[YACT] If anyone wants it...

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Lord Edam de Fromage

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 1:50:55 PM6/21/01
to
I can get the TNG TM and the Star Trek Encyclopaedia and Chronology in
the allowed sources rule.

We've all pretty much realised Tim Gaskill is the only way to get the
official word direct from paramount now, I hope. If anyone knows of
another way of getting direct to Paramount and asking them, why haven't
you mentioned it?

I also hope you've all realised that the only way to clear this up is to
get it direct from the horses mouth - or as close to it as we can get.

now, for those of you actually keeping up with all this, rather than
marking it all as read, you would probably know the ding-dong saga of
"he's lower than Ordover" "he's higher than ordover", so taking
advantage of my now blossoming e-mail romance with Mr Gaskill, I decided
to come straight out and ask "are you higher than ordover". In reverse
order (his newest response first) here is the complete correspondence
I've had with him. Pay particular attention to who he says is actually
in charge of all this stuff - and look up which of the contentious
sources he has written.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gaskill" <stc...@pde.paramount.com>
To: "Mike Griffiths" <michael....@physics.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 11:30 PM
Subject: RE: Tm canonicity and the star trek FAQ


> I guess my point is there isn't one person who decides what's canon and what
> isn't. John Ordover doesn't work on the show and isn't employed by Paramount
> directly. He is employed by Pocket Books, one of Paramount's biggest
> licensees. Sure, John has some say, but the buck does not stop with him.
>
> Rick Berman would be the final arbiter, but Mike Okuda comes pretty close as
> he's the one who figures all this stuff out. I wish I could give you a more
> clear-cut answer.
>
> For the record, I work for Paramount Digital Entertainment as the editor of
> STARTREK.COM.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Griffiths [mailto:michael....@physics.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:14 AM
> To: stc...@pde.paramount.com
> Subject: Re: Tm canonicity and the star trek FAQ
>
>
> Thanks For the reply Tim.
>
> Now my friends have decided "we don't know who Tim Gaskill is, whilst
> Ordover is on record as a Paramount appointed official", so could you please
> answer me one direct question - do you have the authority to state
> Paramount's official policy, or are you simply someone paid to answer
> e-mails?
>
> (as you can probably guess, I *really* want to convince them the TMs should
> be "official" - that is, accepted in debates unless they contradict the
> shows, and this is the only stumbling block left)
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gaskill" <stc...@pde.paramount.com>
To: "Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 10:41 PM
Subject: RE: Tm canonicity and the star trek FAQ


> Thanks for your email.
>
> I hate to be vague, but sometimes things are canon, sometimes not. The
> Encyclopedia, Chronology, TM's, etc, *strive* to be canon, i.e. match up
> what appears on screen with the apparent inconsistencies that have occurred
> over the course of 35 years and over 500 hours of programming. But, as is
> the case with the TM's, the dimensions and such are not always shown on
> screen. But, if they are written by the people that create the ships and
> signage in the first place, then we have to acknowledge some amount of
> accuracy. John Ordover, as wonderful as he is, isn't necessarily the keeper
> of the canon, if you know what I mean. Gene Roddenberry's rule of thumb was,
> if you see it on the screen...But even that had caveats.
>
> The reference books try and most times they succeed. Sometimes they don't
> even attempt to answer certain questions, but, for most of our purposes,
> they are the best source of canonicity!
>
> I hope this makes sense. I tried to make the FAQ as general as possible
> without being too confusing.
>
>
>
> Mr Gaskill
>
> I was recently shown an e-mail from your good selves by a friend of mine
> who was asking about the canonicity of the Technical manuals, however
> this seems to have caused some confusion with a previous statment of
> Paramount Policy from John Ordover at Pocket Books who has stated the
> TNG and DS9 TMs, as well as the encyclopaedia and chronology, are non-
> canon. Obviously, this is completely the opposite of what you told Mr
> Wilson back in April (though some people take the FAQ question about the
> TMs as backing up Mr Ordover's statment).
>
>
>
> ****************
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: Tim Gaskill
> To: Robert Wilson [rob...@ntlworld.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 9:02 PM
> Subject: RE: The TM Canonicity
>
>
> Yes, pretty much. But only starting with the TNG tech manual on. Not the
> TOS one.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> ********************
>
>
> If the TNG and DS9 Technical manuals really are considered canon by
> paramount, why is this not directly stated in the FAQ, specifically the
> questions asking "What is canon", which replies
>
> "as a rule of thumb only the live action episodes and films are canon,
> though two novels and one animated episode have been included"
> (paraphrase - I get a 500 internal server error when I try to check)
>
> and the one about the TMs, which directly states the pre-TNG books are
> non-canon, but is nebulous on the subject of later ones, and I don't
> think it even mentions the Encyclopaedia and Chronology. I believe the
> FAQ could be improved by adjusting these two questions to directly state
> what is and is not canon "at the time of writing".
>
> I have an idea of what I would re-word the questions to based on your e-
> mails from April, but will not include that here because I know the
> problems related to copyright and unsolicited submissions.
>
>
> Finally, maybe you could clear up one little problem a friend has thrown
> up. He questions whether you have any authority to state the policy of
> Paramount and (basically) overule John Ordover, senior editor for Star
> Trek at Pocket Books. The only way to answer that one is to consider a
> change to the FAQ at www.startrek.com to reflect your earlier statments
>
> RW> I would presume that where ever the Tech Manual contradicts the
> RW>shows, then the shows take precedence but other than that
> [The Technical Manuals are considered Canon by Paramount]
>
> TG>Yes, pretty much. But only starting with the TNG tech manual on. Not
> TG>the TOS one.
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your time - I hope you will consider re-wording the
> FAQ. If you would like to chat further or see copies of the original e-
> mail <ego>or even consider what I'd like to put up instead</ego> feel
> free to call.
>
> Mike
> aka Lord Edam de Fromage
> www.trek-wars.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Kynes

