canon'.
> 3.) The novels do NOT have to follow Non-Canon (I.E. Star Trek Fiction.)
>
> Therefore, John Ordover MUST know which is which.
Yes - for his purposes. I.E. for writing and editing the novels. To make sure that people don't get confused and decide they are in a B5 universe or something.
BUT these are obviously not the rules for the entire Paramount, or Star trek.
> He said two VERY important things:
>
> 1.) The ONLY source for canon information is the live action movies and
> TV episodes.
>
> 2.) If it's not Canon, it's speculation.
Tough - he doesn't have any say in Paramount policy, and therefore I don't give a damn.
Elim Garak
>
> > > Thus, it is *very* difficult for me to imagine anyone who could contradict him on this
> > > one. He is not in a position to be wrong about something this important. Further, his
> > > say is backed up by the website, indicating a Paramount-wide policy.
> >
> > Oh? You mean the Paramount website does NOT state that the two Jeri Taylor's
> > books are canon?
>
> The Rules note this exception. Since John Ordover edited the manuscripts for those novels,
> I'm pretty sure he knows their status. Not mentioning them just means that he was focusing
> on broader issues.
And yet he didn't mention them. Hmmmm...
> > Or that the TNG and DS9 TMs are 'canon'?
>
> Find me the statement that says this. Oh, it isn't there; it's just your lack of English
> skills playing tricks on you.
Nope, Mr. Bat. It is right there. For those of us with eyes.
http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1374
That page clearly plays off the TMs written by the tech advisors vs. the older ones, and states that the TNG TM, DS9 TM, and E-D Blueprints are what 'canon' - in
single quotation marks.
Mark Walton
> literary perspective. Saying this is like saying there's such a
> thing as Star Wars non fiction. My copy of the Star Trek: TNG TM
> says, "Pocket Books - SCIENCE FICTION" (emphasis mine) It's a
> ludicrous statement to say that there is such a thing as Star
> Trek non fiction.
Well I suppose, a book about how the series is made, about the cast and
people involved in making the show, would be non-fiction.
Ali Tavakoly
"vendetta"....
peace,
ali
Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3982951B...@home.com...
> PREDATOR wrote:
> >
> > Elim Garak wrote:
>
> > > Who the hell is this Ordover, and why should I give a damn about what
> > > he thinks? What makes his opinions and ideas more valid than those of
> > > an ST writer and producer, and the two people who actually write,
> > > create, and invent most of the tech on the show?
> >
> > A good question. He's an editor, I believe, of the ST novels. These are
> > unrelated to the tech manuals, and so he does not have the authority to
> > proclaim the Tech manuals as canon, official, or garbage.
>
> Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star Trek
> Fiction." That is his job.
>
> And he said that the only source for Star Trek Fact is the live action
> movies and TV episodes.
>
> C.S.Strowbridge
Lord Edam de Fromage
> > There is no bloody such thing as Star Trek non fiction, from a
Mo, Star Trek Fiction is star trek novels etc, the stuff that is not
'Star Trek Fact', but is still Star Trek. Star Trek Non Fiction would be
stuff like episodes and films - the stuff that is both Star Trek and Star
Trek Fact.
Elim Garak
>
> >> The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's
> canon policy; we can't vote
> >> on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I
> did before making this
> >> announcement. I further conferred with the Council and it was
> decided that no vote was
> >> necessary.
> >
> >Ah, thought so. A warsie plot. Thanks for clarifying this.
>
> ROFLOL!
>
> Read that again. "The rules have always reflected Paramount and
> Lucasfilm's canon policy; we can't vote on that."
>
> Don't blame us, we're not the culprits. Blame Paramount.
Nope, I don't think so. I blame you because this Ordrover guy is not an official representative of Paramount. At very very best he can only speak about the
novels. He has no control or even contact with the TMs or any other ST media.
Strowbridge
>
> "Elim Garak" <pol...@u.washington.edu> wrote
> > Just out of curiosity, who gave you permission to change the FAQ
> > without a vote?
>
> The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's canon policy;
> we can't vote on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I
> did before making this announcement. I further conferred with the Council
> and it was decided that no vote was necessary.
No vote is ALLOWED. We are not allowed to disagree with Paramount's or
LucasFilm's canon policy.
C.S.Strowbridge
Dalton
[SNIP]
> >Ah, thought so. A warsie plot. Thanks for clarifying this.
>
OH NO THE EVIL WARSIES ARE OUT TO GET US!!!!!
> ROFLOL!
>
> Read that again. "The rules have always reflected Paramount and
> Lucasfilm's canon policy; we can't vote on that."
>
> Don't blame us, we're not the culprits. Blame Paramount.
>
> -- Mark
> -ARK, ASVS, ARCR-C
> -"Purpose of karate: Make perfect person." - Shihan Fumio Demura
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
--
Dalton
http://read.at/asvsfanfics
http://faq.at/asvsfuq
"I hope you have you'er tombstone picked out coffin breath" --LT.Hit-Man
Strowbridge
> > The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's canon policy;
> > we can't vote on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which
> > I did before making this announcement. I further conferred with the
> > Council and it was decided that no vote was necessary.
>
> Yes, and I support you in your stance on the matter, I just think
> you have rushed into it without thinking it through properly.
