New disproof of "EU = canonical" theory
mike...@yahoo.com
I found a new bit of disproof of your "EU is CANON" theory:
(referring to the EU)
"I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't
know anything about that world. That's a different world than my
world... We decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes:
My universe and then this other one. " (Starlog, August 2005)
How can you explain this? You've tried numerous attempst to distort the
original Cinescape quotes by redefining "parallel" as "interdependent"
or whatever, but now here comes somethign that flies in the face of
your whole theory. The statement that "we" decided "we" would have two
universes seems to suggest that George Lucas has dictated this "Movies
= Canon" and "EU = Crap" policy to the LucasFilm itself.
Ahh yes... one of the hallmarks of a good theory: new evidence that
comes in is consistent with it. Your theory doesn't predict this, but
mine does. When we see evidence that fits a theory after it's
formulation, that represents a test. Yes -- my theory has been tested
-- and it passed.
Oh I know what you'll pull... "we've talked directly to people who've
worked directly with the canon, who've talked directly to George Lucas
himself and have confirmed that we're right" or whatever and then when
proof is demanded... "sorry, non-disclosure agreement!" That tired old
lie is utterly ripped to bits by the above -- I know what George Lucas
REALLY thinks now.
Another quote, this time from January, and Leland Chee (no that's not a
mistake!) no less, on a SW.com forum posting:
""Parallel universe" suggests that each universe can go in separate
directions which really isn't the case with regard to the EU. The EU is
bound by what is seen in the most current version of the films and by
directives from George Lucas."
See -- the EU is dependent on the canon, but not the other way around.
That directly refutes your "parallel" = "interdependent" statement, as
INTERdependent implies that the canon is dependent on the EU in
addition to the EU's dependence on the canon!
Your theory:
EU, whenever not contradicted directly and inarguably by the films, is
as authoritatve and definitive as those films themselves and forms an
accurate part of the "overall Star Wars Universe/Contuinuity/etc.".
This policy applies EVERYWHERE to the ENTIRE "Lucas Corporate Empire".
My theory:
EU has absolutely no authority except when the films directly
incorporate a part of it (then that part ALONE becomes canon). The "EU
= CANON" policy is a LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing in-house deal alone,
and need not apply to the whole of LucasFilm Ltd.
Evidence for your theory:
Various LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing quotes (including one that says
EXPLICITY that this is an "in-house" deal, hehehehe)
Evidence for my theory:
Direct comments from George Lucas, backup from various sources
including Leland Chee and Steve Sansweet
Problems with your theory:
1. Your theory relies upon to misrepresentation or elimination of
evidence -- you must redefine "parallel universes"
to "interdependent, connected universes" instead of "seperate
universes", for example.
2. Your theory does not predict that quotes like the above would
appear. In fact, it predicts that George Lucas should be
saying "I've read most of the novels and have a great
familiarity with this stuff, and respect the great
contributions it makes to the overall history of the Star Wars
Universe" or something like that, but he in fact says the
opposite. It also predicts that he would try to maintain
absolute continuity with the EU as best as he can, instead of
outright disregarding of it (see for example the Boba Fett
thing -- he made up his mind that Fett is DEAD and he's
not swayed by the EU!)
etc etc etc.
Meanwhile, my theory does not have any of these problems. It is totally
and entirely consistent with the full body of evidence. It recognizes
LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing's policy, and in the correct fashion -- that
it is an in-house deal that does not apply to the rest of LucasFilm
Ltd. It recognizes George Lucas'/LucasFilm Ltd/movie producers/etc.
policy correctly as well -- that only the movies matter. (Sources such
as the film novelizations and screenplays are not quite settled yet,
but the EU is total crap)
Now, argue against all the points I've brought up.
Lord Edam de Fromage
> Hi.
>
> I found a new bit of disproof of your "EU is CANON" theory:
you're quoting darkstar again, I see.
> (referring to the EU)
> "I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't
> know anything about that world. That's a different world than my
> world... We decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes:
> My universe and then this other one. " (Starlog, August 2005)
> How can you explain this?
there are two universes. One, Lucas', has no restrictions other than
what has gone before in Lucas' universe.
The other, EU, has restrictions on what has gone before in EU, *AND*
what has gone before in Lucas'.
Two parallel universes, with one (EU) being dependent on the other
(Lucas) where they intersect.
> You've tried numerous attempst to distort the
> original Cinescape quotes by redefining "parallel" as "interdependent"
> or whatever,
No, they are not *inter*dependent (it would interest me to see where on
ASVS you are taking that from - link?) If that were the case canon would
be ammended to accomodate EU, but that is explicitly not the case.
> but now here comes somethign that flies in the face of
> your whole theory. The statement that "we" decided "we" would have two
> universes seems to suggest that George Lucas has dictated this "Movies
> = Canon" and "EU = Crap" policy to the LucasFilm itself.
Yes, Lucas would be the one that declared his ideas prime. Lucas decided
that his stories would not be governed by the EU in any way whatsoever.
However, the EU still has to fit with his ideas. There is nothing new in
this argument.
> Another quote, this time from January, and Leland Chee (no that's not a
> mistake!) no less, on a SW.com forum posting:
>
> ""Parallel universe" suggests that each universe can go in separate
> directions which really isn't the case with regard to the EU. The EU is
> bound by what is seen in the most current version of the films and by
> directives from George Lucas."
>
> See -- the EU is dependent on the canon, but not the other way around.
Which is the way it has always been. What makes you think "we" have ever
believed canon is dependent on EU?
> Your theory:
> EU, whenever not contradicted directly and inarguably by the films, is
> as authoritatve and definitive as those films themselves and forms an
> accurate part of the "overall Star Wars Universe/Contuinuity/etc.".
> This policy applies EVERYWHERE to the ENTIRE "Lucas Corporate Empire".
Let's just reiterate our hierarchy of canon here.
1.1. - films
1.2. - novellisations of films
1.3. - scripts
1.4. - radio plays
2. - other lucas licensed sources.
this applies to all Star Wars, everywhere, everywhen, with a few
specific exceptions - "infinities" and the "Star wars Tales" comics have
been declared completely irrelevant, as have game mechanics.
> My theory:
> EU has absolutely no authority except when the films directly
> incorporate a part of it (then that part ALONE becomes canon). The "EU
> = CANON" policy is a LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing in-house deal alone,
> and need not apply to the whole of LucasFilm Ltd.
the requirement to fit with EU doesn't apply to the whole of Lucasfilm
Ltd. No one has ever claimed it did. The entire hierarchy SPECIFICALLY
PRECLUDES that. Anyone with authorisation to create canon can ignore EU
if they wish. That's why canon is above EU in the hierarchy.
> Evidence for your theory:
> Various LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing quotes (including one that says
> EXPLICITY that this is an "in-house" deal, hehehehe)
>
> Evidence for my theory:
> Direct comments from George Lucas, backup from various sources
> including Leland Chee and Steve Sansweet
your claims would be much better if you provided a table of the
competing evidence, since most of the quotes that support "us" are from
the same people as the ones that support darkst...sorry, "you".
> Problems with your theory:
> 1. Your theory relies upon to misrepresentation or elimination of
> evidence -- you must redefine "parallel universes"
> to "interdependent, connected universes" instead of "seperate
> universes", for example.
No, we simply take the accepted hierarchy and a correct understanding of
"parallel" - they are parallel universes that intersect during the
specific occurences of high-canon, dependent on high-canon at the point
of intersection.
> 2. Your theory does not predict that quotes like the above would
> appear.
"our" theory implicitly includes quotes like the one Darkstar gave you
from Lucas (two worlds, one governed by the other), and merely expands
on your Chee quote.
> In fact, it predicts that George Lucas should be
> saying "I've read most of the novels and have a great
> familiarity with this stuff, and respect the great
> contributions it makes to the overall history of the Star Wars
> Universe" or something like that, but he in fact says the
> opposite. It also predicts that he would try to maintain
> absolute continuity with the EU as best as he can, instead of
> outright disregarding of it (see for example the Boba Fett
> thing -- he made up his mind that Fett is DEAD and he's
> not swayed by the EU!)
"our" theory makes no such predictions. If "we" predicted that Lucas
would try to fit canon with EU then EU would not be placed below canon
in the hierarchy. If Lucas drew from EU as much as EU draws from him
then they would be equal. They never have been.
> Meanwhile, my theory does not have any of these problems. It is totally
> and entirely consistent with the full body of evidence.
bullshit.
your full body of evidence includes comparisons of the "two worlds" as
"parallel universes" intersecting during canon governed by canon. This
is something you have made no allowances for, prefering instead to
attack the strawman "eu and canon are equal".
EU is the tapeworm of Canon
Aron Kerkhof
>Hi.
>
>I found a new bit of disproof of your "EU is CANON" theory:
>
>(referring to the EU)
>"I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't
>know anything about that world. That's a different world than my
>world... We decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes:
>My universe and then this other one. " (Starlog, August 2005)
>
>How can you explain this?
Zahn named the Imperial capital "Coruscant".
George Lucas used Coruscant in his movies.
Therefore, George Lucas has read the EU "stuff".
Conclusion: George Lucas is a bullshit artist who makes stuff up on
the spot.
This doesn't change what we already know, that the movies, film
novels, scripts, etc take precedence over the EU. That does not mean
the EU is irrelevant, as you claim.
C.S.Strowbridge
> Conclusion: George Lucas is a bullshit artist who makes stuff up on
> the spot.
I wouldn't go that far, but he's speaking with a conversational tone and
isn't expecting anyone to disect his words to come up with hidden meanings.
And as Lord Edam has already pointed out, this fits with what we already
known. (Minus the comparisons between Star Wars and Star Trek, and that's
easy to explain, George Lucas doesn't know Star Trek's polict as well as we
do. And why would he?)
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
One more thing, the purpose of these quotes from Lucas is not to determine
whether or not the EU is acceptable as evidence, they are there to get
people to stop asking him questions about the EU. He is not an expert on
the Thrawn trilogy, for example.
C.S.Strowbridge
mike...@yahoo.com
They show that your theory, that George Lucas considers the EU a canon
part of the Star Wars universe, to be wrong.
You claim that the EU is definitive fact wherever the films do not
directly and indisputably contradict it, but if it is a parallel,
seperate universe, how can it be definitive AT ALL in George Lucas'
movie universe? It can't!
You don't even folloy your own canon policy sometimes. For example, you
use the DET theory for the Death Star, even though the film shows the
effects of the weapon being different from what's expected for a DET
beam. But you continue to assume DET. But according to your canon
policy, the EU is wrong because the film disagrees!
>
> C.S.Strowbridge
Aron Kerkhof
I would. Your points are valid, but I believe George plays pretty
fast and loose with what he considers Truth as the Star Wars
continuity is concerned. And its his right, as if I created a popular
series and licensed out my characters I'd want to reserve the right to
create fresh content without worrying about what KJA did. But ever
since this Joseph Campbell stuff, he seems far to willing to just say
"yeah, that sounds good, let's go with that".
I mean, this is the guy who promised a satisfying conclusion to the
whole force ghost thing, that midicholorians are how he always viewed
the Force, that it is against Han's character to shoot first, that we
would come to understand why Maul had to die, etc, etc. None of this
makes sense. He's just experimenting with storytelling concepts and
shaking of two decades of rust and doesn't care if we like it or not.
That doesn't make mikey any less full of it, but come on.
Aron Kerkhof
>
>C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
>> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>> > Aron Kerkhof wrote:
>>
>> >> Conclusion: George Lucas is a bullshit artist who makes stuff up on
>> >> the spot.
>> >
>> > I wouldn't go that far, but he's speaking with a conversational tone
>> > and isn't expecting anyone to disect his words to come up with hidden
>> > meanings. And as Lord Edam has already pointed out, this fits with
>> > what we already known. (Minus the comparisons between Star Wars and
>> > Star Trek, and that's easy to explain, George Lucas doesn't know Star
>> > Trek's polict as well as we do. And why would he?)
>>
>> One more thing, the purpose of these quotes from Lucas is not to determine
>> whether or not the EU is acceptable as evidence, they are there to get
>> people to stop asking him questions about the EU. He is not an expert on
>> the Thrawn trilogy, for example.
>>
>Proof?
>They show that your theory, that George Lucas considers the EU a canon
>part of the Star Wars universe, to be wrong.
Its not a theory. Its the official Lucasfilm position.
>You claim that the EU is definitive fact wherever the films do not
>directly and indisputably contradict it, but if it is a parallel,
>seperate universe, how can it be definitive AT ALL in George Lucas'
>movie universe? It can't!
Which is more likely? Lucas overriding his own canon policy in
goddamn Starlog magazine, or you aren't understanding what he said and
taking it in the right context. Besides, his statement that he
doesn't read the stuff is not even literally true, so a literal
strained reading of this quote is NOT the way to go.
>You don't even folloy your own canon policy sometimes. For example, you
>use the DET theory for the Death Star, even though the film shows the
>effects of the weapon being different from what's expected for a DET
>beam. But you continue to assume DET. But according to your canon
>policy, the EU is wrong because the film disagrees!
You... I can't... words fail. We use DET because its the simplest
way to get a lower limit of the Death Star's power. We don't
literally think that the death star beam directly transferred the
power of its beam into each individual atom of Alderaan. But we also
don't invent magic bozon particles to explain something that cannot be
explained with the evidence we have at hand.
Of course something besides DET is going on. What is it? We don't
know. You don't know. And it is totally beside the point of this
newsgroup, which itself doesn't have much of a point. Do you know how
low you have to sink to miss the point of something intrinsically
pointless?
C.S.Strowbridge
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>>Aron Kerkhof wrote:
>>> Conclusion: George Lucas is a bullshit artist who makes stuff up on
>>> the spot.
>>
>>I wouldn't go that far, but he's speaking with a conversational tone
>>and isn't expecting anyone to disect his words to come up with hidden
>>meanings. And as Lord Edam has already pointed out, this fits with
>>what we already known. (Minus the comparisons between Star Wars and
>>Star Trek, and that's easy to explain, George Lucas doesn't know Star
>>Trek's polict as well as we do. And why would he?)
>
> I would. Your points are valid, but I believe George plays pretty
> fast and loose with what he considers Truth as the Star Wars
> continuity is concerned. And its his right, as if I created a popular
> series and licensed out my characters I'd want to reserve the right to
> create fresh content without worrying about what KJA did. But ever
> since this Joseph Campbell stuff, he seems far to willing to just say
> "yeah, that sounds good, let's go with that".
I see what you mean. Yeah, he isn't half as concerned about continuety as
we are.
C.S.Strowbridge
mike...@yahoo.com
Aron Kerkhof wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2005 14:03:38 -0700, mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
> >> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
> >> > Aron Kerkhof wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Conclusion: George Lucas is a bullshit artist who makes stuff up on
> >> >> the spot.
> >> >
> >> > I wouldn't go that far, but he's speaking with a conversational tone
> >> > and isn't expecting anyone to disect his words to come up with hidden
> >> > meanings. And as Lord Edam has already pointed out, this fits with
> >> > what we already known. (Minus the comparisons between Star Wars and
> >> > Star Trek, and that's easy to explain, George Lucas doesn't know Star
> >> > Trek's polict as well as we do. And why would he?)
> >>
> >> One more thing, the purpose of these quotes from Lucas is not to determine
> >> whether or not the EU is acceptable as evidence, they are there to get
> >> people to stop asking him questions about the EU. He is not an expert on
> >> the Thrawn trilogy, for example.
> >>
> >Proof?
> >They show that your theory, that George Lucas considers the EU a canon
> >part of the Star Wars universe, to be wrong.
>
> Its not a theory. Its the official Lucasfilm position.
>
It is the official LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing in-house position. It's a
theory that it is also the official position ofthe movie/film making
company, LucasFilm Ltd proper AND George Lucas too. AND it is an
incorrect theory. My theory, on the other hand, does in fact work
perfectly.
> >You claim that the EU is definitive fact wherever the films do not
> >directly and indisputably contradict it, but if it is a parallel,
> >seperate universe, how can it be definitive AT ALL in George Lucas'
> >movie universe? It can't!