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 4:45:33 PM6/21/01
to
"Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.159c44175...@news.cis.dfn.de...

> I can get the TNG TM and the Star Trek Encyclopaedia and Chronology in
> the allowed sources rule.

The e-mail below seems to indicate that the only definitive answer would come
from Okuda. Where's your e-mail from him? The correspondence below just does not
say what you say it says -- he never says he's more of an authority than Ordover,
just that Ordover isn't the end-all be-all of canon existence.

Fine with me, but Tim never says "I am the end-all be-all of canon existence"
either. What he really tells you is to ask Okuda. Why don't you go and do that?
--
LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]

"You, like many I have met in my usenet travels, are an interesting mix of
stupidty and ignorance."
- P&SC


Durandal

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 5:33:18 PM6/21/01
to
Kynes wrote:
>
> "Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.159c44175...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > I can get the TNG TM and the Star Trek Encyclopaedia and Chronology in
> > the allowed sources rule.
>
> The e-mail below seems to indicate that the only definitive answer would come
> from Okuda. Where's your e-mail from him? The correspondence below just does not
> say what you say it says -- he never says he's more of an authority than Ordover,
> just that Ordover isn't the end-all be-all of canon existence.
>
> Fine with me, but Tim never says "I am the end-all be-all of canon existence"
> either. What he really tells you is to ask Okuda. Why don't you go and do that?

Why bother? Okuda co-wrote the TM's. If he's the final arbiter of canon,
it seems that the TM's are, as well.
--
Damien Sorresso

TITANIA: Ewww! You said if I slept with you I wouldn't have to touch the drunk!
DUFFMAN: DUFFMAN SAYS A LOTTA THINGS!! OH YEAH!!

Kynes

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 5:48:36 PM6/21/01
to
"Durandal" <duran...@mac.com> wrote in message news:3B32681F...@mac.com...

> > Fine with me, but Tim never says "I am the end-all be-all of canon existence"
> > either. What he really tells you is to ask Okuda. Why don't you go and do that?
>
> Why bother? Okuda co-wrote the TM's. If he's the final arbiter of canon,
> it seems that the TM's are, as well.

If Okuda wrote a novel, would that be canon? no.

Alves

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 6:10:56 PM6/21/01
to
In article <N1tY6.335522$oc7.34...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>,
ky...@choam.org says...

> "Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.159c44175...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > I can get the TNG TM and the Star Trek Encyclopaedia and Chronology in
> > the allowed sources rule.
>
> The e-mail below seems to indicate that the only definitive answer would come
> from Okuda. Where's your e-mail from him? The correspondence below just does not
> say what you say it says -- he never says he's more of an authority than Ordover,
> just that Ordover isn't the end-all be-all of canon existence.
>
> Fine with me, but Tim never says "I am the end-all be-all of canon existence"
> either. What he really tells you is to ask Okuda. Why don't you go and do that?

Hummm... Kynes, I believe that Tim said that neither him or the folks at
Pocket Books _decide_ what is canon or not, or better yet, the ST
canon/official/whatever policy of Paramount. This is not under dispute.

But we also got an _official_ word in the issue from Paramount. If you
wanna go up the line to contradict this official word, the names are
listed.

I believe that this is what Edam tried to say (just so we can get the
ball rolling a little more tonight).

--
"I find myself guilty of hyperbole. Please excuse me while I ritually
fall onto my newsreader." - DMZ

Strowbridge

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 6:33:05 PM6/21/01
to
Kynes wrote:
>
> "Lord Edam de Fromage" wrote

> > I can get the TNG TM and the Star Trek Encyclopaedia and Chronology in
> > the allowed sources rule.
>
> The e-mail below seems to indicate that the only definitive answer would
> come from Okuda. Where's your e-mail from him? The correspondence below just
> does not say what you say it says -- he never says he's more of an authority
> than Ordover, just that Ordover isn't the end-all be-all of canon existence.