>
> I busy sorting out old arguments and other ramifications of your
> actions at this very moment, and believe this could be the best thing
> that could happen for the debates in this newsgroup. We can no longer fob
> people off with the been-there-done-that attitude many of the regulars
> have been using over the past twelve months. All debates will have to be
> re-assesed incase the corrected policy changes anything.
I agree, I haven't been this excited about this debate in a long time.
Every argument that we thought was settled can come up again.
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
>
> It seems to me that we have a problem here. In the past, cases where Rick
> Sternbach quotes have been used, have been rejected on the basis that he
> does not speak for Star Trek, and merely works for the franchise.
Two Points:
1.) He was making statements about the TECHNOLOGY of Star Trek. Real
world people making comments about Fictional Tech. John Ordover is a
real world person making comments about real world problems.
2.) Rick doesn't control the aspect of Trek that he was commenting
about, John does.
> > > From a recent conversation with John Ordover (full transcript
> > > available at request, either from myself or from Chuck):
> >
> > Ok, since it has become apparent that some people are doubting John's
> > credentials in this area I thought I should point out a few facts:
> >
> > 1.) John Ordover is in charge of the novels.
>
> Which are themselves outside of ST canon.
Immaterial.
> > 2.) The novels MUST follow Canon (I.E. Star Trek Facts.)
>
> If this is the case, then Star trek "facts" and explanations (ie phaser
> operation etc) from the novels should be accepted as part of this group.
No, while they must FOLLOW Star Trek Facts, they can create Star Trek
Fiction.
> > 3.) The novels do NOT have to follow Non-Canon (I.E. Star Trek
> > Fiction.)
>
> Agreed. Events in books do NOT happen in the real timeline.
Right.
> > Therefore, John Ordover MUST know which is which.
>
> Maybe, but as I showed in point 2, this group does NOT currently accept
> that definition. If it does, then all non-historical facts and
> explanations from the books should become valid for debate in this group.
Wrong. You tried to claim that cause they have to FOLLOW Canon they must
be Canon. This is obviously wrong.
> > He said two VERY important things:
> >
> > 1.) The ONLY source for canon information is the live action movies and
> > TV episodes.
>
> True.
>
> > 2.) If it's not Canon, it's speculation.
>
> That is why we have traditionally had the "official" designation,
But Paramount doesn't.
> This is stated quite clearly in TNG:TM Author's introduction section.
Give a direct quote. Cause they also said that anything in that book
should be ignored if it interferes with the story. I.E. it's speculation
on how the systems MIGHT work.
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
>
> Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote
> > Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> > novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star
> > Trek Fiction." That is his job.
>
> The novels are not currently considered canon. However, if your
> explanation is true and he determines star trek facts, then if he does
> his job properly, surely non-historical facts from the novels should now
> be considered canon.
While the novels can CONTRADICT canon, they can create new, speculative,
histories, techs, explanations, etc.
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
> > > It bloody well better be. He's the ONLY one who has to keep
> > > EVERYTHING under control.
>
> Except for the parts controlled by the senior editor for Star Trek non
> fiction at Pocket Books (Mr. Ordover is the senior editor for Star Trek
> Fiction at Pocket Books for those who hadn't realised)
God you people are thick. The novels are NOT separate from Star Trek
Fact. They must NOT contradict Star Trek Fact. They can, and do,
contradict Star Trek Fiction (speculation.) Ergo the person in charge
of the novels MUST know what is Star Trek Fact (Live action episodes)
and what is Star Trek Fiction (everything else.)
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
> There is no bloody such thing as Star Trek non fiction, from a
> literary perspective.
I know, BUT the terms "Star Trek Fact" and "Star Trek Fiction" are the
terms the people at Paramount have used.
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
> umm. peter david borrowed heavily from the tng tech manual when writing
> "vendetta"....
While the novels (And canon sources) CAN use Star Trek Fiction they are
not bound by it. There is a difference.
C.S.Strowbridge
Paul Cassidy
> Paul Cassidy wrote:
> >
> > Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote
>
> > > Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> > > Trek Fiction." That is his job.
> >
> > The novels are not currently considered canon. However, if your
> > explanation is true and he determines star trek facts, then if he does
> > his job properly, surely non-historical facts from the novels should now
> > be considered canon.
>
> While the novels can CONTRADICT canon, they can create new, speculative,
> histories, techs, explanations, etc.
>
Sorry, I'm not quite clear what you're saying here. What I am saying is that
if the "technical" facts in a novel are correct (because otherwise Mr
Ordover would not allow them into the novel), then we should accept them
also. Obviously we ignore any historical changes since it is clear that they
do not occur within the timeline. We would also ignore any new technologies
created within the novels. However, we should not ignore explanations or
descriptions of existing unchanged technology. For example, if a novel says
that a standard Federation replicator can create a phaser, we should not
ignore it even if we haven't actually seen it happen on screen.
Space Cowboy
of quick questions to the group:
Kynes sought to enlighten the world with this:
>"There have been earlier versions of technical manuals,
>including 'Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise' (Shane
>Johnson) and the 'Star Trek Starfleet Technical Manual'
>(Franz Joseph), but these books, although fun to read, were
>not written by production personnel and are not considered
>'canon.'" (This page lists the TNG and DS9 TMs among these
>sources as well as computer games, without making any point
>to distinguish the TMs as official -- because, as Mr. Ordover
>stated crystal-clearly, they are not.)