>
> Which is more likely? Lucas overriding his own canon policy in
> goddamn Starlog magazine, or you aren't understanding what he said and
> taking it in the right context. Besides, his statement that he
> doesn't read the stuff is not even literally true, so a literal
> strained reading of this quote is NOT the way to go.
>
George Lucas IS NOT "overriding his own canon policy". He has set up
the canon policy the way he wants it to and he has kept it that way for
years. Let's see, we've got the TV Guide quote that the EU is "outside
his little universe", we've got the Cinescape quote that the EU is a
"parallel universe", and now we've got this quote, which says pretty
much the same darned thing! And just because one part of the quote is
contradicted (that he doesn't read the rest of the stuff), the rest is
still 100% rock solid. You haven't yet provided a single bit of
disproof that shows it all wrong.
Lucas has said this "parallel universe" thing THREE times now... I bet
if I were to send him a letter he'd give me the EXACT same thing.
> >You don't even folloy your own canon policy sometimes. For example, you
> >use the DET theory for the Death Star, even though the film shows the
> >effects of the weapon being different from what's expected for a DET
> >beam. But you continue to assume DET. But according to your canon
> >policy, the EU is wrong because the film disagrees!
>
> You... I can't... words fail. We use DET because its the simplest
> way to get a lower limit of the Death Star's power. We don't
> literally think that the death star beam directly transferred the
> power of its beam into each individual atom of Alderaan. But we also
> don't invent magic bozon particles to explain something that cannot be
> explained with the evidence we have at hand.
>
> Of course something besides DET is going on. What is it? We don't
> know. You don't know. And it is totally beside the point of this
> newsgroup, which itself doesn't have much of a point. Do you know how
> low you have to sink to miss the point of something intrinsically
> pointless?
>
So then why MUST you insist that it is DET that is the primary
destruction mechanism, and THEN pile on ADDITIONAL, AD HOC mechanisms,
instead of tossing out the ORIGINAL assumption that DET is the
mechanism, and coming up with a new one (like I have)? I might not know
EXACTLY what is going on, but I've got a pretty good theory that so far
seems to work. What I am sure about is that DET is not the primary
cause of destruction, as that would be the simplest route to take here
-- instead of adding on ad hoc contrivancies, we toss the original
assumption and try a new one. And if DET is not the primary mechanism
of destruction, the beam must contain less than 1E38 J of raw energy,
otherwise they'd be using DET, and that contradicts the evidence.
And WHY of all things must you INSULT me because I'm using a different
theory than DET?!
>
> !AK
> http://www.neolith.org
Lord Edam de Fromage
> It is the official LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing in-house position. It's a
> theory that it is also the official position ofthe movie/film making
> company, LucasFilm Ltd proper AND George Lucas too. AND it is an
> incorrect theory.
"EU is a canon part of the star wars universe" is no more incorrect than
the statement "gravity makes stuff fall". It is a valid generalisation
hiding a whole shaboodle of complexity that is demonstrably wrong if we
narrow the circumstances enough.
> My theory, on the other hand, does in fact work
> perfectly.
Your hypothesis - that EU star wars is a seperate storyverse from canon
star wars, cannot work because...
> Lucas has said this "parallel universe" thing THREE times now... I bet
> if I were to send him a letter he'd give me the EXACT same thing.
If two parallel universes intersect, they are the same universe.
EU Star wars and canon Star Wars *do* intersect
> Let's see, we've got the TV Guide quote that the EU is "outside
> his little universe",
This would be the same TV Guide quote that disproves your hypothesis
when it continues
"Star Wars has had a lot of different lives that have been worked on by
a lot of different people. It works without me"
> we've got the Cinescape quote that the EU is a
> "parallel universe",
This is the same Cinescape article that disproves your hypothesis
because "the director insists that the only continuation to the saga
will be in the form of licensed properties". This is also the Cinescape
quote where George Lucas specifically states that the licensed
properties and "his" Star Wars are the same storyverse, as "[they] don=3Ft
intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do
intrude in between the movies"
> and now we've got this quote, which says pretty
> much the same darned thing! And just because one part of the quote is
> contradicted (that he doesn't read the rest of the stuff), the rest is
> still 100% rock solid. You haven't yet provided a single bit of
> disproof that shows it all wrong.
The Starlog quote is not wrong (a quote cannot be wrong. If it's wrong
it's a misquote). The way Darkstar is interpreting the Starlog quote is
wrong, as interpreting it to mean EU Star Wars is less "real" than canon
Star Wars contradicts other direct statements from George Lucas himself.
There is GL's Star Wars, which follows GL's continuity only. There won't
be any new GL Star Wars.
Then there is EU Star Wars, which includes GL Star Wars, must follow GL
continuity, and is the only way to get Star Wars stories set outside the
time of the films.
This is how ASVS has always treated Star Wars. The quotes you reference
make it clear this is how George Lucas sees Star Wars.
The statement "EU is a canon part of the Star Wars universe" is
perfectly acceptable, provide you do not read it as "EU controls what
GL/LFL does with Star Wars"
Dalton
--
Rob "Uncle Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
"I don't think Bush wants to be president...I think he
wants to be the *last* president." - Patton Oswald
C.S.Strowbridge
> Will you please just make good on your promise to shut up and go away?
If he did that, who would we have to argue with an insult? If he leaves
there will be no more yelling, no more swearing! Did you ever thing of
that, you fucking moron?
C.S.Strowbridge
Matt Huang
easy for you to say. Dalton has to update the FUQ with the latest
stupidity, and I can pretty well imagine his eyes bleeding at the end
of each session.
Dalton
Kiss my ass.
mike...@yahoo.com
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2005 16:28:46 -0700 in alt.startrek.vs.starwars, said...
>
>
> > It is the official LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing in-house position. It's a
> > theory that it is also the official position ofthe movie/film making
> > company, LucasFilm Ltd proper AND George Lucas too. AND it is an
> > incorrect theory.
>
> "EU is a canon part of the star wars universe" is no more incorrect than
> the statement "gravity makes stuff fall". It is a valid generalisation
> hiding a whole shaboodle of complexity that is demonstrably wrong if we
> narrow the circumstances enough.
>
Hmm... it seems to depend on what you define the Star Wars universe as
-- if you define it as anything called "Star Wars" then it would be
canonical, but so would the Infinities stuff, and even... gasp...
fanfiction! If you define it as all the licensed works, or everything
under the Lucasfilm copyright, then the EU is canon, like the licensing
company says. (but then you've got to accept all Star Trek manuals and
novels as 100% canon of the Star Trek universe too (although you don't
seem to like that) -- if you say that a sci-fi "universe" is all the
officially-licensed/copyrighted material)
If you define it as the story, etc., then the EU and Lucas' stories are
separate, and describe different universes/timelines that, although
they share some points in common, need not be totally equal. For
example, we do not know what happened between Episode II and III, in
the Lucas' universe. The EU events might have happened, but then again
they might not have. It's a separate universe, and just because some
parts are similar doesn't mean you can say the whole thing is
"definitive canon" to Lucas' universe.
So, what do you want to use for these debates? The franchises? The
stories? What? I prefer the latter, since that's what all this stuff is
supposed to tell -- stories.
>
>
> > My theory, on the other hand, does in fact work
> > perfectly.
>
> Your hypothesis - that EU star wars is a seperate storyverse from canon
> star wars, cannot work because...
>
> > Lucas has said this "parallel universe" thing THREE times now... I bet
> > if I were to send him a letter he'd give me the EXACT same thing.
>
> If two parallel universes intersect, they are the same universe.
>
> EU Star wars and canon Star Wars *do* intersect
>
If they intersect, they are not parallel. Parallel lines do not
intersect. There are places where the EU and Lucas' universe are
similar, but there are also places where they are different... But they
are not part of the same universe, as these quotes prove. You can't
just claim something and use that claim to override a direct quote.
>
> > Let's see, we've got the TV Guide quote that the EU is "outside
> > his little universe",
>
> This would be the same TV Guide quote that disproves your hypothesis
> when it continues
>
> "Star Wars has had a lot of different lives that have been worked on by
> a lot of different people. It works without me"
>
It has a lot of -different- lives. It says nothing about it all being
part of a larger whole.
You can't take 1/2 a quote, interpret it in a way contrary to what it
says, and use that to override the other 1/2.
>
>
> > we've got the Cinescape quote that the EU is a
> > "parallel universe",
>
> This is the same Cinescape article that disproves your hypothesis
> because "the director insists that the only continuation to the saga
> will be in the form of licensed properties". This is also the Cinescape
> quote where George Lucas specifically states that the licensed
> properties and "his" Star Wars are the same storyverse, as "[they] don=3Ft
> intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do
> intrude in between the movies"
>
The time-old "intruding" argument again. When he says it "intrudes", he
is saying it's it intruding in the *timeframes* in between the films,
but NOT into the *universe* of the films.
>
> > and now we've got this quote, which says pretty
> > much the same darned thing! And just because one part of the quote is
> > contradicted (that he doesn't read the rest of the stuff), the rest is
> > still 100% rock solid. You haven't yet provided a single bit of
> > disproof that shows it all wrong.
>
> The Starlog quote is not wrong (a quote cannot be wrong. If it's wrong
> it's a misquote). The way Darkstar is interpreting the Starlog quote is
> wrong, as interpreting it to mean EU Star Wars is less "real" than canon
> Star Wars contradicts other direct statements from George Lucas himself.
>
No -- it only contradicts your interpretations of those statements.
This quote is pretty direct, and we should interpret those quotes
accordingly.
It's a good principle of reasoning -- follow the most high-weight and
explicit stuff avaliable (such as the quote I mentioned in the original
post), and then use that as a guide to the rest.
>
>
> There is GL's Star Wars, which follows GL's continuity only. There won't
> be any new GL Star Wars.
> Then there is EU Star Wars, which includes GL Star Wars, must follow GL
> continuity, and is the only way to get Star Wars stories set outside the
> time of the films.
>
And those two universe are parallel, and separate.
> This is how ASVS has always treated Star Wars. The quotes you reference
> make it clear this is how George Lucas sees Star Wars.
>
> The statement "EU is a canon part of the Star Wars universe" is
> perfectly acceptable, provide you do not read it as "EU controls what
> GL/LFL does with Star Wars"
If it is a canon part of the universe, then it cannot be a parallel
universe (canon = collection of all works that are authoritative), as
it would be part of the universe, not a separate one. But the quotes
say it is, and the quotes override theory.
mike...@yahoo.com
Dalton wrote:
> Will you please just make good on your promise to shut up and go away?
>
Did I post another one of those "I'm leaving" posts again... not
recently no.
Lord Edam de Fromage
mike...@yahoo.com says...
> > > It is the official LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing in-house position. It's a
> > > theory that it is also the official position ofthe movie/film making
> > > company, LucasFilm Ltd proper AND George Lucas too. AND it is an
> > > incorrect theory.
> >
> > "EU is a canon part of the star wars universe" is no more incorrect than
> > the statement "gravity makes stuff fall". It is a valid generalisation
> > hiding a whole shaboodle of complexity that is demonstrably wrong if we
> > narrow the circumstances enough.
> >
>
> Hmm... it seems to depend on what you define the Star Wars universe as
> -- if you define it as anything called "Star Wars" then it would be
> canonical, but so would the Infinities stuff, and even... gasp...
> fanfiction! If you define it as all the licensed works, or everything
> under the Lucasfilm copyright, then the EU is canon, like the licensing
> company says. (but then you've got to accept all Star Trek manuals and
> novels as 100% canon of the Star Trek universe too (although you don't
> seem to like that) -- if you say that a sci-fi "universe" is all the
> officially-licensed/copyrighted material)
We say a sci-fi "universe" is everything the people who control it say
it is. George Lucas says *licensed* products intrude upon and continue
his Star Wars Saga.
Paramount say this is not the case with Star Trek.
> > Your hypothesis - that EU star wars is a seperate storyverse from canon
> > star wars, cannot work because...
> >
> > > Lucas has said this "parallel universe" thing THREE times now... I bet
> > > if I were to send him a letter he'd give me the EXACT same thing.
> >
> > If two parallel universes intersect, they are the same universe.
> >
> > EU Star wars and canon Star Wars *do* intersect
>
> If they intersect, they are not parallel. Parallel lines do not
> intersect.
If they do they are the same line.
> > > Let's see, we've got the TV Guide quote that the EU is "outside
> > > his little universe",
> >
> > This would be the same TV Guide quote that disproves your hypothesis
> > when it continues
> >
> > "Star Wars has had a lot of different lives that have been worked on by
> > a lot of different people. It works without me"
> >
>
> It has a lot of -different- lives. It says nothing about it all being
> part of a larger whole.
It has a lot of different lives which *continue* the *saga*
> You can't take 1/2 a quote, interpret it in a way contrary to what it
> says, and use that to override the other 1/2.
I'm not ignoring the first part of the quote. We cleared that up in my
first post. George's contribution to the lives of star wars is the
movie-era. Zahn's is the Thrawn-era. Stackpole's is the adventures of
the X-wing teams.
I have two different lives - my work life and my home life. They are
kept very seperate but they are still all part of the same me.
> > > we've got the Cinescape quote that the EU is a
> > > "parallel universe",
> >
> > This is the same Cinescape article that disproves your hypothesis
> > because "the director insists that the only continuation to the saga
> > will be in the form of licensed properties". This is also the Cinescape
> > quote where George Lucas specifically states that the licensed
> > properties and "his" Star Wars are the same storyverse, as "[they] don=3Ft
> > intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do
> > intrude in between the movies"
> >
>
> The time-old "intruding" argument again. When he says it "intrudes", he
> is saying it's it intruding in the *timeframes* in between the films,
> but NOT into the *universe* of the films.
You can twist it to mean that if you want, but this then leads us to
conclude that licensed products are NOT a continuation of the saga of
Star Wars (as Lucas has said), that other authors CANNOT create
different lives for Star Wars (as Lucas has said)
> > The Starlog quote is not wrong (a quote cannot be wrong. If it's wrong
> > it's a misquote). The way Darkstar is interpreting the Starlog quote is
> > wrong, as interpreting it to mean EU Star Wars is less "real" than canon
> > Star Wars contradicts other direct statements from George Lucas himself.
> >
>
> No -- it only contradicts your interpretations of those statements.
> This quote is pretty direct, and we should interpret those quotes
> accordingly.
>
> It's a good principle of reasoning -- follow the most high-weight and
> explicit stuff avaliable (such as the quote I mentioned in the original
> post), and then use that as a guide to the rest.
You cannot attribute greater weight to one quote from George Lucas than
another quote from the same person. You can't choose the quote you like
the most and say "this one overides everything".
We have a method of defining Star Wars that accomodates all of the
quotes you have provided, without twisting in any way whatsoever.
> > There is GL's Star Wars, which follows GL's continuity only. There won't
> > be any new GL Star Wars.
> > Then there is EU Star Wars, which includes GL Star Wars, must follow GL
> > continuity, and is the only way to get Star Wars stories set outside the
> > time of the films.
>
> And those two universe are parallel, and separate.
:sigh:
They cannot be seperate because George Lucas himself says one intrudes
on the other. If you are intruding you are not seperate.
They cannot be seperate because George Lucas himself says one is a
continuation of the other. If you are a continuation you are not
seperate.
> > The statement "EU is a canon part of the Star Wars universe" is
> > perfectly acceptable, provide you do not read it as "EU controls what
> > GL/LFL does with Star Wars"
>
> If it is a canon part of the universe, then it cannot be a parallel
> universe (canon = collection of all works that are authoritative), as
> it would be part of the universe, not a separate one. But the quotes
> say it is, and the quotes override theory.
If it is a parallel universe it must always follow whatever it is
parallel to. If it diverges it cannot be parallel. If it intersects or
intrudes it must be the same unniverse.
C.S.Strowbridge
> C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
>> Dalton wrote:
>>> Will you please just make good on your promise to shut up and go away?
>>
>> If he did that, who would we have to argue with an insult? If he leaves
>> there will be no more yelling, no more swearing! Did you ever thing of
>> that, you fucking moron?