A couple of points:

1.i) No one every claimed Ordover had ANY say in what Star Trek Canon
is. We only said he needed to know the answer to do his job.
ii) The same can be said of Gaskill, but to a slightly lesser degree.
His job deals more with real world facts (behind the scenes, interviews,
schedules, etc.) and less with Star Trek Canon then Ordover's job.

2.i) Whenever Mr. Gaskill makes a statement he qualifies it. "Pretty
much", "for most of our purposes", "*strive* to be canon", "etc."
ii) John Ordover was a blunt as blunt can be.

3.i) John Ordover knows about the debates and answered the question with
people like us in mind.
ii) Has Gaskill even mentioned the debates? He might have no idea how
strict our policy on evidence is.

C.S.Strowbridge

Strowbridge

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 6:36:37 PM6/21/01
to
Durandal wrote:
>
> Kynes wrote:
> >
> > "Lord Edam de Fromage" wrote

> > What he really tells you is to ask Okuda. Why don't you go and do that?
>
> Why bother? Okuda co-wrote the TM's. If he's the final arbiter of canon,
> it seems that the TM's are, as well.

But the TNG:TM says it's not the end all and be all of Star Trek Canon
either.

C.S.Strowbridge

Kynes

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 6:51:53 PM6/21/01
to
"Strowbridge" <strow...@home.com> wrote in message news:3B327668...@home.com...

> > > What he really tells you is to ask Okuda. Why don't you go and do that?
> >
> > Why bother? Okuda co-wrote the TM's. If he's the final arbiter of canon,
> > it seems that the TM's are, as well.
>
> But the TNG:TM says it's not the end all and be all of Star Trek Canon
> either.

In fact, the TM says that the imagination of the watchers reigns supreme. I don't
think we can take what the TM says too seriously.

Transcend

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 2:12:21 PM6/21/01
to
Strowbridge wrote:

> Kynes wrote:
> >
> > "Lord Edam de Fromage" wrote
>
> > > I can get the TNG TM and the Star Trek Encyclopaedia and Chronology in
> > > the allowed sources rule.
> >
> > The e-mail below seems to indicate that the only definitive answer would
> > come from Okuda. Where's your e-mail from him? The correspondence below
> > just does not say what you say it says -- he never says he's more of an
> > authority than Ordover, just that Ordover isn't the end-all be-all of
> > canon existence.
>
> A couple of points:
>
> 1.i) No one every claimed Ordover had ANY say in what Star Trek Canon
> is. We only said he needed to know the answer to do his job.
> ii) The same can be said of Gaskill, but to a slightly lesser degree.
> His job deals more with real world facts (behind the scenes, interviews,
> schedules, etc.) and less with Star Trek Canon then Ordover's job.

Face it, Gaskill is just the geeky webmaster for startrek.com whose job
probably consists mostly of dealing with emails from obsessed trekkies
trying to find out Jeri Ryan's phone number. The rest of his job most
likely consists of making a nice looking website, and putting on it what
information he is told to. I would not rate him very high on the list of
people who need to know what is canon to do their jobs.

--
George Washington observed, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence;
it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Alves

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 7:24:17 PM6/21/01
to
In article <3B327594...@home.com>, strow...@home.com says...

<snip>

> 2.i) Whenever Mr. Gaskill makes a statement he qualifies it. "Pretty
> much", "for most of our purposes", "*strive* to be canon", "etc."
> ii) John Ordover was a blunt as blunt can be.

Bluntness only will prove the person wrong when stating the policy and it
is not the smart thing to do when refering to each other.



> 3.i) John Ordover knows about the debates and answered the question with
> people like us in mind.
> ii) Has Gaskill even mentioned the debates? He might have no idea how
> strict our policy on evidence is.

The first time arround when Rob asked the question, I believe. And what
is the strictness of this policy that you are talking about, is it a
status or what?

DMZ

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 7:32:10 PM6/21/01
to

"Transcend" <tran...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:9gtunb$8ecfg$1...@ID-75240.news.dfncis.de...

> Face it, Gaskill is just the geeky webmaster for startrek.com whose job
> probably consists mostly of dealing with emails from obsessed trekkies
> trying to find out Jeri Ryan's phone number.

A low personal attack.

> The rest of his job most
> likely consists of making a nice looking website, and putting on it what
> information he is told to.

Pure supposition, with no corroborating evidence.

> I would not rate him very high on the list of
> people who need to know what is canon to do their jobs.

A personal belief - implying that he is on that list?

Could you please stay out of this one and leave it to the highbrows until you have
something constructive to add?

DMZ
---


Alves

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 7:43:17 PM6/21/01
to
In article <993166333.25562.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com says...

<snip>

> Could you please stay out of this one and leave it to the highbrows until you have
> something constructive to add?