You know that I've been boosting Geoffery Mandel's past works
here, now that he is on the staff of the ST Art Department
does that at least put him on the same level as Okuda and
Sternbach, since they are all now production personnel?
>
>
>My duty was and is clear. Even Edam, one of the most
>steadfast ST supporters, felt that Paramount's policy
>overrode any past votes. This has long been my feeling as
>well. Clearly, all printed material falls into the category
>of "sources they think are bunk", so we can't use them. No
>vote necessary.
>
>With such overriding consensus on both sides of the debate,
>and a go-ahead from the Council, the canon policy has been
>modified to include the following items as invalid source
>materials:
>
>-- The TNG TM
>-- The DS9 TM
>
Good [or not] would this mean that we are back to 1966 when
we really don't know how fast warpdrive is and "Voyager"
[how would I phrase this] is just one big fat YATI when
compared to TOS?
In that I mean TOS Enterprise seemed to be never more than
days or weeks to any destination in the Milky Way, not years
as in "Voyager".
Kynes
> The novels are not currently considered canon. However, if your explanation
> is true and he determines star trek facts, then if he does his job properly,
> surely non-historical facts from the novels should now be considered canon.
Novels are canonical on any point where they draw information totally from the
show. Of course, my ass is canonical if it has "The Enterprise's serial number
is NCC-1701" written on it in Magic Marker. Speculation from the novels (or the
Encyclopedia, in Mr. Ordover's example) is just that. Speculation. Inadmissable.
Strowbridge
> > > > Excuse me! He's the one in charge of what can and can not go into
> > > > novels. He says what's official "Star Trek Facts" and what is "Star
> > > > Trek Fiction." That is his job.
> > >
> > > The novels are not currently considered canon. However, if your
> > > explanation is true and he determines star trek facts, then if he
> > > does his job properly, surely non-historical facts from the novels
> > > should now be considered canon.
> >
> > While the novels can CONTRADICT canon, they can create new,
> > speculative, histories, techs, explanations, etc.
>
> Sorry, I'm not quite clear what you're saying here. What I am saying is
> that if the "technical" facts in a novel are correct (because otherwise
> Mr. Ordover would not allow them into the novel),
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
The Novels are not allowed to CONTRADICT Canon sources. But anything
they add is NOT canon, official or anything else that is usable here.
C.S.Strowbridge
Kynes
> > The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's canon policy; we can't vote
> > on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I did before making this
> > announcement. I further conferred with the Council and it was decided that no vote was
> > necessary.
>
> Ah, thought so. A warsie plot. Thanks for clarifying this.
That's right, Elim. Edam is a huge warsie, in on it all. Ego + Ignorance = You.
Kynes
> > The Rules note this exception. Since John Ordover edited the manuscripts for those novels,
> > I'm pretty sure he knows their status. Not mentioning them just means that he was focusing
> > on broader issues.
>
> And yet he didn't mention them. Hmmmm...
Read what I wrote again, idiot.
> > > Or that the TNG and DS9 TMs are 'canon'?
> >
> > Find me the statement that says this. Oh, it isn't there; it's just your lack of English
> > skills playing tricks on you.
>
> Nope, Mr. Bat.
"Mr. Bat"? What the fuck does that mean?
> It is right there. For those of us with eyes.
>
> http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1374
>
> That page clearly plays off the TMs written by the tech advisors vs. the older ones,
> and states that the TNG TM, DS9 TM, and E-D Blueprints are what 'canon' - in
> single quotation marks.
Point out the quote. Oh, there isn't one, and Paramount officials say otherwise.
Kynes
> I don't have time to read the whole thread yet, just a couple
> of quick questions to the group:
> You know that I've been boosting Geoffery Mandel's past works
> here, now that he is on the staff of the ST Art Department
> does that at least put him on the same level as Okuda and
> Sternbach, since they are all now production personnel?
If it his works appear in canon, then yes, it's as canon as anything else. However,
the best guideline I can offer you is: "If it's not on-screen, it's bunk." Period.
> >-- The TNG TM
> >-- The DS9 TM
>
> Good [or not] would this mean that we are back to 1966 when
> we really don't know how fast warpdrive is and "Voyager"
> [how would I phrase this] is just one big fat YATI when
> compared to TOS?
No, not at all. Whether or not the USS Enterprise "seemed" to be a few days or
weeks from anywhere in the Milky Way, this was really not the case. Further, it is
possible to calculate how fast warp drive is -- Voyager, in fact, is the best
way to do it. 70 years for 70,000 light-years means 1,000 light-years a year or
a little less than three a day, at Voyager's max cruising velocity.
Robert Williams
Elim Garak wrote in message <3982FD21...@u.washington.edu>...
>Kynes wrote:
>>
>> > Just out of curiosity, who gave you permission to change the FAQ without a
vote?
>>
can't vote
>> on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I did before making
this
>> announcement. I further conferred with the Council and it was decided that no
vote was
>> necessary.