>
> easy for you to say. Dalton has to update the FUQ with the latest
> stupidity, and I can pretty well imagine his eyes bleeding at the end
> of each session.
Here's the thing, I don't care what happens to Dalton. In fact, imagining
his eyes bleeding makes me giggle.
C.S.Strowbridge
Matt Huang
And once again, C.S. Strowbridge, the assholes of the world gather
together to build a golden statue to you upon the cratered ruins of
every holy site of every religion that's worth pissing off.
Dalton
> Dalton wrote:
>
>>Will you please just make good on your promise to shut up and go away?
>>
>
> Did I post another one of those "I'm leaving" posts again... not
> recently no.
You've posted a dozen of them. You've abided by none.
Idiot.
mike...@yahoo.com
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > > > It is the official LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing in-house position. It's a
> > > > theory that it is also the official position ofthe movie/film making
> > > > company, LucasFilm Ltd proper AND George Lucas too. AND it is an
> > > > incorrect theory.
> > >
> > > "EU is a canon part of the star wars universe" is no more incorrect than
> > > the statement "gravity makes stuff fall". It is a valid generalisation
> > > hiding a whole shaboodle of complexity that is demonstrably wrong if we
> > > narrow the circumstances enough.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm... it seems to depend on what you define the Star Wars universe as
> > -- if you define it as anything called "Star Wars" then it would be
> > canonical, but so would the Infinities stuff, and even... gasp...
> > fanfiction! If you define it as all the licensed works, or everything
> > under the Lucasfilm copyright, then the EU is canon, like the licensing
> > company says. (but then you've got to accept all Star Trek manuals and
> > novels as 100% canon of the Star Trek universe too (although you don't
> > seem to like that) -- if you say that a sci-fi "universe" is all the
> > officially-licensed/copyrighted material)
>
> We say a sci-fi "universe" is everything the people who control it say
> it is. George Lucas says *licensed* products intrude upon and continue
> his Star Wars Saga.
>
George Lucas says they intrude on the time frame, not the universe.
Goerge Lucas has said repeatedly that they're a separate, parallel
universe.
> Paramount say this is not the case with Star Trek.
>
>
> > > Your hypothesis - that EU star wars is a seperate storyverse from canon
> > > star wars, cannot work because...
> > >
> > > > Lucas has said this "parallel universe" thing THREE times now... I bet
> > > > if I were to send him a letter he'd give me the EXACT same thing.
> > >
> > > If two parallel universes intersect, they are the same universe.
> > >
> > > EU Star wars and canon Star Wars *do* intersect
> >
> > If they intersect, they are not parallel. Parallel lines do not
> > intersect.
>
> If they do they are the same line.
>
They do not intersect, because they've been declared to be parallel,
and hence separate, NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY.
>
>
>
> > > > Let's see, we've got the TV Guide quote that the EU is "outside
> > > > his little universe",
> > >
> > > This would be the same TV Guide quote that disproves your hypothesis
> > > when it continues
> > >
> > > "Star Wars has had a lot of different lives that have been worked on by
> > > a lot of different people. It works without me"
> > >
> >
> > It has a lot of -different- lives. It says nothing about it all being
> > part of a larger whole.
>
> It has a lot of different lives which *continue* the *saga*
>
> > You can't take 1/2 a quote, interpret it in a way contrary to what it
> > says, and use that to override the other 1/2.
>
> I'm not ignoring the first part of the quote. We cleared that up in my
> first post. George's contribution to the lives of star wars is the
> movie-era. Zahn's is the Thrawn-era. Stackpole's is the adventures of
> the X-wing teams.
>
Yes, and those are parallel universes, seperate universes.
> I have two different lives - my work life and my home life. They are
> kept very seperate but they are still all part of the same me.
>
> > > > we've got the Cinescape quote that the EU is a
> > > > "parallel universe",
> > >
> > > This is the same Cinescape article that disproves your hypothesis
> > > because "the director insists that the only continuation to the saga
> > > will be in the form of licensed properties". This is also the Cinescape
> > > quote where George Lucas specifically states that the licensed
> > > properties and "his" Star Wars are the same storyverse, as "[they] don=3Ft
> > > intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do
> > > intrude in between the movies"
> > >
> >
> > The time-old "intruding" argument again. When he says it "intrudes", he
> > is saying it's it intruding in the *timeframes* in between the films,
> > but NOT into the *universe* of the films.
>
> You can twist it to mean that if you want, but this then leads us to
> conclude that licensed products are NOT a continuation of the saga of
> Star Wars (as Lucas has said), that other authors CANNOT create
> different lives for Star Wars (as Lucas has said)
>
Unless... the "saga" just means the franchise as a whole, not
necessarily the universes and timelines. Also, you have to take it in
the context of what was being said -- that he was trying to say that
there wouldn't be another trilogy -- the Universe, as we know it, is
done and finished.
>
> > > The Starlog quote is not wrong (a quote cannot be wrong. If it's wrong
> > > it's a misquote). The way Darkstar is interpreting the Starlog quote is
> > > wrong, as interpreting it to mean EU Star Wars is less "real" than canon
> > > Star Wars contradicts other direct statements from George Lucas himself.
> > >
> >
> > No -- it only contradicts your interpretations of those statements.
> > This quote is pretty direct, and we should interpret those quotes
> > accordingly.
> >
> > It's a good principle of reasoning -- follow the most high-weight and
> > explicit stuff avaliable (such as the quote I mentioned in the original
> > post), and then use that as a guide to the rest.
>
> You cannot attribute greater weight to one quote from George Lucas than
> another quote from the same person. You can't choose the quote you like
> the most and say "this one overides everything".
>
I'm not overriding it -- you keep going and overriding one part with
another. I take the more explicit parts -- "other universes", "parallel
universes", "different lives", "different universes", etc. and use
those to work out what the less explicit parts mean -- such as
"intruding in the time period" or "continuation of the saga", etc.
> We have a method of defining Star Wars that accomodates all of the
> quotes you have provided, without twisting in any way whatsoever.
>
But you DO have to twist -- you have to redefine "parallel universes"
from "alternate, different universes" to "intersecting parts of a
larger whole". If that's what George Lucas meant, then why didn't he
say just that? You have to assume that there's some sort of odd second
definition being used here (that only George Lucas knows about and
informs nobody about), but that's just a convolution that doesn't work.
>
>
> > > There is GL's Star Wars, which follows GL's continuity only. There won't
> > > be any new GL Star Wars.
> > > Then there is EU Star Wars, which includes GL Star Wars, must follow GL
> > > continuity, and is the only way to get Star Wars stories set outside the
> > > time of the films.
> >
> > And those two universe are parallel, and separate.
>
> :sigh:
>
> They cannot be seperate because George Lucas himself says one intrudes
> on the other. If you are intruding you are not seperate.
>
And he says they are parallel, separate universes. He says they intrude
on the
-periods of time- in between the movies, NOT into the -universe- of the
movies. They're someone else's idea of what might have happened between
the movies, but they are not necessarily what -really- happened (which
means you can't deem it "definitive canon unless the film contradicts"
-- rather you have to say "uncertain accuracy unless the film
confirms".).
> They cannot be seperate because George Lucas himself says one is a
> continuation of the other. If you are a continuation you are not
> seperate.
>
Ahh... but the phrase "continuation to the saga" came from Cinescape
itself, not from George Lucas -- it's THEIR wording of what Lucas said.
He could have said something like the "franchise" or somesuch.
Furthermore, since quotes from before (TV Guide) and after (StarLog)
say that the EU is outside Lucas' universe, and a parallel, separate
universe, then we must work within that frame of reference.
> > > The statement "EU is a canon part of the Star Wars universe" is
> > > perfectly acceptable, provide you do not read it as "EU controls what
> > > GL/LFL does with Star Wars"
> >
> > If it is a canon part of the universe, then it cannot be a parallel
> > universe (canon = collection of all works that are authoritative), as
> > it would be part of the universe, not a separate one. But the quotes
> > say it is, and the quotes override theory.
>
> If it is a parallel universe it must always follow whatever it is
> parallel to. If it diverges it cannot be parallel. If it intersects or
> intrudes it must be the same unniverse.
You keep failing to see it. Parallel lines are separate, not the same.
They do not intersect because George Lucas has deemed them parallel.
Take a look at an X, or cross. It's two intersecting, and non-parallel
lines. But since the entity of the Star Wars franchise has been
*defined* to be two separate universes by the ultimate authority
(Lucas), then that's what it is. It's not an X like you want, it's an
||.
mike...@yahoo.com
Actually, he's pretty good with it. EU is a parallel separate universe.
You can't go and claim it authoritative canon in one universe.
For example, when the EU says the Death Star uses DET it's wrong
because the movies (indirectly) conflict. Hence you can't use it to
override alternate theories, you've got to show why those theories fail
to work.
Indirect isn't bad -- because the EU is a separate universe it's has an
element of uncertainty ALL THE TIME. You can't call it definitive
canon.
> C.S.Strowbridge
Graeme Dice
> Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> And he says they are parallel, separate universes.
No, he doesn't, so please stop lying about what the quote says.
> You keep failing to see it. Parallel lines are separate, not the same.
If two parallel lines share any one single point, then the two parallel
lines are the same line.
Graeme Dice
> C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> Actually, he's pretty good with it. EU is a parallel separate universe.
> You can't go and claim it authoritative canon in one universe.
Please stop with your blatant lying. He does not say that they are a
separate universe.
> For example, when the EU says the Death Star uses DET it's wrong
> because the movies (indirectly) conflict.
No, the movies do not conflict in any way shape or form. Your
interpretation of the movies is not canon.
> Hence you can't use it to
> override alternate theories, you've got to show why those theories fail
> to work.
Incorrect as usual for Mike3 the idiot boy. W don't have to show why
your theory that involves magical space elves fails. We simply have to
show that there's a simpler theory that fits all the available evidence.
> Indirect isn't bad -- because the EU is a separate universe it's has an
> element of uncertainty ALL THE TIME. You can't call it definitive
> canon.
And since we don't call it definitive canon you are making up a useless
strawman.
Aron Kerkhof
>> Its not a theory. Its the official Lucasfilm position.
>>
>
>It is the official LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing in-house position. It's a
>theory that it is also the official position ofthe movie/film making
>company, LucasFilm Ltd proper AND George Lucas too. AND it is an
>incorrect theory. My theory, on the other hand, does in fact work
>perfectly.
So, Lucas, who sits on both boards, is letting Lucas licensing run
roughshod over him, huh?
>> >You claim that the EU is definitive fact wherever the films do not
>> >directly and indisputably contradict it, but if it is a parallel,
>> >seperate universe, how can it be definitive AT ALL in George Lucas'
>> >movie universe? It can't!
>>
>> Which is more likely? Lucas overriding his own canon policy in
>> goddamn Starlog magazine, or you aren't understanding what he said and
>> taking it in the right context. Besides, his statement that he
>> doesn't read the stuff is not even literally true, so a literal
>> strained reading of this quote is NOT the way to go.
>
>George Lucas IS NOT "overriding his own canon policy". He has set up
>the canon policy the way he wants it to and he has kept it that way for
>years. Let's see, we've got the TV Guide quote that the EU is "outside
>his little universe", we've got the Cinescape quote that the EU is a
>"parallel universe", and now we've got this quote, which says pretty
>much the same darned thing! And just because one part of the quote is
>contradicted (that he doesn't read the rest of the stuff), the rest is
>still 100% rock solid. You haven't yet provided a single bit of
>disproof that shows it all wrong.
Except that LucasFilm and LucasBooks say you're wrong. Again, I can
assume that you don't understand Lucas, or I can assume that his own
companies don't understand Lucas. Which should I go with here?
>Lucas has said this "parallel universe" thing THREE times now... I bet
>if I were to send him a letter he'd give me the EXACT same thing.
Except he wouldn't read it. It would be read by the people who take
care of these things, and they'd would refer you to the policy that
the flanneled one has taken the time to dictate to them, which has
been discussed ad nasuem.
>> >You don't even folloy your own canon policy sometimes. For example, you
>> >use the DET theory for the Death Star, even though the film shows the
>> >effects of the weapon being different from what's expected for a DET
>> >beam. But you continue to assume DET. But according to your canon
>> >policy, the EU is wrong because the film disagrees!
>>
>> You... I can't... words fail. We use DET because its the simplest
>> way to get a lower limit of the Death Star's power. We don't
>> literally think that the death star beam directly transferred the
>> power of its beam into each individual atom of Alderaan. But we also
>> don't invent magic bozon particles to explain something that cannot be
>> explained with the evidence we have at hand.
>>
>> Of course something besides DET is going on. What is it? We don't
>> know. You don't know. And it is totally beside the point of this
>> newsgroup, which itself doesn't have much of a point. Do you know how
>> low you have to sink to miss the point of something intrinsically
>> pointless?
>>
>
>So then why MUST you insist that it is DET that is the primary
>destruction mechanism, and THEN pile on ADDITIONAL, AD HOC mechanisms,
>instead of tossing out the ORIGINAL assumption that DET is the
>mechanism, and coming up with a new one (like I have)?
You mean why throw out are low order energy estimate in favor of your
ad hoc mechanism? When you put it like that...
>I might not know
>EXACTLY what is going on, but I've got a pretty good theory that so far
>seems to work.
It works if you assume a whole bunch of stuff that you've pulled out
of your ass instead of canon, sure. This is why we keep making fun of
you about the magic pixie particles. There are two things which we
can say about Alderaan, that it took 1e38 joules to destroy, and that
energy came from some combination of the beam or the planet. Since we
know of no form of chain reaction that would work on an Earth-like
world, it makes sense that the energy largely comes from the beam
itself. Since all canon and official references depict the power
coming from the Death Star, and make no mention of it causing a chain
reaction, the DET theory is "good enough" for our purposes.
>What I am sure about is that DET is not the primary
>cause of destruction, as that would be the simplest route to take here
>-- instead of adding on ad hoc contrivancies, we toss the original
>assumption and try a new one. And if DET is not the primary mechanism
>of destruction, the beam must contain less than 1E38 J of raw energy,
>otherwise they'd be using DET, and that contradicts the evidence.
Unless you postulate that Alderaan was a bomb just waiting to go off,
any method other than DET would require more energy. I've read most of
your theories, and none suggest this. Instead, its more a South
Parkian formulation of
1) Imaginary particles saturate Alderaan.
2) ?????
3) Profit/Explode!
Generating the particles is not free. Transmitting the particles to
the surface is not free. These particles must have immense power
behind them if they are supposed to... do what exactly? Explode the
planet. But how? I don't think you ever answer that.
>And WHY of all things must you INSULT me because I'm using a different
>theory than DET?!
Because you get all bent out of shape that we won't reject our theory
that has been calculated at least three different ways and is
supported by official sources in favor of your bullshit theory that is
made up out of thin air.
Lord Edam de Fromage
says...
> Unless you postulate that Alderaan was a bomb just waiting to go off,
Alderaan: Thermite of the universe!!!
For when you absolutely positively need the hottest planet around
Not like those other planets that simply fizz or whimper, Alderaan gives
you TOTAL EXPLOSION every time!!!!
Sticky moon bearing down on you?
Get ALDERAAN
Annoying neighbours keep invading?
Get ALDERAAN
(only available in Republic Territories. Coruscanti please add 5% sales
tax. NOT SUITABLE FOR UNDER 35s. Available in single application planets
only. May contain Nuts.)
mike...@yahoo.com
Graeme Dice wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >
> > Actually, he's pretty good with it. EU is a parallel separate universe.
> > You can't go and claim it authoritative canon in one universe.
>
> Please stop with your blatant lying. He does not say that they are a
> separate universe.
>
Idiot jerk:
"STARLOG: The Star Wars Universe is so large and diverse. Do you ever
find yourself confused by the subsidiary material that's in the novels,
comics, and other offshoots?
LUCAS: I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I
don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my
world. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is
they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or
something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When
I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we
decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe
and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent
with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to
go off in other directions."