Hummm... this is kind of important. IMHO, we shouldn't only post to mud
the waters. Lets think two or three times before hitting the send button
and try to put aside personal problems.

I also have to say that Rob Wilson, with his initial kick, Kynes (even
disagreeing with what he says in this issue) and particularly Edam (with
all his research and support) are doing/did a wonderful job on this
matter.

Transcend

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 2:51:45 PM6/21/01
to
DMZ wrote:

>
> "Transcend" <tran...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
> news:9gtunb$8ecfg$1...@ID-75240.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > Face it, Gaskill is just the geeky webmaster for startrek.com whose job
> > probably consists mostly of dealing with emails from obsessed trekkies
> > trying to find out Jeri Ryan's phone number.
>
> A low personal attack.

No, just what probably happens as he's the only person you can contact at
startrek.com

>
> > The rest of his job most
> > likely consists of making a nice looking website, and putting on it what
> > information he is told to.
>
> Pure supposition, with no corroborating evidence.

He's the webmaster right? I mean that's what's been said before....and he's
basically said so in his emails....so we can probably assume that this is
infact his job, putting the website together.

>
> > I would not rate him very high on the list of
> > people who need to know what is canon to do their jobs.
>
> A personal belief - implying that he is on that list?

Yeah, right about the same level as the guys who worked building the sets
and the guy who changed the lightbulbs.

>
> Could you please stay out of this one and leave it to the highbrows until
> you have something constructive to add?

Being the guy who puts the website together does not make him an authority
on what is canon any more than the workers who helped build the sets.

DMZ

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 8:01:54 PM6/21/01
to

"Alves" <tum...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.159c7acf1...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...

> In article <993166333.25562.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com says...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Could you please stay out of this one and leave it to the highbrows until you
have
> > something constructive to add?
>
> Hummm... this is kind of important. IMHO, we shouldn't only post to mud
> the waters. Lets think two or three times before hitting the send button
> and try to put aside personal problems.
>
> I also have to say that Rob Wilson, with his initial kick, Kynes (even
> disagreeing with what he says in this issue) and particularly Edam (with
> all his research and support) are doing/did a wonderful job on this
> matter.

I agree - everyone (including yourself) is acting without reproach on this one,
and treating the matter with the seriousness it deserves.

It falls upon the rest of us to not soil the debate - that includes me, so I shall
now butt out, since I have nothing to contribute at this time.

DMZ
---

Kynes

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 8:13:39 PM6/21/01
to
"DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote in message news:993166333.25562.0...@news.demon.co.uk...

> Could you please stay out of this one and leave it to the highbrows until you have
> something constructive to add?

Cold. I like it.

Kynes

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 8:20:55 PM6/21/01
to
"Alves" <tum...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.159c7acf1...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...

> I also have to say that Rob Wilson, with his initial kick, Kynes (even


> disagreeing with what he says in this issue) and particularly Edam (with
> all his research and support) are doing/did a wonderful job on this
> matter.

Well, thanks. In all seriousness, I'm honestly trying to get to the "real" policy. I
think that whatever we find out during this time will be the most research ever
done on this topic. Whether the TMs are legit or not -- and honestly, I don't have
any preference on how they end up -- we will be the first ones to really be able to
say we have the answer.

Andras Otto Schneider

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 11:25:17 PM6/21/01
to
In article <3B327668...@home.com>, Strowbridge
<strow...@home.com> wrote:

>
> But the TNG:TM says it's not the end all and be all of Star Trek Canon
> either.
>
> C.S.Strowbridge

TNG TM says that anything onscreen that doesnt match the TM is Star
Fleet propoganda and not necessarily 'true'.

AOS

"Those blast points are far too accurate
for Imperial Stormtroopers. Only Imperial
Special Effects Technicians are so precise"

Transcend

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:32:38 PM6/21/01
to
Kynes wrote:

> "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:993166333.25562.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> > Could you please stay out of this one and leave it to the highbrows
> > until you have something constructive to add?
>
> Cold. I like it.

Yeah it would be great if I didn't have a point.

Transcend

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:49:41 PM6/21/01
to
Andras Otto Schneider wrote:

> In article <3B327668...@home.com>, Strowbridge
> <strow...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > But the TNG:TM says it's not the end all and be all of Star Trek Canon
> > either.
> >
> > C.S.Strowbridge
>
> TNG TM says that anything onscreen that doesnt match the TM is Star
> Fleet propoganda and not necessarily 'true'.

I thought it said that anything in the TM that didn't match onscreen was
Star Fleet propaganda, not the other way around.

rob.wn5

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 8:39:19 PM6/21/01
to

"Transcend" <tran...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:9gtunb$8ecfg$1...@ID-75240.news.dfncis.de...

Transcend do the world a favour and shut the fuck up. Either attempt to act
like an adult who understands the issues in depth or keep being regarded as
a loud mouth idiot who would better serve the worlds average IQ by trying
to catch a shotgun blast with your teeth at point-blank range.