>
>Ah, thought so. A warsie plot. Thanks for clarifying this.
>
HAHAHAHAHAHA :)
"Nnngghnh! The warsies are coming to get us, ngnngh!"
Rob
Durandal
As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live
action
episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts.
Story lines,
characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the
fictional
novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are
not
canon.
This statement makes it very clear that there is no distinction
between
"official" and "canon" status ("...are canon, OR OFFICIAL STAR
TREK
FACTS...").
So, if the TM is not canon, it is bust, according to the above.
If the ST:TM IS official, it would have the same status as the
episodes.
That means a 1.02GW power-level for phasers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damien Sorresso
"These are not 'assumptions.' You have repeatedly PROVEN yourself
to have the scientific knowledge and technical competence of a lab rat."
Durandal
>Durandal wrote:
>
>> So, if the TM is not canon, it is bust, according to the
above.
>> If the ST:TM IS official, it would have the same status as the
>> episodes.
>> That means a 1.02GW power-level for phasers.
>
>
>This change is NOT a complete victory by the SW side. It
doesn't mean
we
>pack up our things and go home. It just means we have to use a
limited
>(500 hours) amount of material. And everything that wasn't
based on
that
>material is gone (for good or for bad.)
>
>C.S.Strowbridge
>
>
It would be "Bravo" (I am male).
What do you mean about limited source material? Is that on the
Trek
side?
Durandal
contact information (E-mail, ICQ or AOL IM). I want to get a
nice,
complete interview with him to clear everything up.
Durandal
>Two medics rushed into the room pulling the crash cart. "My god
what
>happened to him?" "umm, take a look at this message from
>gave him a heart attack"
>
Star Trek non
>> > fiction at Pocket Books (Mr. Ordover is the senior editor
for Star Trek
>> > Fiction at Pocket Books for those who hadn't realised)
>>
>> God you people are thick.
>
possibly be an
>editor of Star Trek non-fiction at Pocket Books if everything
out of the
>live action is fiction? This is a direct contradiction between
your
>conclusions and the sources you used to reach your conclusions.
>
You're obviously not listening. In order for this guy to do his
job
correctly, he MUST KNOW Paramount's official policy regarding
source
material. In other words, when he started his job, they said,
"This stuff is
canon, this stuff is not," and modified it accordingly with all
the new ST
books and stuff coming out.
So basically, if he says that nothing off-screen is canon, then
that is
what Paramount has told him, and therefore, it is Paramount's
policy.
Once again:
He does NOT MAKE the rules. But, he does KNOW the rules.
It's like me saying that a black belt in Kyu-Ki-Do can't tell me
how to do
a form (a Kata, for you Karate people) because he didn't make
the form
up himself.
Elim Garak
>
> > > Just out of curiosity, who gave you permission to change the FAQ
> > > without a vote?
> >
> > The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's canon policy;
> > we can't vote on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I
> > did before making this announcement. I further conferred with the Council
> > and it was decided that no vote was necessary.
>
> LucasFilm's canon policy.
Except that Ordover does not represent the Paramount as a whole. He doesn't even have anything to do with the making of the show. At very very best he can make claims about the
novels, and about what he allows to be in the novels. Therefore you were still wrong.
Durandal
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!! YOU are STILL not listening!
In order to do his job effectively, he MUST KNOW Paramount's
policy on
official and canon. So, anything he says in considered the word
of
Paramount.
He doesn't HAVE TO MAKE the rules in order to COMMUNICATE them! I
typed up a nice post about it. Read it.
Dalton
>
> Strowbridge wrote:
> >
> > > > Just out of curiosity, who gave you permission to change the FAQ
> > > > without a vote?
> > >
> > > The Rules have always reflected Paramount and Lucasfilm's canon policy;
> > > we can't vote on that. Even Edam agreed to that when I asked him, which I
> > > did before making this announcement. I further conferred with the Council
> > > and it was decided that no vote was necessary.
> >
> > No vote is ALLOWED. We are not allowed to disagree with Paramount's or
> > LucasFilm's canon policy.
>
> Except that Ordover does not represent the Paramount as a whole. He doesn't even have anything to do with the making of the show. At very > very best he can make claims about the novels, and about what he allows to be in the novels. Therefore you were still wrong.
He's in charge of the books and is informed of the canon policy by
Paramount, fucker. Give it up as you have no hope.
Lord Edam de Fromage
happened to him?" "umm, take a look at this message from Strowbridge..it
gave him a heart attack"
> 2.) Rick doesn't control the aspect of Trek that he was commenting
> about, John does.
John does not control the technical manuals and encyclopaedia so by your
own words above he cannot comment on them. That would be a job for the
controllers of Star Trek or the controllers of the Technical manuals and
encyclopaedias. If they state the sources are non-fiction we would be
bound to accept their word, correct?
> > This is stated quite clearly in TNG:TM Author's introduction section.
>
> Give a direct quote.