It's a different world. Therefore the firepower figures, etc. mentioned
in the EU have NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER on the Movies (unless, of
course, the Movies directly confirm such figures). We can NOT say that
troop transports have 200 GT weapons in Lucas' universe, or that the
as the EU that those figures are based on is a DIFFERENT WORLD.
He does try to help them maintain the continuity, but he's set it up so
that the two universes are separate -- the "we decided" statement
indicates that this is also the view of the LucasFilm Ltd. company
proper (not the subsidiary compains LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing, whose
policy was said to be "in-house").
> > For example, when the EU says the Death Star uses DET it's wrong
> > because the movies (indirectly) conflict.
>
> No, the movies do not conflict in any way shape or form. Your
> interpretation of the movies is not canon.
>
Then HOW does Known Physics explain the rings, two-stage explosion, all
with the *DET mechanism*? If you can do that, then you have indeed
shown the validity of the DET theory.
You claim that DET & Physics explain this stuff. So then you've got to
PROVE that it does.
> > Hence you can't use it to
> > override alternate theories, you've got to show why those theories fail
> > to work.
>
> Incorrect as usual for Mike3 the idiot boy. W don't have to show why
> your theory that involves magical space elves fails. We simply have to
> show that there's a simpler theory that fits all the available evidence.
>
You still haven't shown it. You propose the Death Star uses the DET
mechanism, and, aside from the generation of all the energy in the DS's
reactor, the actual destruction proceeds with well-known physics. Now,
you therefore have to show the following:
1. How do the rings form, in terms of the physics of DET weapons and
damage?
2. How does the planet undergo a second-stage explosion nearly 1 second
after the input of energy (the superlaser) has stopped?
3. How do you explain the polar material, which remains there for a
moment,
and then is observred to collapse just before the second-stage goes
off?
And you also have to work under the assumptions you have made about the
situation -- and don't go introducing more -- Alderaan is an Earth-like
planet, the density distribution of the plantery mmaterial is what
you'd expect for a planet like Earth, (crust < mantle < core and those
are all approximately spherical) the beam is travelling at roughly c,
and is carrying 10^38 J of raw firepower.
If you try to pull in hypermatter reactors on the surface of the
planet, wild (and physically impossible) density variations, invisible
lasers, implosion waves, planetary shields, or whatever, then you are
adding in more "magical" items -- you are complicating the theory. You
claim that you need NO "magical" things to make your theory work -- so
then you've got to PROVE that. You've got to show that it works with
the TWO assumptions you use ONLY: The beam uses DET, and destruction
proceeds by conventional physics.
> > Indirect isn't bad -- because the EU is a separate universe it's has an
> > element of uncertainty ALL THE TIME. You can't call it definitive
> > canon.
>
> And since we don't call it definitive canon you are making up a useless
> strawman.
So then *WHY* do you wave around those 200 Gigaton figures like they're
authoritative and definitive?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! I NEVER saw the guns you
claim can fire off 200 GT fire off 200 GT!!!!! Oh and don't go and say
"just because the movies don't show tit doing that doesn't mean it
can't". True, but it also doesn't mean it can. If you assume so because
the EU says so, then you are treating the EU as DEFINITIVE CANON
because you are allowing it to define (hence "definitive") the maximum
firepower.
Furthermore, without the EU as definitive, the whole DET point is moot.
Just because the Death Star can fire off 1E38 J with it's super-laser
doesn't mean that the fleet weapons are really powerful too (of course
not superlaser-power but of the power figures you'd get by scaling down
the Death Star's laser to that size). It would be like "downscaling" a
nuke to the size of a stick of dynamite and then claiming that the
dynamite has the power figure you get. Which is of course, wrong -- the
nuke is a fundamentally different technological base, deriving it's
energy from a fundamentally different process (reaction of the atomic
nucleus vs reaction of the electrons 'round the atoms).
Without the EU as definitive, we CANNOT say for sure (like you guys do)
that the superlaser & turbolasers have the same technological base. The
EU is a separate world -- they have the same base in that world, but
NOT in the world of Lucas' movies.
mike...@yahoo.com
Graeme Dice wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >
> > Actually, he's pretty good with it. EU is a parallel separate universe.
> > You can't go and claim it authoritative canon in one universe.
>
> Please stop with your blatant lying. He does not say that they are a
> separate universe.
>
Idiot jerk:
"STARLOG: The Star Wars Universe is so large and diverse. Do you ever
find yourself confused by the subsidiary material that's in the novels,
comics, and other offshoots?
LUCAS: I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I
don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my
world. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is
they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or
something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When
I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we
decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe
and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent
with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to
go off in other directions."
It's a different world. Therefore the firepower figures, etc. mentioned
in the EU have NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER on the Movies (unless, of
course, the Movies directly confirm such figures). We can NOT say that
troop transports have 200 GT weapons in Lucas' universe, or that the
as the EU that those figures are based on is a DIFFERENT WORLD.
He does try to help them maintain the continuity, but he's set it up so
that the two universes are separate -- the "we decided" statement
indicates that this is also the view of the LucasFilm Ltd. company
proper (not the subsidiary compains LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing, whose
policy was said to be "in-house").
> > For example, when the EU says the Death Star uses DET it's wrong
> > because the movies (indirectly) conflict.
>
> No, the movies do not conflict in any way shape or form. Your
> interpretation of the movies is not canon.
>
Then HOW does Known Physics explain the rings, two-stage explosion, all
with the *DET mechanism*? If you can do that, then you have indeed
shown the validity of the DET theory.
You claim that DET & Physics explain this stuff. So then you've got to
PROVE that it does.
> > Hence you can't use it to
> > override alternate theories, you've got to show why those theories fail
> > to work.
>
> Incorrect as usual for Mike3 the idiot boy. W don't have to show why
> your theory that involves magical space elves fails. We simply have to
> show that there's a simpler theory that fits all the available evidence.
>
You still haven't shown it. You propose the Death Star uses the DET
> > Indirect isn't bad -- because the EU is a separate universe it's has an
> > element of uncertainty ALL THE TIME. You can't call it definitive
> > canon.
>
> And since we don't call it definitive canon you are making up a useless
> strawman.
So then *WHY* do you wave around those 200 Gigaton figures like they're
mike...@yahoo.com
Graeme Dice wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >
> > Actually, he's pretty good with it. EU is a parallel separate universe.
> > You can't go and claim it authoritative canon in one universe.
>
> Please stop with your blatant lying. He does not say that they are a
> separate universe.
>
He says they're a different world. It's pretty much the same thing.
Parallel universes, different universes, different worlds, they all
mean pretty much the same darn thing.
> > For example, when the EU says the Death Star uses DET it's wrong
> > because the movies (indirectly) conflict.
>
> No, the movies do not conflict in any way shape or form. Your
> interpretation of the movies is not canon.
>
Then how does your DET theory explain the rings, secondary-blast,
imploding polar material, etc. using Conventional Physics(TM) alone?
You claim that all that can be explained w/the DET theory -- so you've
got to PROVE that. You claim your theory is based on Physics --
therefore you can't go pulling things out of hats or it's no longer all
based on that.
> > Hence you can't use it to
> > override alternate theories, you've got to show why those theories fail
> > to work.
>
> Incorrect as usual for Mike3 the idiot boy. W don't have to show why
> your theory that involves magical space elves fails. We simply have to
> show that there's a simpler theory that fits all the available evidence.
>
But you include all sorts of extra mechanisms (hypermatter reactors on
surface, wild (and physically impossible) density variations, planetary
shields, invisible beams, etc. etc. etc.) on top. In Occam's razor, we
go with the theory that requires the fewest assumptions. To show your
theory does indeed have the fewest assumptions, you've got to explain
EVERYTHING with it. Or, you have to show that even with all those extra
mechanisms in place, that my theory has even more.
Can you do that?
> > Indirect isn't bad -- because the EU is a separate universe it's has an
> > element of uncertainty ALL THE TIME. You can't call it definitive
> > canon.
>
> And since we don't call it definitive canon you are making up a useless
> strawman.
Then why do you wave around the 200 Gigaton gun figures like they're
authoritative EVEN THOUGH they have NO support from the movies -- the
one true DEFINITIVE CANON at all! To me that sounds like you're
accepting those EU figures as... DEFINITIVE CANON!!!!!
C.S.Strowbridge
> Graeme Dice wrote:
>> > Actually, he's pretty good with it. EU is a parallel separate
>> > universe. You can't go and claim it authoritative canon in one
>> > universe.
>>
>> Please stop with your blatant lying. He does not say that they are a
>> separate universe.
>
> Idiot jerk:
Didn't you say you were leaving forever?
> "STARLOG: The Star Wars Universe is so large and diverse. Do you ever
> find yourself confused by the subsidiary material that's in the
> novels, comics, and other offshoots?
<SNIP!>
We've already explained this to you. You refuse to accept the information
because you're a fucking retard. (I was going to give the reason in a more
mature way, but at the last minute I felt this way was more appropriate.)
The two universes are parrallel, which is to say, they are easily compared.
What happens in one happens in another /unless we have direct evidence that
contradicts it/.
>> > For example, when the EU says the Death Star uses DET it's wrong
>> > because the movies (indirectly) conflict.
>>
>> No, the movies do not conflict in any way shape or form. Your
>> interpretation of the movies is not canon.
>
> Then HOW does Known Physics explain the rings, two-stage explosion,
> all with the *DET mechanism*? If you can do that, then you have indeed
> shown the validity of the DET theory.
>
> You claim that DET & Physics explain this stuff. So then you've got to
> PROVE that it does.
Two questions:
1.) Who the fuck cares?
2.) How much energy does it take to blow up a planet with your mystical
pixie dust explanation? You see, DET gives us the LOWEST possible energy
level for the beam. Any other mechanism will INCREASE the energy needed so
you are hurting your cause.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
> He says they're a different world. It's pretty much the same thing.
> Parallel universes, different universes, different worlds, they all
> mean pretty much the same darn thing.
Yep, Parallel as in:
MSN Encarta
1. resembling each other: relating to two things that are comparable
because they are similar and share many characteristics
Ocford
Adjective
2 occurring or existing at the same time or in a similar way;
corresponding: a parallel universe.
Noun
2 a similarity or comparison.
Verb
2 be similar or corresponding to.
Merriam-Webster's
3 a : similar, analogous, or interdependent in tendency or development b
: readily compared : COMPANION c : having identical syntactical elements
in corresponding positions; also : being such an element
Cambridge International
noun
something very similar to something else, or a similarity between two
things:
adjective
describes an event or situation that happens at the same time as and/or
is similar to another one:
verb
to happen at the same time as something else, or be similar or equal to
something else:
---===---
Parallel Universes are assumed to be the same except where there is proof
that they differ.
C.S.Strowbridge
Graeme Dice
> Graeme Dice wrote:
>
>>mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>>Actually, he's pretty good with it. EU is a parallel separate universe.
>>>You can't go and claim it authoritative canon in one universe.
>>
>>Please stop with your blatant lying. He does not say that they are a
>>separate universe.
> Idiot jerk:
I thouht you were leaving forever.
> "STARLOG: The Star Wars Universe is so large and diverse. Do you ever
> find yourself confused by the subsidiary material that's in the novels,
> comics, and other offshoots?
>
>
>
> LUCAS: I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I
> don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my
> world. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is
> they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or
> something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When
> I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we
> decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe
> and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent
> with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to
> go off in other directions."
Thanks for proving that you are a blatant liar. He does not state that
the "EU is a parallel separate universe". Please show me where he
actually states this.
> Then HOW does Known Physics explain the rings, two-stage explosion, all
> with the *DET mechanism*? If you can do that, then you have indeed
> shown the validity of the DET theory.
Why should I repeat the arguments I used the first time you showed up?
> You claim that DET & Physics explain this stuff. So then you've got to
> PROVE that it does.
No, you have to prove that your theory is better than the one that fits
all the available evidence.
> So then *WHY* do you wave around those 200 Gigaton figures like they're
> authoritative and definitive?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
It's not my fault that you are too stupid to understand the difference
between "definitive canon" and "official". Until you understand the
difference, there is no point debating with you, since you are nothing
more than a mouthpiece and idiot stooge for Guardian 2000.
> Furthermore, without the EU as definitive, the whole DET point is moot.
> Just because the Death Star can fire off 1E38 J with it's super-laser
> doesn't mean that the fleet weapons are really powerful too (of course
> not superlaser-power but of the power figures you'd get by scaling down
> the Death Star's laser to that size).
Yes, it does, since the superlaser is twice as powerful as the fleet.
Please stop lying about the evidence.
Graeme Dice
> Graeme Dice wrote:
>
>>mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>>Actually, he's pretty good with it. EU is a parallel separate universe.
>>>You can't go and claim it authoritative canon in one universe.
>>
>>Please stop with your blatant lying. He does not say that they are a
>>separate universe.
>>
>
>
> He says they're a different world. It's pretty much the same thing.
Thanks for confirming that you are a worthless scumbag liar. He did not
say what you claimed he said, and since you are a known liar, all your
paraphrasing is absolutely and utterly worthless.
> Parallel universes, different universes, different worlds, they all
> mean pretty much the same darn thing.
"Pretty much" is a meaningless term. You must describe, with complete
accuracy, _exactly_ what they mean.
> Then how does your DET theory explain the rings, secondary-blast,
> imploding polar material, etc. using Conventional Physics(TM) alone?
> You claim that all that can be explained w/the DET theory -- so you've
> got to PROVE that. You claim your theory is based on Physics --
> therefore you can't go pulling things out of hats or it's no longer all
> based on that.
Incorrect as usual. I don't have to show that DET can explain those
things, even though it can. I simply have to show that the explanation
is simpler than your assumption of magical superlaser fairies.
> But you include all sorts of extra mechanisms (hypermatter reactors on
> surface, wild (and physically impossible) density variations, planetary
> shields, invisible beams, etc. etc. etc.) on top. In Occam's razor, we
> go with the theory that requires the fewest assumptions.
Wrong dipshit. Parsimony chooses the theory that best fits the data
first. Then the theory that has the fewest assumptions.
> To show your
> theory does indeed have the fewest assumptions, you've got to explain
> EVERYTHING with it. Or, you have to show that even with all those extra
> mechanisms in place, that my theory has even more.
The numerical countable _number_ of assumptions is not important, but
you wouldn't realize that since all you are is an undereducated moron
who doesn't understand the concepts you prattle on about. What's
important is the nature of the assumptions, and how far-fetched those
assumptions are. Assuming that the planet had a hypermatter reactor is
not a far-fetched assumption. Assuming that the superlaser functions
according to magical superlaser pixies is a far-fetched assumption.
>>>Indirect isn't bad -- because the EU is a separate universe it's has an
>>>element of uncertainty ALL THE TIME. You can't call it definitive
>>>canon.
>>
>>And since we don't call it definitive canon you are making up a useless
>>strawman.
>
>
> Then why do you wave around the 200 Gigaton gun figures like they're
> authoritative EVEN THOUGH they have NO support from the movies -- the
> one true DEFINITIVE CANON at all! To me that sounds like you're
> accepting those EU figures as... DEFINITIVE CANON!!!!!
No, I'm accepting them as official until overruled by canon. It's not
my problem that you are too stupid to understand the difference.
If you wish to have anything approaching a useful debate, then you must
stop relying on the ignorant ramblings of Darkstar.
mike...@yahoo.com
Aron Kerkhof wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2005 16:28:46 -0700, mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> Its not a theory. Its the official Lucasfilm position.
> >>
> >
> >It is the official LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing in-house position. It's a
> >theory that it is also the official position ofthe movie/film making
> >company, LucasFilm Ltd proper AND George Lucas too. AND it is an
> >incorrect theory. My theory, on the other hand, does in fact work
> >perfectly.
>
> So, Lucas, who sits on both boards, is letting Lucas licensing run
> roughshod over him, huh?
>
If that policy is in-house it doesn't matter what they do. Which it is.
Also, the STARLOG quote says that "we" (Lucas and authorities) decided
that there would be TWO universes, not one like you want to have.