Rob Wilson

rob.wn5

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 8:44:04 PM6/21/01
to

"Transcend" <tran...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:9gu3ds$au8t6$1...@ID-75240.news.dfncis.de...

> Kynes wrote:
>
> > "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote in message
> > news:993166333.25562.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > > Could you please stay out of this one and leave it to the highbrows
> > > until you have something constructive to add?
> >
> > Cold. I like it.
>
> Yeah it would be great if I didn't have a point.

The one on your head does not count! Now, we are trying to have a serious
debate concerning an important matter, iether contribute something
meaningful or shut up (of course this is a free Ng and you can do what you
like, including makign yourself look like a complete wanker if you wish).

Rob Wilson

rob.wn5

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 8:46:16 PM6/21/01
to

"Alves" <tum...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.159c765b6...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...

> In article <3B327594...@home.com>, strow...@home.com says...
>
> <snip>
>
> > 2.i) Whenever Mr. Gaskill makes a statement he qualifies it. "Pretty
> > much", "for most of our purposes", "*strive* to be canon", "etc."
> > ii) John Ordover was a blunt as blunt can be.
>
> Bluntness only will prove the person wrong when stating the policy and it
> is not the smart thing to do when refering to each other.
>
> > 3.i) John Ordover knows about the debates and answered the question
with
> > people like us in mind.
> > ii) Has Gaskill even mentioned the debates? He might have no idea how
> > strict our policy on evidence is.
>
> The first time arround when Rob asked the question, I believe. And what
> is the strictness of this policy that you are talking about, is it a
> status or what?

I did not mention the NG nor the debates, it was to settle a disagreement
betwen myself and another person (guardian at that time).

Rob Wilson

Chuck

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 9:18:07 PM6/21/01
to

"rob.wn5" <rob...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:VzwY6.5715$za7.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

> I did not mention the NG nor the debates, it was to settle a disagreement
> betwen myself and another person (guardian at that time).
>
That's the scariest thought of all: Guardian actually being right about
something. What's next, Timmy having sex?

--
Chuck
http://www.sfdebris.com


Transcend

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 4:06:25 PM6/21/01
to
rob.wn5 wrote:

>
> "Transcend" <tran...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
> news:9gu3ds$au8t6$1...@ID-75240.news.dfncis.de...
> > Kynes wrote:
> >
> > > "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > news:993166333.25562.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > > Could you please stay out of this one and leave it to the highbrows
> > > > until you have something constructive to add?
> > >
> > > Cold. I like it.
> >
> > Yeah it would be great if I didn't have a point.
>
> The one on your head does not count! Now, we are trying to have a serious
> debate concerning an important matter, iether contribute something
> meaningful or shut up (of course this is a free Ng and you can do what you
> like, including makign yourself look like a complete wanker if you wish).
>

I am contributing a valid point, the webmaster of startrek.com does not
sound like a reliable source on what is and what is not canon. It is not a
job which would require him to know that, unlike the guy at Pocket Books.

Dalton

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 9:14:50 PM6/21/01
to
Transcend wrote:
>
> rob.wn5 wrote:
>
> >
> > "Transcend" <tran...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
> > news:9gu3ds$au8t6$1...@ID-75240.news.dfncis.de...
> > > Kynes wrote:
> > >
> > > > "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:993166333.25562.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > >
> > > > > Could you please stay out of this one and leave it to the highbrows
> > > > > until you have something constructive to add?
> > > >
> > > > Cold. I like it.
> > >
> > > Yeah it would be great if I didn't have a point.
> >
> > The one on your head does not count! Now, we are trying to have a serious
> > debate concerning an important matter, iether contribute something
> > meaningful or shut up (of course this is a free Ng and you can do what you
> > like, including makign yourself look like a complete wanker if you wish).
> >
>
> I am contributing a valid point, the webmaster of startrek.com does not
> sound

And here is where it delves into your personal opinion.

> like a reliable source on what is and what is not canon. It is not a
> job which would require him to know that,

Yes it is, goober. Who writes the pages?

> unlike the guy at Pocket Books.


--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net

rob.wn5

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 9:20:14 PM6/21/01
to

"Transcend" <tran...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:9gu5d7$b2of6$1...@ID-75240.news.dfncis.de...

> rob.wn5 wrote:
>
> >
> > "Transcend" <tran...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
> > news:9gu3ds$au8t6$1...@ID-75240.news.dfncis.de...
> > > Kynes wrote:
> > >
> > > > "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:993166333.25562.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > >
> > > > > Could you please stay out of this one and leave it to the
highbrows
> > > > > until you have something constructive to add?
> > > >
> > > > Cold. I like it.
> > >
> > > Yeah it would be great if I didn't have a point.
> >
> > The one on your head does not count! Now, we are trying to have a
serious
> > debate concerning an important matter, iether contribute something
> > meaningful or shut up (of course this is a free Ng and you can do what
you
> > like, including makign yourself look like a complete wanker if you
wish).
> >
>
> I am contributing a valid point, the webmaster of startrek.com does not
> sound like a reliable source on what is and what is not canon. It is not
a
> job which would require him to know that, unlike the guy at Pocket Books.