"How 'official' is this stuff? Well, this is the first Technical manual
done by folks who actually work on Star Trek. It's closely based on
source material we've developed in conjunction with our writers and
producers in our role as techical consultants for the series. in that
sense it is 'pretty offical'"
Note - as recently expalined, Star Trek official and Star Trek canon are
the same thing. The TM is based on source material from the episodes
(taken from the writers and producers), and is in the words of the
authors is 'pretty canon'. It then goes on to say any previous technical
resources are invalid, just like the ultiamte word of Paramount on the
startrek website differentiates between the non canon early technical
sources and the TMs.
The DS9 TM is described by the executive produce of Star Trek Deep Space
nine (aka, the ULTIMATE word on DS9 with the exception of the studio big
wigs), that he relies heavily on the book. The executive producer of DS9
states that canon draws directly and heavily from the DS9TM, and that the
DS9 TM has the hard facts of ST:DS9, and that the real message of Star
Trek can be found ine very page of the book.
Cause they also said that anything in that book
> should be ignored if it interferes with the story. I.E. it's speculation
> on how the systems MIGHT work.
Give a direct quote, because I've read both of them TMs and couldn't see
anything in there.
Lord Edam de Fromage
happened to him?" "umm, take a look at this message from Strowbridge..it
gave him a heart attack"
> > Except for the parts controlled by the senior editor for Star Trek non
> > fiction at Pocket Books (Mr. Ordover is the senior editor for Star Trek
> > Fiction at Pocket Books for those who hadn't realised)
>
> God you people are thick.
So would you care to explain to us thickos how there can possibly be an
editor of Star Trek non-fiction at Pocket Books if everything out of the
live action is fiction? This is a direct contradiction between your
conclusions and the sources you used to reach your conclusions.
--
Strowbridge
> > 2.) Rick doesn't control the aspect of Trek that he was commenting
> > about, John does.
>
> John does not control the technical manuals and encyclopaedia
No, but he MUST be knowledgeable about Star Trek Fact vs. Star Trek
Canon in order to do his job. Even if he doesn't set the rules, but he
must know them.
> > > This is stated quite clearly in TNG:TM Author's introduction section.
> >
> > Give a direct quote.
>
> "How 'official' is this stuff? Well, this is the first Technical manual
> done by folks who actually work on Star Trek. It's closely based on
> source material we've developed in conjunction with our writers and
> producers in our role as techical consultants for the series. in that
> sense it is 'pretty offical'"
Gee, pretty official = Official. What happened to Mr. Semantics?
"based on source material" = NOT source material.
> > Cause they also said that anything in that book should be ignored if it
> > interferes with the story. I.E. it's speculation on how the systems
> > MIGHT work.
>
> Give a direct quote, because I've read both of them TMs and couldn't see
> anything in there.
"On the other hand, we'd like to make it very clear that it is not our
intention for this document to serve as a straitjacket, limiting the
options of future writers"
"Not required reading"
Pretty clear that the TM is NOT the law and can be (and has been)
contradicted.
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
> > > Except for the parts controlled by the senior editor for Star Trek
> > > non fiction at Pocket Books (Mr. Ordover is the senior editor for
> > > Star Trek Fiction at Pocket Books for those who hadn't realised)
> >
> > God you people are thick.
>
> So would you care to explain to us thickos how there can possibly be an
> editor of Star Trek non-fiction at Pocket Books if everything out of the
> live action is fiction? This is a direct contradiction between your
> conclusions and the sources you used to reach your conclusions.
Sure, I'll explain it again you fucking troll.
As someone has already pointed out the books fall under 3 categories:
1.) Star Trek Novels: Pure Science Fiction.
2.) Star Trek Technology: Speculation based on Star Trek Fact.
3.) Behind the scenes: Non Fiction books about the real world of Star
Trek.
ALL of these types of books are officially authorized by Paramount. NONE
are sources for Official Star Trek Facts. This has been made clear.
In the real world reference books about non-real subjects are called Non
Fiction. I have a book about Vampires that is considered non fiction,
does that mean I can use it to study Vampires and be the next Buffy
Summers? Hell no. BUT it is still classified as Non Fiction.
It's a confusion between real world terms (Fiction and Non Fiction) and
terms used by Paramount Executives to describe various sources (Star
Trek Fact and Star Trek Fiction.)
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
Strowbridge
>
> Kynes or Strowbridge: Can either of you guys E-mail me Ordover's
> contact information (E-mail, ICQ or AOL IM). I want to get a
> nice, complete interview with him to clear everything up.
I don't have it. You'd have to talk to Kynes.
C.S.Strowbridge
Elim Garak
>
> >> No vote is ALLOWED. We are not allowed to disagree with
> >> Paramount's
> >> or
> >> LucasFilm's canon policy.
> >
> >Except that Ordover does not represent the Paramount as a
> >whole. He
> >doesn't even have anything to do with the making of the show.
> >At very
> >very best he can make claims about the
> >novels, and about what he allows to be in the novels.
> >Therefore you
> >were still wrong.
>
> In order to do his job effectively, he MUST KNOW Paramount's
> policy on official and canon.
Not really. He just needs a strict set of rules. In this case he chose to make them stricter than Paramount's policy (FAQ). That is not a big deal, but it still does not make
his policy that of the Paramount.
> So, anything he says in considered the word
> of Paramount.
> He doesn't HAVE TO MAKE the rules in order to COMMUNICATE them! I
> typed up a nice post about it. Read it.