> >> >You claim that the EU is definitive fact wherever the films do not
> >> >directly and indisputably contradict it, but if it is a parallel,
> >> >seperate universe, how can it be definitive AT ALL in George Lucas'
> >> >movie universe? It can't!
> >>
> >> Which is more likely? Lucas overriding his own canon policy in
> >> goddamn Starlog magazine, or you aren't understanding what he said and
> >> taking it in the right context. Besides, his statement that he
> >> doesn't read the stuff is not even literally true, so a literal
> >> strained reading of this quote is NOT the way to go.
> >
> >George Lucas IS NOT "overriding his own canon policy". He has set up
> >the canon policy the way he wants it to and he has kept it that way for
> >years. Let's see, we've got the TV Guide quote that the EU is "outside
> >his little universe", we've got the Cinescape quote that the EU is a
> >"parallel universe", and now we've got this quote, which says pretty
> >much the same darned thing! And just because one part of the quote is
> >contradicted (that he doesn't read the rest of the stuff), the rest is
> >still 100% rock solid. You haven't yet provided a single bit of
> >disproof that shows it all wrong.
>
> Except that LucasFilm and LucasBooks say you're wrong. Again, I can
> assume that you don't understand Lucas, or I can assume that his own
> companies don't understand Lucas. Which should I go with here?
>
You should assume that the LucasBooks policy is that for the other
universe -- the EU, and is in-house. The movie universe and the EU one
are different, that's what's stated in StarLog by LUCAS.
> >Lucas has said this "parallel universe" thing THREE times now... I bet
> >if I were to send him a letter he'd give me the EXACT same thing.
>
> Except he wouldn't read it. It would be read by the people who take
> care of these things, and they'd would refer you to the policy that
> the flanneled one has taken the time to dictate to them, which has
> been discussed ad nasuem.
>
If he did, he would say just what they'd say -- that he (Lucas)
considers the EU to be a different universe. If Lucas LICENSING and
Lucas BOOKS got it, they'd say EU is canon. That's their own policy.
> >> >You don't even folloy your own canon policy sometimes. For example, you
> >> >use the DET theory for the Death Star, even though the film shows the
> >> >effects of the weapon being different from what's expected for a DET
> >> >beam. But you continue to assume DET. But according to your canon
> >> >policy, the EU is wrong because the film disagrees!
> >>
> >> You... I can't... words fail. We use DET because its the simplest
> >> way to get a lower limit of the Death Star's power. We don't
> >> literally think that the death star beam directly transferred the
> >> power of its beam into each individual atom of Alderaan. But we also
> >> don't invent magic bozon particles to explain something that cannot be
> >> explained with the evidence we have at hand.
> >>
> >> Of course something besides DET is going on. What is it? We don't
> >> know. You don't know. And it is totally beside the point of this
> >> newsgroup, which itself doesn't have much of a point. Do you know how
> >> low you have to sink to miss the point of something intrinsically
> >> pointless?
> >>
> >
> >So then why MUST you insist that it is DET that is the primary
> >destruction mechanism, and THEN pile on ADDITIONAL, AD HOC mechanisms,
> >instead of tossing out the ORIGINAL assumption that DET is the
> >mechanism, and coming up with a new one (like I have)?
>
> You mean why throw out are low order energy estimate in favor of your
> ad hoc mechanism? When you put it like that...
>
You need a lot of separate mechanisms that don't harmonize, and also
are not useful to make predictions. For example, you have failed to
explain just how a hypermatter reactor exploding generates a planar
shockwave effect.
> >I might not know
> >EXACTLY what is going on, but I've got a pretty good theory that so far
> >seems to work.
>
> It works if you assume a whole bunch of stuff that you've pulled out
> of your ass instead of canon, sure. This is why we keep making fun of
> you about the magic pixie particles. There are two things which we
> can say about Alderaan, that it took 1e38 joules to destroy, and that
> energy came from some combination of the beam or the planet. Since we
> know of no form of chain reaction that would work on an Earth-like
> world, it makes sense that the energy largely comes from the beam
> itself. Since all canon and official references depict the power
> coming from the Death Star, and make no mention of it causing a chain
> reaction, the DET theory is "good enough" for our purposes.
>
The canon films suggest that simple DET just doesn't work -- the
explosion is too weird to be a simple DET phenomenon. A
suddenly-heated, vaporized & plasmafied object like Alderaan w/DET will
tend to expand outwards in a single explosion in all directions without
any specific preference for a single one. It will most certainly not
shoot out a planar ring, or explode again after heating has stopped.
> >What I am sure about is that DET is not the primary
> >cause of destruction, as that would be the simplest route to take here
> >-- instead of adding on ad hoc contrivancies, we toss the original
> >assumption and try a new one. And if DET is not the primary mechanism
> >of destruction, the beam must contain less than 1E38 J of raw energy,
> >otherwise they'd be using DET, and that contradicts the evidence.
>
> Unless you postulate that Alderaan was a bomb just waiting to go off,
> any method other than DET would require more energy. I've read most of
> your theories, and none suggest this. Instead, its more a South
> Parkian formulation of
>
> 1) Imaginary particles saturate Alderaan.
> 2) ?????
> 3) Profit/Explode!
>
> Generating the particles is not free. Transmitting the particles to
> the surface is not free. These particles must have immense power
> behind them if they are supposed to... do what exactly? Explode the
> planet. But how? I don't think you ever answer that.
>
True, generating and trasnmitting the particles is not free. But it
must require less than 1E38 J, as if it did, then they might as well be
using DET. But the film evidence contradicts that, so they must be
using something other than DET, and therefore whatever they are using
MUST require less energy from the DS reactor.
It destroys the planet because the reaction of particles of beam and
field with the particles of matter (which I described in an earlier
post) causes some of that matter to be annihilated into energy.
Whatever matter remains is colossally heated by this energy to billions
of degrees, and thus explodes violently with a huge fireball, like we
see.
The ring is generated when the particle field collapses, because that
is it's natural shape (a characteristic DEMANDED by the evidence). The
field collapses when there isn't enough sufficiently dense matter.
The secondary burst is because of "uneven burning" of the material --
as the initial material explodes, it disrupts the energy field made by
the superlaser (which then collapses into a ring). When that field
manages to strike the remaining matter, that too, "ignites" and
explodes.
This was all explained in a post I made a while ago.
The reasoning behind this is fairly easy to understand (that is for
someone with a brain in their head):
#1. The beam cannot be direct-energy transfer, because the explosion is
too weird. Generating the necessary particles for the reaction cannot
require the same energy as DET, otherwise DET would be used -- and the
evidence contradicts it being used.
#2. There is some sort of field effect going on, because we see a
strange bluish-greenish glow on the surface of Alderaan, following the
explosed land. Furthermore, the clouds don't seen to be visibly
disturbed even though the beam is going through -- which tells us the
beam has a lot less than 1E38 J in it.
#3. The blast doesn't begin immediately as field generation begins, so
something else must be needed to trip it off. Hence the need for
postulating as second particle.
#4. We can observe a remnant of the Alderaan polar material behind the
plasma
from the primary burst, which begins to collapse. This suggests some
sort of compressional effect is occuring. This material then disappears
in the span of 1 frame, with the second ring effect appearing at
exactly the same moment. This suggests that whatever is compressing it
may also be forming the ring. Hence the reason why I suggested that
field collapse produces the ring. The field particles are obviously
unstable, as the ring dissipates as it goes into the distance.
#5. The fact that we see this remnant tells us that the destruction is
incomplete after the primary burst, so when it finally does "catch",
it's destruction, and the secondary burst, are delayed a bit.
There you go. Theory and evidence to back it up.
> >And WHY of all things must you INSULT me because I'm using a different
> >theory than DET?!
>
> Because you get all bent out of shape that we won't reject our theory
> that has been calculated at least three different ways and is
> supported by official sources in favor of your bullshit theory that is
> made up out of thin air.
>
I suggest you reject your theory because it can't really explain a
thing, at least not without requiring lots and lots of extra unrelated
mechanisms (and ones that you have failed to explain). Except for that
the planet explodes, of course. But that's far from enough.
> !AK
> http://www.neolith.org
C.S.Strowbridge
> Aron Kerkhof wrote:
Good god! I thought you were running away forever.
>> >> Its not a theory. Its the official Lucasfilm position.
>> >>
>> >
>> >It is the official LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing in-house position.
>> >It's a theory that it is also the official position ofthe movie/film
>> >making company, LucasFilm Ltd proper AND George Lucas too. AND it is
>> >an incorrect theory. My theory, on the other hand, does in fact work
>> >perfectly.
>>
>> So, Lucas, who sits on both boards, is letting Lucas licensing run
>> roughshod over him, huh?
>
> If that policy is in-house it doesn't matter what they do. Which it
> is. Also, the STARLOG quote says that "we" (Lucas and authorities)
> decided that there would be TWO universes, not one like you want to
> have.
If they are two universes, then they are parallel, as in: similar,
analogous, or interdependent in tendency or development; readily
compared.
In other words, what happens in the EU is assumed to have happened in the
movies unless directly contradicted. That is the policy we got directly
from the source.
>> >> >You claim that the EU is definitive fact wherever the films do
>> >> >not directly and indisputably contradict it, but if it is a
>> >> >parallel, seperate universe, how can it be definitive AT ALL in
>> >> >George Lucas' movie universe? It can't!
>> >>
>> >> Which is more likely? Lucas overriding his own canon policy in
>> >> goddamn Starlog magazine, or you aren't understanding what he said
>> >> and taking it in the right context. Besides, his statement that
>> >> he doesn't read the stuff is not even literally true, so a literal
>> >> strained reading of this quote is NOT the way to go.
>> >
>> >George Lucas IS NOT "overriding his own canon policy". He has set up
>> >the canon policy the way he wants it to and he has kept it that way
>> >for years. Let's see, we've got the TV Guide quote that the EU is
>> >"outside his little universe", we've got the Cinescape quote that
>> >the EU is a "parallel universe", and now we've got this quote, which
>> >says pretty much the same darned thing! And just because one part of
>> >the quote is contradicted (that he doesn't read the rest of the
>> >stuff), the rest is still 100% rock solid. You haven't yet provided
>> >a single bit of disproof that shows it all wrong.
>>
>> Except that LucasFilm and LucasBooks say you're wrong. Again, I can
>> assume that you don't understand Lucas, or I can assume that his own
>> companies don't understand Lucas. Which should I go with here?
>
> You should assume that the LucasBooks policy is that for the other
> universe -- the EU, and is in-house. The movie universe and the EU one
> are different, that's what's stated in StarLog by LUCAS.
No, that is not what is stated. That is your hyper-interpretation.
>> >Lucas has said this "parallel universe" thing THREE times now... I
>> >bet if I were to send him a letter he'd give me the EXACT same
>> >thing.
>>
>> Except he wouldn't read it. It would be read by the people who take
>> care of these things, and they'd would refer you to the policy that
>> the flanneled one has taken the time to dictate to them, which has
>> been discussed ad nasuem.
>
> If he did, he would say just what they'd say -- that he (Lucas)
> considers the EU to be a different universe. If Lucas LICENSING and
> Lucas BOOKS got it, they'd say EU is canon. That's their own policy.
You keep saying that there are two policies, yet you have no evidence
that there are. It is much more likely that your interpretations are
wrong.
You have failed to explain how your MCR would reduce the amount of energy
supplied by the Death Star. You can't. It's impossible. So your argument
is pointless.
>> Generating the particles is not free. Transmitting the particles to
>> the surface is not free. These particles must have immense power
>> behind them if they are supposed to... do what exactly? Explode the
>> planet. But how? I don't think you ever answer that.
>
> True, generating and trasnmitting the particles is not free. But it
> must require less than 1E38 J, as if it did, then they might as well
> be using DET. But the film evidence contradicts that, so they must be
> using something other than DET, and therefore whatever they are using
> MUST require less energy from the DS reactor.
Ha ha ha. So what you are saying is the MCR must use less energy than DET
cause if it didn't you theory would fall apart. That's brilliant.
C.S.Strowbridge
mike...@yahoo.com
Graeme Dice wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Graeme Dice wrote:
> >
> >>mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Actually, he's pretty good with it. EU is a parallel separate universe.
> >>>You can't go and claim it authoritative canon in one universe.
> >>
> >>Please stop with your blatant lying. He does not say that they are a
> >>separate universe.
> >>
> >
> >
> > He says they're a different world. It's pretty much the same thing.
>
> Thanks for confirming that you are a worthless scumbag liar. He did not
> say what you claimed he said, and since you are a known liar, all your
> paraphrasing is absolutely and utterly worthless.
>
YES HE DID! He said "That's a different world than my world"... a
DIFFERENT WORLD. HE SAID THAT.
*YOU* are the liar here, not me, claiming that he didn't say something
that EVERYONE can see he DID:
STARLOG: The Star Wars Universe is so large and diverse. Do you ever
find yourself confused by the subsidiary material that's in the novels,
comics, and other offshoots?
LUCAS: I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I
don't know anything about that world. ***That's a different world than
my world***. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now
is they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or
something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When
I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we
decided that, like Star Trek, we would have *two* universes: My
universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as
consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic
and want to go off in other directions." (emphasis with "***" mine,
emphasis with just 1 "*" Lucas's)
Now can you see it?
> > Parallel universes, different universes, different worlds, they all
> > mean pretty much the same darn thing.
>
> "Pretty much" is a meaningless term. You must describe, with complete
> accuracy, _exactly_ what they mean.
>
Parallel universe means _exactly_: an alternate universe
Different universe means _exactly_: a universe that is not the same as
another
Different world means _exactly_: a world that is not the same as
another
> > Then how does your DET theory explain the rings, secondary-blast,
> > imploding polar material, etc. using Conventional Physics(TM) alone?
> > You claim that all that can be explained w/the DET theory -- so you've
> > got to PROVE that. You claim your theory is based on Physics --
> > therefore you can't go pulling things out of hats or it's no longer all
> > based on that.
>
> Incorrect as usual. I don't have to show that DET can explain those
> things, even though it can. I simply have to show that the explanation
> is simpler than your assumption of magical superlaser fairies.
>
I don't have to show, even though it can?! You've asserted that it can,
and therefore you have to show. That's the way it works, pal.
> > But you include all sorts of extra mechanisms (hypermatter reactors on
> > surface, wild (and physically impossible) density variations, planetary
> > shields, invisible beams, etc. etc. etc.) on top. In Occam's razor, we
> > go with the theory that requires the fewest assumptions.
>
> Wrong dipshit. Parsimony chooses the theory that best fits the data
> first. Then the theory that has the fewest assumptions.
>
The DET theory only fits one all the extras are piled on top and
properly defined (you've failed to do the latter -- HOW does a
hypermatter reactor make a ring shockwave?!), but my theory works with
NOTHING EXTRA piled on top. Got it? Probably not, but just in case...
>
> > To show your
> > theory does indeed have the fewest assumptions, you've got to explain
> > EVERYTHING with it. Or, you have to show that even with all those extra
> > mechanisms in place, that my theory has even more.
>
> The numerical countable _number_ of assumptions is not important, but
> you wouldn't realize that since all you are is an undereducated moron
> who doesn't understand the concepts you prattle on about. What's
> important is the nature of the assumptions, and how far-fetched those
> assumptions are. Assuming that the planet had a hypermatter reactor is
> not a far-fetched assumption. Assuming that the superlaser functions
> according to magical superlaser pixies is a far-fetched assumption.
>
Assuming that a hypermatter reactor that big exists there AND can
generate a ring, AND the NUMBER of assumptions is greater (the NUMBER
IS IMPORTANT, THAT'S THE BASIC STATEMENT OF THE RAZOR). AND it fails to
predict anything, AND it's ad hoc and is INPAPPLICABLE to other
examples, AND AND AND...
> >>>Indirect isn't bad -- because the EU is a separate universe it's has an
> >>>element of uncertainty ALL THE TIME. You can't call it definitive
> >>>canon.
> >>
> >>And since we don't call it definitive canon you are making up a useless
> >>strawman.