Will you please stop blatently showing your lack of understanding of the
evidence presented to date, it just makes you look stupid (that wasn't
sarcasm, it was genuine advice. Read the evidence to date, *then*
contribute if you think you have something to say.).

Rob Wilson

Robert A. Healey

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 9:31:10 PM6/21/01
to
Transcend wrote:
>
> rob.wn5 wrote:
>
> >
> > "Transcend" <tran...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
> > news:9gu3ds$au8t6$1...@ID-75240.news.dfncis.de...
> > > Kynes wrote:
> > >
> > > > "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:993166333.25562.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > >
> > > > > Could you please stay out of this one and leave it to the highbrows
> > > > > until you have something constructive to add?
> > > >
> > > > Cold. I like it.
> > >
> > > Yeah it would be great if I didn't have a point.
> >
> > The one on your head does not count! Now, we are trying to have a serious
> > debate concerning an important matter, iether contribute something
> > meaningful or shut up (of course this is a free Ng and you can do what you
> > like, including makign yourself look like a complete wanker if you wish).
> >
>
> I am contributing a valid point, the webmaster of startrek.com does not
> sound like a reliable source on what is and what is not canon. It is not a
> job which would require him to know that, unlike the guy at Pocket Books.

Why would a guy at pocketbooks need to know what is canon?

--
Bob Healey
AIM:darkjedi521

rob.wn5

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 9:24:36 PM6/21/01
to

"Chuck" <so...@sfdebris.com> wrote in message
news:9gu5bl$aq58c$1...@ID-64862.news.dfncis.de...

Ask an idiot if FTL travel is possible, yes or no. They have a 50/50 chance
of being correct, it doesn't mean they understand why or reached the
conclusion by application of correct knowledge. Guardian was a fool who
refused to understand the situation and failed to properly argue his case.

Timmy will never have sex, as a hermaphrodite he possess's no genitalia!

Rob Wilson

>
> --
> Chuck
> http://www.sfdebris.com
>
>


DMZ

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 9:36:35 PM6/21/01
to

"Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
news:T4wY6.336477$oc7.35...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...

> "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote in message
news:993166333.25562.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> > Could you please stay out of this one and leave it to the highbrows until you
have
> > something constructive to add?
>
> Cold. I like it.

Whoo... praise from Kynes! I must be doing something right.

Fortunately text doesn't show gritted teeth. =)

DMZ
---

Transcend

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 5:06:41 PM6/21/01
to
Robert A. Healey wrote:

I believe that's been explained before...

Alves

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 11:01:23 PM6/21/01
to
In article <andrasotto.spamguard-...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
andrasotto...@olg.com says...

> In article <3B327668...@home.com>, Strowbridge
> <strow...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > But the TNG:TM says it's not the end all and be all of Star Trek Canon
> > either.
> >
> > C.S.Strowbridge
>
> TNG TM says that anything onscreen that doesnt match the TM is Star
> Fleet propoganda and not necessarily 'true'.

LOL :D

Alves

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 11:25:04 PM6/21/01
to
In article <3B329FDE...@rpi.edu>, hea...@rpi.edu says...

So he can edit e-books that states that the E-E has to drop shields to
fire q-torps.

Hehe. :D

Now serious, the folks at PB and the guy from Paramount are in a position
to know the policy. This is not the question for me anymore.

Outside a versus enviroment, and now I will enter an aside, in the big
money world, this issue, to the franchise, is a matter of wording what is
said. LucasFilm and B5 and inumerous others lesser shows already noted
it. Perhaps Paramount noted it too.

One thing is assured, no matter the outcome, nothing changed for them.
What we call officially authorized stuff will continue to be recommended
as reading matterial to the people that writes ST books or scripts, big
people in the franchise still will continue refering you to the TMs and
others reference matterials when you ask some technical or "historical"
detail about ST and, yes, they will ignore all of it when they feel like.
What I just described is how they treat in the day by day the authorized
stuff today. The wording of the status of this stuff to the outside world
won't change it for them, oh well, perhaps they will sell this stuff
more...

Alves

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 11:27:57 PM6/21/01
to
In article <993168115.26247.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com says...

<snip>

> It falls upon the rest of us to not soil the debate - that includes me, so I shall
> now butt out, since I have nothing to contribute at this time.

You already pointed something important here, and I am not talking about
my sig. :D

Alves

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 11:33:59 PM6/21/01
to
In article <HbwY6.336491$oc7.35...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>,
ky...@choam.org says...