And they don't HAVE TO BE the rules of Paramount. His rules can be just stricter than those of Paramount, and still be acceptable.
Elim Garak
>
> > > No vote is ALLOWED. We are not allowed to disagree with Paramount's or
> > > LucasFilm's canon policy.
> >
> > Except that Ordover does not represent the Paramount as a whole. He doesn't even have anything to do with the making of the show. At very > very best he can make claims > > about the novels, and about what he allows to be in the novels. Therefore you were still wrong.
>
> Paramount, fucker. Give it up as you have no hope.
Since he is not involved in the creation of the show, his perspective can and does differ from that of the creative staff, Mr. Wideass. Give up this thread, as you have the
intellectual capacity of a cockroach during an orgasm.
Elim Garak
>
> > > The Rules note this exception. Since John Ordover edited the manuscripts for those novels,
> > > I'm pretty sure he knows their status. Not mentioning them just means that he was focusing
> > > on broader issues.
> >
> > And yet he didn't mention them. Hmmmm...
>
> Read what I wrote again, idiot.
You wrote lots of stuff. Be specific.
> > > Find me the statement that says this. Oh, it isn't there; it's just your lack of English
> > > skills playing tricks on you.
> >
> > Nope, Mr. Bat.
>
> "Mr. Bat"? What the fuck does that mean?
Think about it. What are bats commonly known for? I will give you a hint - it has to do with their vision.
> > It is right there. For those of us with eyes.
> >
> > http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1374
> >
> > That page clearly plays off the TMs written by the tech advisors vs. the older ones,
> > and states that the TNG TM, DS9 TM, and E-D Blueprints are what 'canon' - in
> > single quotation marks.
>
> Point out the quote. Oh, there isn't one, and Paramount officials say otherwise.
<yawn> OK, one more time.
"There have been earlier versions of technical manuals, including "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" (Shane Johnson)
and the "Star Trek Starfleet Technical Manual" (Franz Joseph), but these books, although
fun to read, were not written by production personnel and are not
considered 'canon.'" [ http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1374 ]
This plays off the earlier TMs against the TNG TM, DS9 TM, and the TNG blueprints. Therefore on this page the FAQ clearly states that the above mentioned TMs are 'canon' - in
single quotation marks.
BTW, remember it this time - from this point on I will paste this stuff each time you ask that question.
Matthew Hyde
Lord Edam de Fromage <michael....@physics.org> wrote:
> Two medics rushed into the room pulling the crash cart. "My god what
> happened to him?" "umm, take a look at this message from Strowbridge..it
> gave him a heart attack"
> > > Except for the parts controlled by the senior editor for Star Trek non
> > > fiction at Pocket Books (Mr. Ordover is the senior editor for Star Trek
> > > Fiction at Pocket Books for those who hadn't realised)
> >
> > God you people are thick.
> So would you care to explain to us thickos how there can possibly be an
> editor of Star Trek non-fiction at Pocket Books if everything out of the
> live action is fiction? This is a direct contradiction between your
> conclusions and the sources you used to reach your conclusions.
thickos, lol! Sounds like the latest supervillian in DC comix
--
Matt Hyde
Math Lab Consultant
Who is Matt Hyde? http://www.mathlab.mtu.edu/~mdoughy
Matthew Hyde
Elim Garak <pol...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Kynes wrote:
> >
> > > > The Rules note this exception. Since John Ordover edited the manuscripts for those novels,
> > > > I'm pretty sure he knows their status. Not mentioning them just means that he was focusing
> > > > on broader issues.
> > >
> > > And yet he didn't mention them. Hmmmm...
> >
> > Read what I wrote again, idiot.
> You wrote lots of stuff. Be specific.
>
> > > > Find me the statement that says this. Oh, it isn't there; it's just your lack of English
> > > > skills playing tricks on you.
> > >
> > > Nope, Mr. Bat.
> >
> > "Mr. Bat"? What the fuck does that mean?
> Think about it. What are bats commonly known for? I will give you a
hint - it has to do with their vision.
>
Plus they're wicked squeaky
Durandal
>Durandal wrote:
>>
>> >> No vote is ALLOWED. We are not allowed to disagree with
>> >> Paramount's
>> >> or
>> >> LucasFilm's canon policy.
>> >
>> >Except that Ordover does not represent the Paramount as a
>> >whole. He
>> >doesn't even have anything to do with the making of the show.
>> >At very
>> >very best he can make claims about the
>> >novels, and about what he allows to be in the novels.
>> >Therefore you
>> >were still wrong.
>>
>> In order to do his job effectively, he MUST KNOW Paramount's
>> policy on official and canon.
>
>Not really. He just needs a strict set of rules. In this case
he chose to
make them stricter than Paramount's policy (FAQ). That is not a
big deal,
but it still does not make
>his policy that of the Paramount.
<sigh>
He does not make the rules. Paramount does. He chooses how to
INTERPRET those rules. If the senior editor of Trek novels
interprets those
rules as "nothing off-screen is canon," then I'll take his word
over your
assumptions any day.
>> So, anything he says in considered the word
>> of Paramount.
>> He doesn't HAVE TO MAKE the rules in order to COMMUNICATE
them! I
>> typed up a nice post about it. Read it.