> >
> >
> > Then why do you wave around the 200 Gigaton gun figures like they're
> > authoritative EVEN THOUGH they have NO support from the movies -- the
> > one true DEFINITIVE CANON at all! To me that sounds like you're
> > accepting those EU figures as... DEFINITIVE CANON!!!!!
>
> No, I'm accepting them as official until overruled by canon. It's not
> my problem that you are too stupid to understand the difference.
>
> If you wish to have anything approaching a useful debate, then you must
> stop relying on the ignorant ramblings of Darkstar.
And because you don't question their validity, THEN YOU ARE ACCEPTING
THEM AS DEFINITIVE. If you questioned them, then'd you be in doubt
considering how many opportunities in the films they had to use them,
but never did -- which indicates that they don't exist.
Beeblebear
<mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130569921....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<SNIP>
You really aren't very good at this last word thing, are you?
FYI, the position on the EU is that it is "official", not that it is canon.
This means that EU can be used unless it directly contradicts canon.
Hence, if canon does not describe a mechanism for eg the Death Star
superweapon, but the EU does describe something that does not directly
contradict what is seen on screen, then that is a workable hypothesis and
has more credence than fanwank explanantions which require creation of fairy
dust that glows green then eats the planet.
It is really very simple.
Like you.
--
--
Chris Lyth (clyt...@ifis.org.uk - shoot the president to reply)
I don't eat snails. I prefer fast food.
Graeme Dice
> Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
>>Thanks for confirming that you are a worthless scumbag liar. He did not
>>say what you claimed he said, and since you are a known liar, all your
>>paraphrasing is absolutely and utterly worthless.
>>
>
>
> YES HE DID! He said "That's a different world than my world"... a
> DIFFERENT WORLD. HE SAID THAT.
>
> *YOU* are the liar here, not me, claiming that he didn't say something
> that EVERYONE can see he DID:
You made the claim that George Lucas said "EU is a parallel separate
universe." George Lucas has never stated that. I am well aware of what
Lucas actually stated, and it does not include "EU is a parallel
separate universe." This is why you are a liar. You did not say
ANYTHING about "That's a different world than my world" until I called
you out on your lying.
> Now can you see it?
Yes, he doesn't say anything about them being separate universes, unlike
what you originally claimed.
>>>Parallel universes, different universes, different worlds, they all
>>>mean pretty much the same darn thing.
>>
>>"Pretty much" is a meaningless term. You must describe, with complete
>>accuracy, _exactly_ what they mean.
>>
>
>
> Parallel universe means _exactly_: an alternate universe
Then you'll be able to provide a dictionary definition, won't you since
you now want to play the role of the semantics whore.
> Different universe means _exactly_: a universe that is not the same as
> another
Then you'll be able to provide a dictionary definition, won't you since
you now want to play the role of the semantics whore.
> Different world means _exactly_: a world that is not the same as
> another
Then you'll be able to provide a dictionary definition, won't you since
you now want to play the role of the semantics whore.
>>>Then how does your DET theory explain the rings, secondary-blast,
>>>imploding polar material, etc. using Conventional Physics(TM) alone?
>>>You claim that all that can be explained w/the DET theory -- so you've
>>>got to PROVE that. You claim your theory is based on Physics --
>>>therefore you can't go pulling things out of hats or it's no longer all
>>>based on that.
>>
>>Incorrect as usual. I don't have to show that DET can explain those
>>things, even though it can. I simply have to show that the explanation
>>is simpler than your assumption of magical superlaser fairies.
>>
>
>
> I don't have to show, even though it can?! You've asserted that it can,
> and therefore you have to show. That's the way it works, pal.
DET provides a better fit to the known evidence than your magical
superlaser fairies. Therefore it is superior. I've already explained
this to you many times.
>>>But you include all sorts of extra mechanisms (hypermatter reactors on
>>>surface, wild (and physically impossible) density variations, planetary
>>>shields, invisible beams, etc. etc. etc.) on top. In Occam's razor, we
>>>go with the theory that requires the fewest assumptions.
>>
>>Wrong dipshit. Parsimony chooses the theory that best fits the data
>>first. Then the theory that has the fewest assumptions.
>>
>
>
> The DET theory only fits one all the extras are piled on top and
> properly defined (you've failed to do the latter -- HOW does a
> hypermatter reactor make a ring shockwave?!), but my theory works with
> NOTHING EXTRA piled on top. Got it? Probably not, but just in case...
You don't have a theory. You don't have a mechanism. What you have is
an assertion that the superlaser uses less energy than would be required
by DET. You have absolutely NO evidence to back this up.
> And because you don't question their validity, THEN YOU ARE ACCEPTING
> THEM AS DEFINITIVE. If you questioned them, then'd you be in doubt
> considering how many opportunities in the films they had to use them,
> but never did -- which indicates that they don't exist.
Coruscant was named by Timothy Zahn. Thanks for playing, but unti you
stop listening to the lying dipshit known as Darkstar, you will never be
able to create a coherent argument.
mike...@yahoo.com
Beeblebear wrote:
> <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1130569921....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> <SNIP>
> You really aren't very good at this last word thing, are you?
>
> FYI, the position on the EU is that it is "official", not that it is canon.
> This means that EU can be used unless it directly contradicts canon.
>
> Hence, if canon does not describe a mechanism for eg the Death Star
> superweapon, but the EU does describe something that does not directly
> contradict what is seen on screen, then that is a workable hypothesis and
> has more credence than fanwank explanantions which require creation of fairy
> dust that glows green then eats the planet.
>
However, the predictions the DET theory makes do not match up against
what's seen on film. Therefore, the theory is Falsified.
Now, if the film DID hold up with the DET theory -- that is, if there
were no rings, no second-stage blast, no collapsing polar material, no
green stuff circulating around the planet, none of that -- then the DET
theory would be a workable theory -- and I would accept it -- because
it's predictions would match. But, they don't. So I don't accept it.
It is really very simple, isn't it? Furthermore, why are we even
BOTHERING to argue over the Death Star & DET? This thread is about
CANON, so why not just drop the whole DET thing in this discussion?
It's just creating an inconvenient side-issue that you just don't seem
to get.
> It is really very simple.
> Like you.
>
However, it disagrees with the direct quotes that it's a different
universe, etc. If it is (which it is), then it cannot be accepted as
fact unless directly contradicted by the film -- because then you are
including it in the same universe as the film. If it's in the same
universe, then it's not a different universe. Which contradicts the
quote. Since the theory must agree with the quote, we are forced to
conclude that it is not to be accepted as definitive fact, except where
the film confirms it.
And in one quote we hear tha tht EUs are "foggy windows", so the
accuracy of their content is debatable even if they only indirectly
conflict against the film.
The 200 GT figures in the EU's ICS books are NOT confirmed by the film
(are they? Show me how you can get these from the film? I can't seem
to. I thought about the asteroids blowing up in Empire Strikes Back,
but my best figures gave only a few megatons per shot, not 200 giga
tons -- I think I heard somewhere that this was where it came from, but
I can't seem to get such a figure), and since these books are a foggy
window (and according to the placement of things they'd be foggier than
the radio plays!), they are open to dispute. Since I prefer not to
trust something I'm told has a good chance of being in error, and
there's nothing to support it in what I know to be true (the film),
then I prefer not to accept it. Easy, eh?
mike...@yahoo.com
Graeme Dice wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Graeme Dice wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>Thanks for confirming that you are a worthless scumbag liar. He did not
> >>say what you claimed he said, and since you are a known liar, all your
> >>paraphrasing is absolutely and utterly worthless.
> >>
> >
> >
> > YES HE DID! He said "That's a different world than my world"... a
> > DIFFERENT WORLD. HE SAID THAT.
> >
> > *YOU* are the liar here, not me, claiming that he didn't say something
> > that EVERYONE can see he DID:
>
> You made the claim that George Lucas said "EU is a parallel separate
> universe." George Lucas has never stated that. I am well aware of what
> Lucas actually stated, and it does not include "EU is a parallel
> separate universe." This is why you are a liar. You did not say
> ANYTHING about "That's a different world than my world" until I called
> you out on your lying.
>
No. When you "called me out" you could SEE I said "He says it's a
different world".
> > Now can you see it?
>
> Yes, he doesn't say anything about them being separate universes, unlike
> what you originally claimed.
>
He says it's a different world. What else can that mean, besides it
being a world that isn't the same as his own?
> >>>Parallel universes, different universes, different worlds, they all
> >>>mean pretty much the same darn thing.
> >>
> >>"Pretty much" is a meaningless term. You must describe, with complete
> >>accuracy, _exactly_ what they mean.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Parallel universe means _exactly_: an alternate universe
>
> Then you'll be able to provide a dictionary definition, won't you since
> you now want to play the role of the semantics whore.
>
> > Different universe means _exactly_: a universe that is not the same as
> > another
>
> Then you'll be able to provide a dictionary definition, won't you since
> you now want to play the role of the semantics whore.
>
> > Different world means _exactly_: a world that is not the same as
> > another
>
> Then you'll be able to provide a dictionary definition, won't you since
> you now want to play the role of the semantics whore.
>
These compound terms are usually not given in dictionaries. But ANYONE
should realize that these terms mean what I've said -- if I knew zilch
about Star Wars and Canon and ANYTHING and was shown the Starlog quote
I'd say the same thing as I do now. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.
WHAT DO YOU THINK DIFFERENT WORLD MEANS?
> >>>Then how does your DET theory explain the rings, secondary-blast,
> >>>imploding polar material, etc. using Conventional Physics(TM) alone?
> >>>You claim that all that can be explained w/the DET theory -- so you've
> >>>got to PROVE that. You claim your theory is based on Physics --
> >>>therefore you can't go pulling things out of hats or it's no longer all
> >>>based on that.
> >>
> >>Incorrect as usual. I don't have to show that DET can explain those
> >>things, even though it can. I simply have to show that the explanation
> >>is simpler than your assumption of magical superlaser fairies.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't have to show, even though it can?! You've asserted that it can,
> > and therefore you have to show. That's the way it works, pal.
>
> DET provides a better fit to the known evidence than your magical
> superlaser fairies. Therefore it is superior. I've already explained
> this to you many times.
>
?!?
Show me how DET predicts the first explosion. Well, the transfer of
energy disrupts the planet, causing an explosion.
Show me how DET predicts the ring effect. Oh wait, it doesn't!
Show me how DET predicts the secondary burst. Oh wait, it doesn't!
Show me how DET predicts the collapsing polar maerial. Oh wait, it
doesn't!
Show me how DET predicts the green haze. Oh wait, it doesn't!
DET FAILED to predict four of the five observations it has to predict.
WHY are we even ARGUING this DET thing anyway? Isn't this thread about
CANON?!
> >>>But you include all sorts of extra mechanisms (hypermatter reactors on
> >>>surface, wild (and physically impossible) density variations, planetary
> >>>shields, invisible beams, etc. etc. etc.) on top. In Occam's razor, we
> >>>go with the theory that requires the fewest assumptions.
> >>
> >>Wrong dipshit. Parsimony chooses the theory that best fits the data
> >>first. Then the theory that has the fewest assumptions.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The DET theory only fits one all the extras are piled on top and
> > properly defined (you've failed to do the latter -- HOW does a
> > hypermatter reactor make a ring shockwave?!), but my theory works with
> > NOTHING EXTRA piled on top. Got it? Probably not, but just in case...
>
> You don't have a theory. You don't have a mechanism. What you have is
> an assertion that the superlaser uses less energy than would be required
> by DET. You have absolutely NO evidence to back this up.
>
You obviously can't comprehend logic. And I DID provide a mechanism,
involving two types of particles, which I described, AND their effects
on matter, AND how the interactions generate the effects we see. So I
provided a theory, AND a mechanism.
> > And because you don't question their validity, THEN YOU ARE ACCEPTING
> > THEM AS DEFINITIVE. If you questioned them, then'd you be in doubt
> > considering how many opportunities in the films they had to use them,
> > but never did -- which indicates that they don't exist.
>
> Coruscant was named by Timothy Zahn. Thanks for playing, but unti you
> stop listening to the lying dipshit known as Darkstar, you will never be
> able to create a coherent argument.
George Lucas can use WHATEVER HE LIKES for inspiration, BUT THAT DOES
NOT MAKE IT CANON. I guess we can admit the Flash Gordon series into
canon, 'cause he got the scrolling title thing from there! Yep, make
sure to get the rules here updated.
Can't you see the absurdity of your argument?! Darkstar's argument
works. If it didn't I wouldn't have believed it.
Of course you will NEVER see it's truth, because you don't like the
implications. Awww... don't got your big w00h00 weapons anymore....
Graeme Dice
> Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
>>You made the claim that George Lucas said "EU is a parallel separate
>>universe." George Lucas has never stated that. I am well aware of what
>>Lucas actually stated, and it does not include "EU is a parallel
>>separate universe." This is why you are a liar. You did not say
>>ANYTHING about "That's a different world than my world" until I called
>>you out on your lying.
>>
>
>
> No. When you "called me out" you could SEE I said "He says it's a
> different world".
As usual, you are a lying sack of shit. Here's what you actually wrote:
"Actually, he's pretty good with it. EU is a parallel separate universe.
You can't go and claim it authoritative canon in one universe."
You have no quotes where George Lucas says that.
>>>Now can you see it?
>>
>>Yes, he doesn't say anything about them being separate universes, unlike
>>what you originally claimed.
>>
>
>
> He says it's a different world. What else can that mean, besides it
> being a world that isn't the same as his own?
Well, maybe if you weren't a second grade idiot who never learned to
understand context, you would have read the next sentence.
"But I do try to keep it consistent." There. Lucas tries to keep
things consistent.
>>>>>Parallel universes, different universes, different worlds, they all
>>>>>mean pretty much the same darn thing.
>>>>
>>>>"Pretty much" is a meaningless term. You must describe, with complete
>>>>accuracy, _exactly_ what they mean.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Parallel universe means _exactly_: an alternate universe
>>
>>Then you'll be able to provide a dictionary definition, won't you since
>>you now want to play the role of the semantics whore.
Concession accepted.
>>
>>>Different universe means _exactly_: a universe that is not the same as
>>>another
>>
>>Then you'll be able to provide a dictionary definition, won't you since
>>you now want to play the role of the semantics whore.
>>
>>
>>>Different world means _exactly_: a world that is not the same as
>>>another
>>
>>Then you'll be able to provide a dictionary definition, won't you since
>>you now want to play the role of the semantics whore.
>>
>
>
> These compound terms are usually not given in dictionaries. But ANYONE
> should realize that these terms mean what I've said -- if I knew zilch
> about Star Wars and Canon and ANYTHING and was shown the Starlog quote
> I'd say the same thing as I do now. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.
No, an average person wouldn't say the same thing, because the rest of
the world outside of the idiots like you and Darkstar have arrived at
the same conclusion as we did.
> WHAT DO YOU THINK DIFFERENT WORLD MEANS?
Well, in the context of the sentence, it means that it's what Lucas
tries to keep consistent with his universe.
>>>I don't have to show, even though it can?! You've asserted that it can,
>>>and therefore you have to show. That's the way it works, pal.
>>
>>DET provides a better fit to the known evidence than your magical
>>superlaser fairies. Therefore it is superior. I've already explained
>>this to you many times.
>>
>
>
> ?!?
>
> Show me how DET predicts the first explosion. Well, the transfer of
> energy disrupts the planet, causing an explosion.
>
> Show me how DET predicts the ring effect. Oh wait, it doesn't!
There is the possibility of a hypermatter reactor on the planet. We
know that hypermatter reactors produce a ring effect when they explode.
This ring effect is seen in the destruction of very large rebel
vessels in ROTJ, and in the destruction of both Death Stars.
Your theory also doesn't predict the ring. It merely asserts that the
ring happens, which is not a mechanism.
> Show me how DET predicts the secondary burst. Oh wait, it doesn't!
It could easily be a result of energy transfer to the planet. The
explosion of massive objects takes some time to occur.
Your theory also doesn't predict the secondary burst.
> Show me how DET predicts the collapsing polar maerial. Oh wait, it
> doesn't!