> "Alves" <tum...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.159c7acf1...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> > I also have to say that Rob Wilson, with his initial kick, Kynes (even
> > disagreeing with what he says in this issue) and particularly Edam (with
> > all his research and support) are doing/did a wonderful job on this
> > matter.
>
> Well, thanks. In all seriousness, I'm honestly trying to get to the "real" policy. I
> think that whatever we find out during this time will be the most research ever
> done on this topic. Whether the TMs are legit or not -- and honestly, I don't have
> any preference on how they end up -- we will be the first ones to really be able to
> say we have the answer.

Yep, this matter is getting lots of research right now, but I would not
dare to say that in the end this will be a real closure to the issue.
Things kind of change, even more with ST. :)
And now, for the important point of this post, let me point that this
discussion has gone beyond the TMs and now revolves arround all the
written stuff in that FAQ entry.

Alves

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 11:36:24 PM6/21/01
to
In article <VzwY6.5715$za7.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
rob...@ntlworld.com says...

>
> "Alves" <tum...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

<snip>

> I did not mention the NG nor the debates, it was to settle a disagreement
> betwen myself and another person (guardian at that time).

Oh yeah, indeed. It was mentioned only the word debate. This is kind of
the same thing that is happening in Edam's e-mail exchange...

Space Cowboy

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 12:27:24 AM6/22/01
to
Durandal sought to enlighten the world with this:

>Why bother? Okuda co-wrote the TM's. If he's the final
>arbiter of canon, it seems that the TM's are, as well.

Okuda is an a__hole, prime example....

renaming the Avenger class Heavy Frigates into the wimpy
"Miranda" class....no wonder they became cannon fodder.
[pun intended]
--
see "Battle Beyond The Stars"[1980,low budget but fun to watch]
Hooray! the(Braga)horror that was "Voyager" is over!
Will he also f-up "Enterprise"?
Hhumm, after what looked like a bad start, "Andromeda" has grown
on me!
http://www.sfdebris.com/gallery/spacecowboy.jpg

Space Cowboy

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 12:29:05 AM6/22/01
to
Strowbridge sought to enlighten the world with this:


>>
>But the TNG:TM says it's not the end all and be all of Star
>Trek Canon either.
>
>C.S.Strowbridge
>

As it should be!

Space Cowboy

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 12:41:09 AM6/22/01
to
Transcend sought to enlighten the world with this:

>Andras Otto Schneider wrote:
>
>
>>
>> TNG TM says that anything onscreen that doesnt match the TM
>> is Star Fleet propoganda and not necessarily 'true'.
>
>I thought it said that anything in the TM that didn't match
>onscreen was Star Fleet propaganda, not the other way around.
>

Ya both got it wrong, what it says in the second forward is
an inane attempt by the authours to discount all previous
{pro & fan} publications, to which I say 'khaaaptoooie!'
[horking a big one] with the only exeption being FASA &
Shane Johnson's dates, which are about 60 years too early.

Alves

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 1:01:58 AM6/22/01
to
In article <Xns90C88425D876H...@207.35.177.134>,
space...@HephaestusStation.com says...

> Transcend sought to enlighten the world with this:
>
> >Andras Otto Schneider wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> TNG TM says that anything onscreen that doesnt match the TM
> >> is Star Fleet propoganda and not necessarily 'true'.
> >
> >I thought it said that anything in the TM that didn't match
> >onscreen was Star Fleet propaganda, not the other way around.
> >
>
> Ya both got it wrong,

Yep, they are wrong. :)

> what it says in the second forward is
> an inane attempt by the authours to discount all previous
> {pro & fan} publications, to which I say 'khaaaptoooie!'
> [horking a big one] with the only exeption being FASA &
> Shane Johnson's dates, which are about 60 years too early.

Heh, I missed some funny aspects of life. :D

Here it is, full quote:
"An important word of caution: All Starfleet personnel are hereby advised
that any previous technical documentation in your possession may be
suspect of an ongoing Starleet program of disinformation intended to
confound and confuse intelligence assets of potential Threat forces. Such
documents should therefore be verified with Federation archives and this
_Manual_ for authenticity."

Hehe. :D

Anyway, does it remind people of a centain FAQ entry or what?

Kynes

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 1:24:34 AM6/22/01
to
"DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote in message news:993173796.27889.0...@news.demon.co.uk...

> > > Could you please stay out of this one and leave it to the highbrows until you
> have
> > > something constructive to add?
> >
> > Cold. I like it.
>
> Whoo... praise from Kynes! I must be doing something right.
>
> Fortunately text doesn't show gritted teeth. =)

And then you flushed it with a smiley. :)

Kynes

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 1:26:59 AM6/22/01
to
"Alves" <tum...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.159cb0de1...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...