>
>And they don't HAVE TO BE the rules of Paramount. His rules
can be just
stricter than those of Paramount, and still be acceptable.
Yes, it DOES. Go ask a film editor what rules he adhers to. Does
he make
them up?
Durandal
>Dalton wrote:
>>
>> > > No vote is ALLOWED. We are not allowed to disagree with
Paramount's or
>> > > LucasFilm's canon policy.
>> >
>> > Except that Ordover does not represent the Paramount as a
whole.
He doesn't even have anything to do with the making of the show.
At
very > very best he can make claims > > about the novels, and
about
what he allows to be in the novels. Therefore you were still
wrong.
>>
policy by
>> Paramount, fucker. Give it up as you have no hope.
>
>Since he is not involved in the creation of the show, his
perspective can
and does differ from that of the creative staff, Mr. Wideass.
Give up this
thread, as you have the
>intellectual capacity of a cockroach during an orgasm.
One more time:
He is the SENIOR EDITOR of Star Trek novels. In order to do his
job right, he
HAS TO KNOW Paramount's canon policy. I don't know how to make
it any
clearer to you.
Durandal
><yawn> OK, one more time.
>
>"There have been earlier versions of technical manuals,
including "Mr.
>Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" (Shane Johnson)
>and the "Star Trek Starfleet Technical Manual" (Franz Joseph),
but these
>books, although fun to read, were not written by production
personnel
>and are not considered
>'canon.'[http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1374 ]
Stop trying to turn a simple statement into a train of thought.
You'd be
right in your interpretation if it read like this:
"...were not written by production personnel and, THEREFORE, are
not
considered canon..."
The word "therefore" is not present. THEREFORE, it is NOT a
train of
thought in the sense that one point leads to another.
Robert Williams
I have a book about Vampires that is considered non fiction,
>does that mean I can use it to study Vampires and be the next Buffy
>Summers?
Who?
Rob
Dalton
>
> Dalton wrote:
> >
> > > > No vote is ALLOWED. We are not allowed to disagree with Paramount's or
> > > > LucasFilm's canon policy.
> > >
> > > Except that Ordover does not represent the Paramount as a whole. He doesn't even have anything to do with the making of the show. At > > > very very best he can make claims about the novels, and about what he allows to be in the novels. Therefore you were still wrong.
> >
> > He's in charge of the books and is informed of the canon policy by
> > Paramount, fucker. Give it up as you have no hope.
>
> Since he is not involved in the creation of the show, his perspective can and does differ from that of the creative staff, Mr. Wideass.
Let me make it clear for you, child: John Ordover MUST know Star Trek's
canon policy inside and out since he is the Senior Editor of the fucking
books. The canon policy that comes down from the Big Kahunas. The policy
he MUST follow if he wants to keep his job. I don't know how I can make
it any clearer for you, but then again, your vision is always clouded
over by your childish bias.
> Give up this thread, as you have the intellectual capacity of a cockroach during an orgasm.
Well, it seems that you can't finish a post without making a crack at
your opponent's intelligence. This appears to be 'small dick syndrome'.
I'm sorry, Elim, but it seems that nature has chosen you to be one of
the few agenitalial wonders on this planet.
--
Dalton
Elim Garak
>
> > > He's in charge of the books and is informed of the canon policy by
> > > Paramount, fucker. Give it up as you have no hope.
> >
> > Since he is not involved in the creation of the show, his perspective can and does differ from that of the creative staff, Mr. > > Wideass.
>
> Let me make it clear for you, child: John Ordover MUST know Star Trek's
> canon policy inside and out since he is the Senior Editor of the fucking
> books. The canon policy that comes down from the Big Kahunas. The policy
> he MUST follow if he wants to keep his job. I don't know how I can make
> it any clearer for you, but then again, your vision is always clouded
> over by your childish bias.
Whatever. I have made my point, you have failed to prove yours.
> > Give up this thread, as you have the intellectual capacity of a cockroach during an orgasm.
>
> Well, it seems that you can't finish a post without making a crack at
> your opponent's intelligence.
You started it with the insults in this thread.
> This appears to be 'small dick syndrome'.
What's that?
> I'm sorry, Elim, but it seems that nature has chosen you to be one of
> the few agenitalial wonders on this planet.
? Are you coming on to me?
Strowbridge
Buffy Anne Summers, A.K.A. Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
C.S.Strowbridge
Robert Williams
Strowbridge wrote in message <3984974B...@home.com>...
Oh, right. For a moment thaen I thought there was a non-fictional person
claiming to hunt vampires in existence :)
Excuse my silliness :)
Rob
>
>C.S.Strowbridge
Durandal
>Robert Williams wrote:
>
>> >I have a book about Vampires that is considered non fiction,
>> >does that mean I can use it to study Vampires and be the
next Buffy
>> >Summers?
>>
>> Who?
>
>Buffy Anne Summers, A.K.A. Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
>
>
>
And, one of the main characters in my Buffy meets Star Wars
fanfic.
Ok, it was a lame advertising spot, but hey, what the hell?
Strowbridge
>
> Strowbridge wrote
> >> >I have a book about Vampires that is considered non fiction,
> >> >does that mean I can use it to study Vampires and be the next Buffy
> >> >Summers?