You've spent too much time listening to Darkstar. This doesn't actually
occur.
> Show me how DET predicts the green haze. Oh wait, it doesn't!
There is no green haze unless you happen to be stupid enough to think
that image compression artifacts in a JPEG file are real.
> DET FAILED to predict four of the five observations it has to predict.
Your theory doesn't predict any of the observations.
> WHY are we even ARGUING this DET thing anyway? Isn't this thread about
> CANON?!
We are arguing it because you are the one who brought it up you stupid
little maggot.
>>You don't have a theory. You don't have a mechanism. What you have is
>>an assertion that the superlaser uses less energy than would be required
>>by DET. You have absolutely NO evidence to back this up.
>>
>
>
> You obviously can't comprehend logic. And I DID provide a mechanism,
> involving two types of particles, which I described, AND their effects
> on matter, AND how the interactions generate the effects we see. So I
> provided a theory, AND a mechanism.
That is not a mechanism. You described two types of particles which are
not described in real science, nor are they described in any Star Wars
sources. You are only allowed to use real physics and the physics of
the Star Wars universe.
>>>And because you don't question their validity, THEN YOU ARE ACCEPTING
>>>THEM AS DEFINITIVE. If you questioned them, then'd you be in doubt
>>>considering how many opportunities in the films they had to use them,
>>>but never did -- which indicates that they don't exist.
>>
>>Coruscant was named by Timothy Zahn. Thanks for playing, but unti you
>>stop listening to the lying dipshit known as Darkstar, you will never be
>>able to create a coherent argument.
>
>
> George Lucas can use WHATEVER HE LIKES for inspiration, BUT THAT DOES
> NOT MAKE IT CANON.
No, it doesn't make it canon. I've never claimed that it's canon, I've
claimed that it's official. Until you get the difference through your
thick skull, you will continue to be the laughingstock of this newsgroup.
Now, I could easily claim that it falls into the canon now that
Lucasfilm has been kind enough to outline the various levels of canon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-canon
Looks like Lucasfilm has completely shot your bullshit claims about
canon out of the water.
>I guess we can admit the Flash Gordon series into
> canon, 'cause he got the scrolling title thing from there! Yep, make
> sure to get the rules here updated.
The Flash Gordon series was not produced by Lucasfilm or its subsidiaries.
> Can't you see the absurdity of your argument?! Darkstar's argument
> works. If it didn't I wouldn't have believed it.
You only believed Darkstar's arguments because you, like he, are far
less intelligent than you think you are. Tell me, what's your highest
level of education? Unless it's a science related university degree
from a real university, you have no business telling people who are
smarter and better educated than you how the scientific process works.
> Of course you will NEVER see it's truth, because you don't like the
> implications. Awww... don't got your big w00h00 weapons anymore....
Yep. The idiot trekkie shows his true colours.
Oh wait, I suppose you still want to know what *TCHUNK* means, don't you
dipshit. Don't you think there's a reason that every single usenet
group you've ever posted to thinks you're a complete idiot?
Graeme Dice
> Beeblebear wrote:
<snip>
> However, the predictions the DET theory makes do not match up against
> what's seen on film. Therefore, the theory is Falsified.
Your theory does not make any predictions. Your theory describes the
visual evidence (With some significant errors and fabrications of
course.). Thus you do not actually have a theory, you have data.
> Now, if the film DID hold up with the DET theory -- that is, if there
> were no rings,
Hypermatter reactors can produce these.
>no second-stage blast,
The explosion of a planet, not surprisingly, takes some time to complete.
>no collapsing polar material, no
> green stuff circulating around the planet,
Neither of these are real. They are fabrications made up by Darkstar.
> It is really very simple, isn't it? Furthermore, why are we even
> BOTHERING to argue over the Death Star & DET? This thread is about
> CANON, so why not just drop the whole DET thing in this discussion?
> It's just creating an inconvenient side-issue that you just don't seem
> to get.
You are the one who brought up the Death Stars because you are the one
who is fanatically trying to boost the Trekkie argument.
> However, it disagrees with the direct quotes that it's a different
> universe, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-canon
Read this thing in its entirety. It outlines how Lucasfilm disagrees
with you. Since Lucasfilm disagrees with you, and has specifically
stated that they disagree with you, you have no further argument.
> The 200 GT figures in the EU's ICS books are NOT confirmed by the film
> (are they? Show me how you can get these from the film?
The death star produces 1e38 J at a minimum per blast. The Imperial
Fleet has no more than 1000 ships. Thus, each ship in the imperial
fleet can output 1e35 J. There's your argument using only the films.
If you continue to be a stooge for Darkstar, you will continue to be
laughed at.
C.S.Strowbridge
> It is really very simple, isn't it? Furthermore, why are we even
> BOTHERING to argue over the Death Star & DET?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you bring it up in your original post?
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>> Now, if the film DID hold up with the DET theory -- that is, if there
>> were no rings,
>
> Hypermatter reactors can produce these.
What would happen if the energy denisity was so great it caused a tiny back
hole. It could easily be spinning because of the planets rotation and when
it exploded due to Hawkings radiation it could cause the secondary
explotion and the rings.
C.S.Strowbridge
Beeblebear
<mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130611851.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Beeblebear wrote:
>> <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1130569921....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> <SNIP>
Again I snip.
EU /= canon.
That has never been argued.
EU = official.
If the films do not directly contradict the EU, then the EU may as well be
used.
Very simple.
--
--
Chris Lyth (clyt...@ifis.org.uk - shoot the president to reply)
Love thy neighbor as thyself, but choose your neighborhood. --
Louise Beal
mike...@yahoo.com
Graeme Dice wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Graeme Dice wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>You made the claim that George Lucas said "EU is a parallel separate
> >>universe." George Lucas has never stated that. I am well aware of what
> >>Lucas actually stated, and it does not include "EU is a parallel
> >>separate universe." This is why you are a liar. You did not say
> >>ANYTHING about "That's a different world than my world" until I called
> >>you out on your lying.
> >>
> >
> >
> > No. When you "called me out" you could SEE I said "He says it's a
> > different world".
>
> As usual, you are a lying sack of shit. Here's what you actually wrote:
> "Actually, he's pretty good with it. EU is a parallel separate universe.
> You can't go and claim it authoritative canon in one universe."
>
> You have no quotes where George Lucas says that.
>
EU is a parallel separate universe -- I didn't say "George Lucas said
these exact words: EU is a parallel separate universe". Any you can
claim I'm lying, but I don't care -- and your attacks on my claim there
are not going to help with this one. WHAT does "That's a different
world" and "there would be TWO universes" mean other than it being a
different universe, and that the EU and films comprise TWO universes
and not two parts of ONE?
> >>>Now can you see it?
> >>
> >>Yes, he doesn't say anything about them being separate universes, unlike
> >>what you originally claimed.
> >>
> >
> >
> > He says it's a different world. What else can that mean, besides it
> > being a world that isn't the same as his own?
>
> Well, maybe if you weren't a second grade idiot who never learned to
> understand context, you would have read the next sentence.
> "But I do try to keep it consistent." There. Lucas tries to keep
> things consistent.
>
Well he can do that -- but that doesn't make it canon. Why? Because he
declared it to be a different universe -- and it was decided on by "we"
-- obviously more than just Lucas -- that there would be TWO universes,
not one, like you want -- the Star Wars franchise would be composed of
two different universes. You argument is flawed.
> >>>>>Parallel universes, different universes, different worlds, they all
> >>>>>mean pretty much the same darn thing.
> >>>>
> >>>>"Pretty much" is a meaningless term. You must describe, with complete
> >>>>accuracy, _exactly_ what they mean.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Parallel universe means _exactly_: an alternate universe
> >>
> >>Then you'll be able to provide a dictionary definition, won't you since
> >>you now want to play the role of the semantics whore.
>
> Concession accepted.
>
> >>
> >>>Different universe means _exactly_: a universe that is not the same as
> >>>another
> >>
> >>Then you'll be able to provide a dictionary definition, won't you since
> >>you now want to play the role of the semantics whore.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Different world means _exactly_: a world that is not the same as
> >>>another
> >>
> >>Then you'll be able to provide a dictionary definition, won't you since
> >>you now want to play the role of the semantics whore.
> >>
> >
> >
> > These compound terms are usually not given in dictionaries. But ANYONE
> > should realize that these terms mean what I've said -- if I knew zilch
> > about Star Wars and Canon and ANYTHING and was shown the Starlog quote
> > I'd say the same thing as I do now. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.
>
> No, an average person wouldn't say the same thing, because the rest of
> the world outside of the idiots like you and Darkstar have arrived at
> the same conclusion as we did.
>
Your group is a bunch of idiots. Therefore, it's conclusions will be
idiotic.
"Different" in the dictionary means:
1. Unlike in form, quality, amount, or nature; dissimilar: took
different approaches to the problem.
2. Distinct or separate: That's a different issue altogether.
3. Various or assorted: interviewed different members of the community.
4. Differing from all others; unusual: a different point of view.
(http://www.answers.com/different&r=67)
So, the implication is that the two universes/worlds, the one of the
movies, and the one of the EU are unlike, dissimilar, distinct,
separate, etc. You claim the opposite -- they are alike, similar, part
of the same whole, etc. But the dictionary definition of the word
"different" means the opposite. Now, admit defeat.
> > WHAT DO YOU THINK DIFFERENT WORLD MEANS?
>
> Well, in the context of the sentence, it means that it's what Lucas
> tries to keep consistent with his universe.
>
He can try to maintain the EU's consistency, but he also works on
maintaining the consistency and continuity of all his other non-SW
projects -- but that does not make THOSE Star Wars Canon -- contraty to
your argument.
<snip DET stuff -- we're not arguing about DET. Can we drop this? I'm
going to. This argument is about CANON and the EU, not about the Death
Star and DET.>
> >>>And because you don't question their validity, THEN YOU ARE ACCEPTING
> >>>THEM AS DEFINITIVE. If you questioned them, then'd you be in doubt
> >>>considering how many opportunities in the films they had to use them,
> >>>but never did -- which indicates that they don't exist.
> >>
> >>Coruscant was named by Timothy Zahn. Thanks for playing, but unti you
> >>stop listening to the lying dipshit known as Darkstar, you will never be
> >>able to create a coherent argument.
> >
> >
> > George Lucas can use WHATEVER HE LIKES for inspiration, BUT THAT DOES
> > NOT MAKE IT CANON.
>
> No, it doesn't make it canon. I've never claimed that it's canon, I've
> claimed that it's official. Until you get the difference through your
> thick skull, you will continue to be the laughingstock of this newsgroup.
>
If it's fact (ie. indisputably true), then it's canon. That's what I
mean by "canon" when I say "canon". It's easier than saying
"unassailable fact". Just because GEORGE LUCAS USED IT DOESN'T MAKE IT,
IN ENTIRETY, AUTHORITATIVE. JUST THE PARTS THAT MADE IT INTO THE
FILM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Now, I could easily claim that it falls into the canon now that
> Lucasfilm has been kind enough to outline the various levels of canon.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-canon
>
> Looks like Lucasfilm has completely shot your bullshit claims about
> canon out of the water.
>
Unfortunately, Lucasfilm did not write that page (did they? Can you
proof it?). And It was Lucas BOOKS and Lucas LICENSING that wrote the
Chee quote this comes from. And another Chee quote said the Holocron
database was only rarely used outside of those two -- hence the
"in-house" argument I've been talking about for so long.
> >I guess we can admit the Flash Gordon series into
> > canon, 'cause he got the scrolling title thing from there! Yep, make
> > sure to get the rules here updated.
>
> The Flash Gordon series was not produced by Lucasfilm or its subsidiaries.
>
But it was still used for inspiration. By your logic, it must be
acceptable as authoritative definitive fact.
<snip various personal attacks>
mike...@yahoo.com
> > The 200 GT figures in the EU's ICS books are NOT confirmed by the film
> > (are they? Show me how you can get these from the film?
>
> The death star produces 1e38 J at a minimum per blast. The Imperial
> Fleet has no more than 1000 ships. Thus, each ship in the imperial
> fleet can output 1e35 J. There's your argument using only the films.
>
Thus, each fleet ship could destroy a planet on it's own. And thus,
they'd have no need for the Death Star. But they've got it -- so the
ships must have less firepower. Since it was said that the whole
starfleet couldn't destroy the planet, that means the total combined
firepower of the whole fleet must be less than 2e32 J.
> If you continue to be a stooge for Darkstar, you will continue to be
> laughed at.
Well pff. I know my arguments are sound, and you can claim otherwise,
but remember: facts and logic are the final arbiter, not people's
claims. That's why I accepted Darkstar in the first place. I read both
sets of arguments, and could see that Darkstar had better ones. Now
with the new quotes, I've become even more firm in my position.
mike...@yahoo.com
A small black hole with that much energy would take millions of years
to decay, not 1 second. What is the exact mass of the black hole? Is it
that of the planet's core?
Anyway, since we know the duration between secondary burst and rings,
we can calcuate the mass by Hawking's formula:
t0 = (5120*pi*G^2*M^3)/(hbar*c^4).
Setting t0 = 1 sec, we can solve for M as follows:
(5120*pi*G^2*M^3)/(hbar*c^4) = 1.
(5120*pi*G^2*M^3) = hbar*c^4.
M^3 = (hbar*c^4)/(5120*pi*G^2)
M = cbrt((hbar*c^4)/(5120*pi*G^2))
With c = 299792458 m/s, G ~ 6.6742e-11 N m^2 kg^-2, hbar ~
1.05447168e-34 J s, we find M ~ 228226 kg. The energy E corresponding
to this is E = Mc^2 ~ 2.05e22 J. The secondary burst had an energy of
~1e38 J, corresponding to a mass of ~1.1e21 kg. A black hole with this
mass would have a decay time t0 of ~1.158e47 seconds ~ 3.672e39 years,
which is a great many orders of mangitude above what we see (47 to be
precise). Hence your mechaism does not work.
If the fuel in the H/M reactor was so dense, then the reactor itself
would collapse into a black hole (the fuel would turn into a BH and the
reactor would be pulled in with it), making the reactor useless for
power! Exactly HOW the H/M reactor makes rings thus still doesn't work,
and so is not a workable theory. I suppose we could invent a mechanism,
say that the containment fields in the reactor break down in the ring
pattern, but piling up more mechanisms to save DET in the face of
overwhelming evidence against it only makes it more ludicrous.
> C.S.Strowbridge
Graeme Dice
<snip>
>>You have no quotes where George Lucas says that.
>>
>
>
> EU is a parallel separate universe -- I didn't say "George Lucas said
> these exact words: EU is a parallel separate universe".
You made a claim that he said something that he didn't. That's pretty
much the definition of a lie.
>>Well, maybe if you weren't a second grade idiot who never learned to
>>understand context, you would have read the next sentence.
>>"But I do try to keep it consistent." There. Lucas tries to keep
>>things consistent.
>
> Well he can do that -- but that doesn't make it canon.
If Lucasfilm says that something is official or canon, then it is
official or canon. No amount of interpretation by a fanboy such as
yourself will ever change that.
>>No, an average person wouldn't say the same thing, because the rest of
>>the world outside of the idiots like you and Darkstar have arrived at
>>the same conclusion as we did.
>>
>
>
> Your group is a bunch of idiots. Therefore, it's conclusions will be
> idiotic.
Actually, our group consists of multiple university educated physicists,
engineers, graduate students, at least one pHd., etc.
I'm not talking about what ASVS decided anyways. I'm talking about what
the the Star Wars community as a whole has decided.
> He can try to maintain the EU's consistency, but he also works on
> maintaining the consistency and continuity of all his other non-SW
> projects -- but that does not make THOSE Star Wars Canon -- contraty to
> your argument.
Please stop lying. I am not claiming that the EU is canon, although I
could make such a claim. I am giving it less evidentiary strength that
Lucasfilm does by considering it to be correct unless directly
contradicted by higher sources.
> <snip DET stuff -- we're not arguing about DET. Can we drop this? I'm
> going to. This argument is about CANON and the EU, not about the Death
> Star and DET.>
You brought up the Death Star's and DET. Not I. Please respond to the
arguments.