> > Well, thanks. In all seriousness, I'm honestly trying to get to the "real" policy. I
> > think that whatever we find out during this time will be the most research ever
> > done on this topic. Whether the TMs are legit or not -- and honestly, I don't have
> > any preference on how they end up -- we will be the first ones to really be able to
> > say we have the answer.
>
> Yep, this matter is getting lots of research right now, but I would not
> dare to say that in the end this will be a real closure to the issue.
> Things kind of change, even more with ST. :)
> And now, for the important point of this post, let me point that this
> discussion has gone beyond the TMs and now revolves arround all the
> written stuff in that FAQ entry.

Here, I'm not sure I agree. The TMs might enjoy special status that the non-canon parts
of the Encyclopedia (for example) do not. This is an open question as well, in my
opinion of course.

Cmdrwilkens

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 1:31:43 AM6/22/01
to
"Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
news:HbwY6.336491$oc7.35...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...

> "Alves" <tum...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.159c7acf1...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> > I also have to say that Rob Wilson, with his initial kick, Kynes (even
> > disagreeing with what he says in this issue) and particularly Edam (with
> > all his research and support) are doing/did a wonderful job on this
> > matter.
>
> Well, thanks. In all seriousness, I'm honestly trying to get to the "real"
policy. I
> think that whatever we find out during this time will be the most research
ever
> done on this topic. Whether the TMs are legit or not -- and honestly, I
don't have
> any preference on how they end up -- we will be the first ones to really
be able to
> say we have the answer.


I think part of the problem is that Paramount can't even decide what's canon
and what isn't. They seem to be waffling really well right now and with the
original status then the withdraw then the return of debate on canonicity of
the TMs I swear Paramount just can't make up its mind, which also might
explain why Gaskill is so wishy-washy at points.

--
cmdrwilkens
AIM: cmdrwilkens

Star Trek writers are saying "This is great! Ever since Star Wars
came out we haven't had a need for an original thought!"
- Chuck


Alves

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 2:00:17 AM6/22/01
to
In article <DGAY6.337694$oc7.36...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>,
ky...@choam.org says...

> "Alves" <tum...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.159cb0de1...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> > > Well, thanks. In all seriousness, I'm honestly trying to get to the "real" policy. I
> > > think that whatever we find out during this time will be the most research ever
> > > done on this topic. Whether the TMs are legit or not -- and honestly, I don't have
> > > any preference on how they end up -- we will be the first ones to really be able to
> > > say we have the answer.
> >
> > Yep, this matter is getting lots of research right now, but I would not
> > dare to say that in the end this will be a real closure to the issue.
> > Things kind of change, even more with ST. :)
> > And now, for the important point of this post, let me point that this
> > discussion has gone beyond the TMs and now revolves arround all the
> > written stuff in that FAQ entry.
>
> Here, I'm not sure I agree. The TMs might enjoy special status that the non-canon parts
> of the Encyclopedia (for example) do not. This is an open question as well, in my
> opinion of course.

My intent was just to point that this is being discussed. :)

Space Cowboy

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 2:21:50 AM6/22/01
to
Well, I make it no secret my disdain for the TNG [and DS9]
TMs.

After all, when the authours themselves add rubber ducks,
Sherman tanks and other crud to the internal sectional
drawings of the E-D hangarbays why should I take these
works seriously? Why take new Trek seriously at all
when those that build the sets and write the scripts
plunk in dozens of references to Hitchhiker's guide?
[which I liked, so don't get me wrong]
After all, what did the affable Vogon guard keep repeating
while he had Arthur Dent & Ford Prefect in that double
headlock? [hint:the only difference was the last word]

DMZ

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 9:03:27 AM6/22/01
to

"Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
news:mEAY6.337668$oc7.36...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...

> "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote in message
news:993173796.27889.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> > > > Could you please stay out of this one and leave it to the highbrows until
you
> > have
> > > > something constructive to add?
> > >
> > > Cold. I like it.
> >
> > Whoo... praise from Kynes! I must be doing something right.
> >
> > Fortunately text doesn't show gritted teeth. =)
>
> And then you flushed it with a smiley. :)

Damnit, they're just too addictive.

DMZ
---

Chris O'Farrell

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 9:08:49 AM6/22/01
to

Kynes <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
news:HbwY6.336491$oc7.35...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...

> "Alves" <tum...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.159c7acf1...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> > I also have to say that Rob Wilson, with his initial kick, Kynes (even
> > disagreeing with what he says in this issue) and particularly Edam (with
> > all his research and support) are doing/did a wonderful job on this
> > matter.
>
> Well, thanks. In all seriousness, I'm honestly trying to get to the "real"
policy. I
> think that whatever we find out during this time will be the most research
ever
> done on this topic. Whether the TMs are legit or not -- and honestly, I
don't have
> any preference on how they end up -- we will be the first ones to really
be able to
> say we have the answer.

Is this an election year?


The Chimaera

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 7:40:29 PM6/22/01