> >>
> >> Who?
> >
> >Buffy Anne Summers, A.K.A. Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
>
> Oh, right. For a moment thaen I thought there was a non-fictional person
> claiming to hunt vampires in existence :)
>
> Excuse my silliness :)
No prob. I'll just back to fantasizing about me and Buffy.
... Oh Buffy ...
C.S.Strowbridge
Matthew Hyde
Dalton <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
> Elim Garak wrote:
> >
> > Dalton wrote:
> > >
> > > > > No vote is ALLOWED. We are not allowed to disagree with Paramount's or
> > > > > LucasFilm's canon policy.
> > > >
> > > > Except that Ordover does not represent the Paramount as a whole. He doesn't even have anything to do with the making of the show. At > > > very very best he can make claims about the novels, and about what he allows to be in the novels. Therefo
re you were still wrong.
> > >
> > > He's in charge of the books and is informed of the canon policy by
> > > Paramount, fucker. Give it up as you have no hope.
> >
> > Since he is not involved in the creation of the show, his perspective can and does differ from that of the creative staff, Mr. Wideass.
> Let me make it clear for you, child: John Ordover MUST know Star Trek's
> canon policy inside and out since he is the Senior Editor of the fucking
> books. The canon policy that comes down from the Big Kahunas. The policy
> he MUST follow if he wants to keep his job. I don't know how I can make
> it any clearer for you, but then again, your vision is always clouded
> over by your childish bias.
> > Give up this thread, as you have the intellectual capacity of a cockroach during an orgasm.
> Well, it seems that you can't finish a post without making a crack at
> your opponent's intelligence.
Holy smokes that's so true... Oh wait *koffkoff* "you are stupid" "you
left your brain in the jar this morning" "you sold your brain for candy"
"moron" "idiot" "watermelon" *koff*
Oh well it's still true
Lord Edam de Fromage
>
> fanfic.
Where you finally reveal Luke is a cock sucking vampire from the planet
Fregal?
Strowbridge
> From a recent conversation with John Ordover (full transcript available
> at request, either from myself or from Chuck):
<SNIP!>
> ORDOVER: Abosultely nothing is canon that is not on-screen.
> ORDOVER: I don't know any way of stating that that is clearer.
Now, a lot of people are attacking this VERY clear statement. Some are
just disagreeing and demanding more proof. These people are idiots and I
will ignore them. Others are using vague quotes from Startrek.com (which
is contradicted in the same document.) I will talk about this argument
now.
When John Ordover made this statement he was specifically talking about
RAST, ASVS and other such venues for Star Trek debate. He's well aware
of us and what we do. He has made specific comments about this debate in
the past. OTOH, Paramount was talking about general information. If you
want to know how things MIGHT work in the minds of the people writing
the book, then the TM is fine. There certainly not going to say, "It's
crap, don't buy it." (BTW, the books they say are crap are also OOP.
Coincidence?)
To sum up, there are three levels of Star Trek information: Canon, Stuff
that would be considered Official if LucasFilm were in charge and CRAP!
But since Paramount is in control EVERYTHING below Canon is Crap.
C.S.Strowbridge
Crayz9000
"Strowbridge" <strow...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39862DD1...@home.com...
Damn right.
--
http://crayz9000.port5.com
Remove SOCKS when replying by E-mail.
I'd love to see you naked.
I'll drink to that.
--Microsoft Word
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Space Cowboy
>"Space Cowboy" <space...@HephestusStation.com> wrote in
>message news:8F80BF81EHep...@199.60.229.217...
>
>> >-- The TNG TM
>> >-- The DS9 TM
>>
>> Good [or not] would this mean that we are back to 1966 when
>> we really don't know how fast warpdrive is and "Voyager"
>> [how would I phrase this] is just one big fat YATI when
>> compared to TOS?
>
>No, not at all. Whether or not the USS Enterprise "seemed" to
>be a few days or weeks from anywhere in the Milky Way, this
>was really not the case. Further, it is possible to calculate
>how fast warp drive is -- Voyager, in fact, is the best way
>to do it. 70 years for 70,000 light-years means 1,000
>light-years a year or a little less than three a day, at
>Voyager's max cruising velocity. --
>-LK!
I disagree, ST:Voyager flies right in the face of numerous
examples of warp drive being "faster" [and I put that in
quotes because we all forget there is also an element there
where time is affected as well, not just linear travel].
One springs to mind is when the Kaladan Outpost central
computer chucked the original E about 1000 light-years and
despite problems, it took less than three days to get back
to the outpost/artificial planet to pickup Kirk, Sulu and
McCoy. In the ep we see one day, one night, when they try to
get some sleep, and one day pass.
Joshua Sean Bell has an excellent essay that tries to address
these anomalies, I'll try to find it and bring it here. At
one point he indicates calcs that if Voyager really had the
indicated top speed it should only take Lameway 10 years to
reach the AQ. My own belief is that the Interpid, er Intrepid
class, despite some nice features, is not that great a class
of vessel.
--
No! Not based on the recent Eastwood movie, or
the popular song but on a character from a 1980
Roger Corman movie! Written by John Sayles.
[low budget but a fun one to watch]