>>No, it doesn't make it canon. I've never claimed that it's canon, I've
>>claimed that it's official. Until you get the difference through your
>>thick skull, you will continue to be the laughingstock of this newsgroup.
>
> If it's fact (ie. indisputably true), then it's canon. That's what I
> mean by "canon" when I say "canon". It's easier than saying
> "unassailable fact". Just because GEORGE LUCAS USED IT DOESN'T MAKE IT,
> IN ENTIRETY, AUTHORITATIVE. JUST THE PARTS THAT MADE IT INTO THE
> FILM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You obviously don't understand the difference between "official" and
"canon" in our terminology. I suggest you re-read www.asvs.org
>>Now, I could easily claim that it falls into the canon now that
>>Lucasfilm has been kind enough to outline the various levels of canon.
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-canon
>>
>>Looks like Lucasfilm has completely shot your bullshit claims about
>>canon out of the water.
>>
>
>
> Unfortunately, Lucasfilm did not write that page (did they? Can you
> proof it?).
So what now, are you not going to even accept information that came
directly from Lucasfilm in favour of playing the role of Darkstar's
fanatic follower?
>And It was Lucas BOOKS and Lucas LICENSING that wrote the
> Chee quote this comes from.
So what? That makes no difference whatsoever since those are
subsidiaries of Lucasfilm.
> But it was still used for inspiration. By your logic, it must be
> acceptable as authoritative definitive fact.
Bullshit. Please stop building strawmen.
> <snip various personal attacks>
So Mike3, you ever figure out what *TCHUNK* means? Or are you still
wondering why every single newsgroup you've ever posted in thinks you're
an idiot?
Graeme Dice
> C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
>
>>Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
> A small black hole with that much energy would take millions of years
> to decay, not 1 second. What is the exact mass of the black hole? Is it
> that of the planet's core?
He's not talking about the mass of the planet. He's talking about the
mass of a portion of the energy imparted by the superlaser.
> If the fuel in the H/M reactor was so dense, then the reactor itself
> would collapse into a black hole (the fuel would turn into a BH and the
> reactor would be pulled in with it), making the reactor useless for
> power!
The reactor obviously does not collapse into a black hole, and
hypermatter is obviously not normal matter, as its energy density far
exceeds that of neutronium.
>Exactly HOW the H/M reactor makes rings thus still doesn't work,
> and so is not a workable theory. I suppose we could invent a mechanism,
> say that the containment fields in the reactor break down in the ring
> pattern, but piling up more mechanisms to save DET in the face of
> overwhelming evidence against it only makes it more ludicrous.
What, unlike your assertions which are nothing but mechanisms that have
no evidentiary support? You'll have to find some canon evidence from
the films that isn't a figment of Darkstar's imagination.
Graeme Dice
> Graeme Dice wrote:
>
>>mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>
> <snip, canon arguments addressed in a different post>
>
>>>The 200 GT figures in the EU's ICS books are NOT confirmed by the film
>>>(are they? Show me how you can get these from the film?
>>
>>The death star produces 1e38 J at a minimum per blast. The Imperial
>>Fleet has no more than 1000 ships. Thus, each ship in the imperial
>>fleet can output 1e35 J. There's your argument using only the films.
>>
>
>
> Thus, each fleet ship could destroy a planet on it's own. And thus,
> they'd have no need for the Death Star.
Paraphrased from TESB: "The energy shield can deflect any bombardment."
You really should try watching the movies sometime.
> But they've got it -- so the
> ships must have less firepower.
No, they have the death star because they need to crack planetary
shielding like that seen protecting Alderaan. The newest DVD edition of
ANH clearly shows the presence of a planetary shield surrounding Alderaan.
>Since it was said that the whole
> starfleet couldn't destroy the planet, that means the total combined
> firepower of the whole fleet must be less than 2e32 J.
This statement was never made. Please stop lying.
> Well pff. I know my arguments are sound, and you can claim otherwise,
> but remember: facts and logic are the final arbiter, not people's
> claims. That's why I accepted Darkstar in the first place. I read both
> sets of arguments, and could see that Darkstar had better ones. Now
> with the new quotes, I've become even more firm in my position.
Darkstar does not use logic. Darkstar isn't smart enough to use logic.
Darkstar is nothing more than a failure who works tech support.
C.S.Strowbridge
> Graeme Dice wrote:
>> You have no quotes where George Lucas says that.
>
> EU is a parallel separate universe
EU and the movies are different worlds. One is canon and the other isn't.
One is created by George Lucas, and the other isn't.
They are also parallel universes, as is, easily comparible. What happens
in one is assumed to have happened in the other unless there is direct
evidence to the contrary.
Yeah! We have a unified theory of Star Wars that includes every quote
available, even the ones you think prove it wrong.
---===---
You see, your quotes never say the EU isn't part of the 'real' Star Wars,
that's just your interpretation of those quotes. We have direct quotes
that state that the EU is part of the 'real' Star Wars, including some
you've probably never even read before. (For instance, when West End
Games was given the license to create the Star Wars RPG, part of their
mandate was to expand upon the Star Wars movies and the flesh out the
universe George Lucas had created. Yet you would consider it no more
valid than some fanboys internet rantings.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
> <snip, canon arguments addressed in a different post>
>> > The 200 GT figures in the EU's ICS books are NOT confirmed by the
>> > film (are they? Show me how you can get these from the film?
>>
>> The death star produces 1e38 J at a minimum per blast. The Imperial
>> Fleet has no more than 1000 ships. Thus, each ship in the imperial
>> fleet can output 1e35 J. There's your argument using only the films.
>
> Thus, each fleet ship could destroy a planet on it's own. And thus,
> they'd have no need for the Death Star. But they've got it -- so the
> ships must have less firepower. Since it was said that the whole
> starfleet couldn't destroy the planet, that means the total combined
> firepower of the whole fleet must be less than 2e32 J.
Planetary Shields are also mentioned in the movies, or did you forget
about that?
>> If you continue to be a stooge for Darkstar, you will continue to be
>> laughed at.
>
> Well pff. I know my arguments are sound, and you can claim otherwise,
> but remember: facts and logic are the final arbiter, not people's
> claims. That's why I accepted Darkstar in the first place. I read both
> sets of arguments, and could see that Darkstar had better ones. Now
> with the new quotes, I've become even more firm in my position.
This makes you sound like a crazy person. Remember, Darkstar once claimed
that the Humans in Star Wars were born with metal plates in their bodies.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>> >> Now, if the film DID hold up with the DET theory -- that is, if
>> >> there were no rings,
>> >
>> > Hypermatter reactors can produce these.
>>
>> What would happen if the energy denisity was so great it caused a
>> tiny back hole. It could easily be spinning because of the planets
>> rotation and when it exploded due to Hawkings radiation it could
>> cause the secondary explotion and the rings.
>
> A small black hole with that much energy would take millions of years
> to decay, not 1 second. What is the exact mass of the black hole? Is
> it that of the planet's core?
>
> Anyway, since we know the duration between secondary burst and rings,
> we can calcuate the mass by Hawking's formula:
<SNIP!>
> Hence your mechaism does not work.
Congratulations, you just showed why your theory is fatally flawed. You
couldn't do the above with the MCR, because there isn't enough evidence
to work out the mathematics of the 'theory.' It has never risen above
mere speculation and there for fails.
<SNIP!>
> but piling up more mechanisms to save DET in the
> face of overwhelming evidence against it only makes it more ludicrous.
DET wins by default because no other mechanism has ever been presented
that has any actual evidence.
Any alternate explanation would have to have the following
characteristics:
1.) Supported by direct evidence
and
2.) Show the energy required is significantly below that needed by DET
or
3.) Has a specific weakness that Star Trek ships / planets could exploit.
Without that the debate goes no where.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>> Of course you will NEVER see it's truth, because you don't like the
>> implications. Awww... don't got your big w00h00 weapons anymore....
>
> Yep. The idiot trekkie shows his true colours.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Mike4 say that insults have no place in
a debate? Granted, it's not a great insult, but it certainly feels like
that was the intent.
C.S.Strowbridge
mike...@yahoo.com
Graeme Dice wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Graeme Dice wrote:
> >
> >>mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>You have no quotes where George Lucas says that.
> >>
> >
> >
> > EU is a parallel separate universe -- I didn't say "George Lucas said
> > these exact words: EU is a parallel separate universe".
>
> You made a claim that he said something that he didn't. That's pretty
> much the definition of a lie.
>
Interestingly, you didn't answer my argument where I gave the
dictionary definition of "different" in "different world". "Separate"
was one of the things listed there, and you wanted me to provide a
dictionary definition, so I did!
> >>Well, maybe if you weren't a second grade idiot who never learned to
> >>understand context, you would have read the next sentence.
> >>"But I do try to keep it consistent." There. Lucas tries to keep
> >>things consistent.
> >
> > Well he can do that -- but that doesn't make it canon.
>
> If Lucasfilm says that something is official or canon, then it is
> official or canon. No amount of interpretation by a fanboy such as
> yourself will ever change that.
>
But they've also said the policy is in-house. And it contradicts the
direct statements of Lucas that he and his authorities have decided to
have two universes. He even suggested the possibility that the EU could
go off in a totally new direction far different from his films -- but
he said they try to be consistent with them, and sometimes they DO go
off in a new direction.
> >>No, an average person wouldn't say the same thing, because the rest of
> >>the world outside of the idiots like you and Darkstar have arrived at
> >>the same conclusion as we did.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Your group is a bunch of idiots. Therefore, it's conclusions will be
> > idiotic.
>
> Actually, our group consists of multiple university educated physicists,
> engineers, graduate students, at least one pHd., etc.
>
Degrees mean nothing. Logic, facts, reason mean everything. It's that
simple. I don't care whether the information comes from a guy with a
Phd or a guy convicted of burglary. If it doesn't mesh with fact, it's
wrong. Simple as that.
> I'm not talking about what ASVS decided anyways. I'm talking about what
> the the Star Wars community as a whole has decided.
>
If the ENTIRE Star Wars Community has decided the EU is definitive fact
"canon" then WHY are there all these canon debates ANYWAY? They can be
found on StarWars.Com, TheForce.Net, and all sorts of other SW sites!
And remember, your appeal to numbers is a fallacy. Ultimately, and I
can't stress this enough, logic, facts, and reason are the final
arbiters.
> > He can try to maintain the EU's consistency, but he also works on
> > maintaining the consistency and continuity of all his other non-SW
> > projects -- but that does not make THOSE Star Wars Canon -- contraty to
> > your argument.
>
> Please stop lying. I am not claiming that the EU is canon, although I
> could make such a claim. I am giving it less evidentiary strength that
> Lucasfilm does by considering it to be correct unless directly
> contradicted by higher sources.
>
When I say "canon", I mean "factual". So when I say something is or is
not "canon", I mean is or is not factual.
> > <snip DET stuff -- we're not arguing about DET. Can we drop this? I'm
> > going to. This argument is about CANON and the EU, not about the Death
> > Star and DET.>
>
> You brought up the Death Star's and DET. Not I. Please respond to the
> arguments.
>
Well, I could, but that's not the point of this thread, and hence I
will drop it. It seems now to be becoming more of a red herring, and
thus I'm going to drop it.
> >>No, it doesn't make it canon. I've never claimed that it's canon, I've
> >>claimed that it's official. Until you get the difference through your
> >>thick skull, you will continue to be the laughingstock of this newsgroup.
> >
> > If it's fact (ie. indisputably true), then it's canon. That's what I
> > mean by "canon" when I say "canon". It's easier than saying
> > "unassailable fact". Just because GEORGE LUCAS USED IT DOESN'T MAKE IT,
> > IN ENTIRETY, AUTHORITATIVE. JUST THE PARTS THAT MADE IT INTO THE
> > FILM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> You obviously don't understand the difference between "official" and
> "canon" in our terminology. I suggest you re-read www.asvs.org
>
Basically, they're pretty much the same thing -- definitive,
authoritative, unassailable fact, except where canon contradicts
directly and irrefutably with official -- in which case canon
predominates.
But when I say canon I mean definitive, authoritative, unassailable
fact. Make sure to remember this. Heck, the Chee quote you love so much
that gives us the Lucas BOOKS/Lucas LICENSING IN-HOUSE canon policy
calls the EUs "C-Canon", not "Official". So, if you choose to follow
that policy, then you have to call it canon!
> >>Now, I could easily claim that it falls into the canon now that
> >>Lucasfilm has been kind enough to outline the various levels of canon.
> >>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-canon
> >>
> >>Looks like Lucasfilm has completely shot your bullshit claims about
> >>canon out of the water.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, Lucasfilm did not write that page (did they? Can you
> > proof it?).
>
> So what now, are you not going to even accept information that came
> directly from Lucasfilm in favour of playing the role of Darkstar's
> fanatic follower?
>
The information came from Lucas BOOKS and Lucas LICENSING and that
policy is in-house -- it's ultimately derived from that Chee quote.
Who wrote that site? Someone who worked directly with Lucasfilm proper
on canon, and who talked Directly
> >And It was Lucas BOOKS and Lucas LICENSING that wrote the
> > Chee quote this comes from.
>
> So what? That makes no difference whatsoever since those are
> subsidiaries of Lucasfilm.
>
And the policy is in-house. In fact, one quote told us where the
Holocron database is used -- almost entirely within the confines of
those two divisions. In another quote they referred to something called
the "Canon" which was said to be "in-house"!
> > But it was still used for inspiration. By your logic, it must be
> > acceptable as authoritative definitive fact.
>
> Bullshit. Please stop building strawmen.
>
Nononono... your implication was that since it was used for
inspiration, the whole thing must be fact. You said "Coruscant was
named by Timothy Zahn", with the implication that because Lucas used
this that somehow makes the whole EU canon. Therefore, according to
this logic, ANYTHING and EVERYTHING Lucas uses for inspiration becomes
canon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You didn't go and claim "only if it's
LucasFilm-division produced" at first -- you should have posted that
with your argument. But, you've then got to provide some sort of proof
that if Lucas uses EUs for inspiration then that makes them canon. Can
you?
Summed up, this is what I've figured out:
1. Lucas Books and Lucas Licensing have their own in-house canon
policy. According to this, all is canon and unassailable fact except
things specifically exclided. But if two items directly and irrefutably
contradict, then the one that is canon/unassailable fact is the one
that is "higher up" on the list, with the rankings going as, G, C, and
S. The items marked non-canon are in N. G contains the movies,
screenplays, novelizations, and radio plays. C contains the EU, ICS
books, DK library, games, comics, etc. S contains certain games and a
few N items that were approved. N is everything else.
2. George Lucas & LucasFilm Ltd Proper (or LFLP for short) have a
different canon policy, that is not affected by the in-house policy of
LB and LL. This policy is that the movies form one universe, and the
EU, etc. form a different universe. This was laid out in the new
Starlog quote explicitly and directly. Logically, anything from one
universe cannot be accepted as definitive unassailable fact in the
other.
As to which canon policy we should use, well, ultimately, if we go by
the 2001 Sansweet/Cerasi quote it's best left to the viewer. I prefer
(2) because Lucas is the company owner & founder, and LFLP is the main
company. But you can choose (1) if you like, for this group. However,
you should at least acknowledge the existence of (2).
<snip "TCHUNK" crap, that has nothing to do with this debate at all and
dragging that red herring in here is not going to work>
PS. I'm still going to argue for my case whether I've got a degree or
not -- you can say I have no business arguing without a degree... but
DEGREES MEAN NOTHING, LOGIC MEANS EVERYTHING, and thus I will continue
to do this thing I supposedly have "no business" doing! Quite frankly,
I don't give a rat's ass if I have no business doing it, because I know
that logic is right and unless you can OBJECTIVELY DEFEAT my argument
(ie. by once and for all proving that when Lucas says "different world"
and "two universes" he's meaning something else.). It's the opposite of
the appeal to authority, claiming that because someone doesn't have a
degree makes their argument wrong, and is just as fallacious.
Graeme Dice
He also told us that our group was idiotic.