ASVS and Canon . . . The TMs
Guardian 2000
of another thread (the "[SPEC] [TECH] . . ." thread., thanks to my former
news server's peculiarities of behavior. I wanted to open it up for further
discussion/viewing.
>2)It is something of a strawman to say that TMs are no longer considered
>in this newsgroup. It isn't like we DON'T like the TM, it is that
>*Paramount* says it is invalid, and the current policy of the group is
>that whatever Paramount and Lucas say are our acceptance policy. Most of
>the arguments, in say, Poe's page reference the TM heavily, because
>they're made before we realized they're invalid. I believe most of us
>*like* the TM - it is a handy, one-stop shopping source, but Paramount
>says no, and that is that.
Paramount says no such thing. According to a brief search of what has
previously been posted in this newsgroup, Paramount says the following:
"As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action
episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines,
characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional
novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon.
There are a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned novels
"Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature
background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters. (Note: There
are a few details from an episode of the Animated Adventures that have
entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C.
Fontana, features some biographical background on Spock.)"
Paramount's Official Policy, from their website
At no point does this make any reference to the Technical Manuals. The
illustrious Chuck and others chose to view things this way:
"Finally, as shown in my previous post, Paramount has a very specific list
of
what is and is not canon, right down to the last book and episode in some
cases. It does not list the TM, therefore to Paramount, the owners and
maintainers of Star Trek, it isn't."
(quoted from thread "canon", dated August 29, 2000 . . . crossposted to
alt.startrek.vs.babylon5)
However, this is illogical, and the reason is in Chuck's very message . . .
"Paramount has a *very specific* list of what *is* and *is not* canon . . .
It does not list the TM . . ."
This does not mean that Paramount has said the TM *is not* canon. It also
does not mean that Paramount has said the TM *is* canon. It simply means
that Paramount did not list the TM in that statement of canonicity.
Some will undoubtedly balk that I have the audacity to say this, but the
fact
remains that until Paramount makes a comment on the TM specifically, it has
not said they aren't canon . . . that means Paramount has made no comment on
the TM specifically. To say that a lack of answer means "no" is not
logical.
Some have tried to buttress the above Paramount quote with one by John
Ordover:
"[The Technical Manual is correct] only to the extent that they accurately
reflect what has been seen on-screen. All else is speculation. I'm not
sure why this is such a hard concept to get across." -John Ordover
However, he is of Pocket Books, not Paramount. And he is only the editor
of
the novels of Pocket Books (he didn't even get a "thank you" in the ST:TNG
TM, and was not the editor of the DS9 TM). If it is to be Paramount that
dictates policy in this newsgroup, Ordover's statements must be considered
irrelevant, unless it can be shown that what he says was directly stated to
him by official Paramount officials.
The one reference in official Paramountdom I can find in regards to the
Technical Manuals comes from the following:
"Pocket Books have published several excellent reference guides, but due to
the overwhelming nature of the Star Trek oeuvre, it's nearly impossible to
create technical reference for every ship seen on the show. However, they
have gone a long way to help those of you who are technically minded by
publishing the following books: "Star Trek: The Next Generation - U.S.S.
Enterprise NCC-1701-D Blueprints" (Rick Sternbach), "Star Trek: Deep Space
Nine Technical Manual" (Herman Zimmerman, Rick Sternbach and Doug Drexler)
and the "Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual" (Rick Sternbach
and
Michael Okuda).
There have been earlier versions of technical manuals, including "Mr.
Scott's
Guide to the Enterprise" (Shane Johnson) and the "Star Trek Starfleet
Technical Manual" (Franz Joseph), but these books, although fun to read,
were
not written by production personnel and are not considered 'canon.'"
(from http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1374)
Does it say that the Technical Manuals are canon? Not directly. However,
it
says that because the earlier versions of technical manuals were written by
those not within the production staff, they (i.e. the earlier technical
manuals by Johnson and Joseph) are not considered canon.
Now, in continuing my research into previous posts in this newsgroup, I just
discovered that this very argument had been brought up before. However, it
was ignored, in part on the following weak logic:
"Just because one statement is true doesn't make its converse true. For
example, the statement:
"Insert_Name_Here will only make it to the airport on time if he
speeds." does not imply that if Insert_Name_Here speeds he will make it
on time. If he doesn't speed, he won't make it, but speeding itself
does not guarantee that he will make it on time."
(Posted by Graeme Dice in thread "[TM] AHHHHHHHH . . . ", Halloween 2000)
That, however, is a straw man, for it is not the logic of the argument.
Here are the main things referred to:
( _T_echnical Manuals)
( _E_arlier versions of technical manuals)
( _P_roduction personnel)
( _C_anon)
E equals not-P
T equals P
The argument runs like this:
(E equals not-P)
If not-P then not-C (This is the statement of the site)
not-P (i.e. Earlier tech manuals)
Therefore not-C (i.e. not Canon)
(The above come from the statement of www.startrek.com)
(T equals P)
If not-P then not-C (given above)
P (i.e. the Okuda-Sternbach manuals)
Therefore not-not-C (i.e. They are not not-Canon)
This, when stated in a more standardized form, is a basic rule of logic.
Now, there is, in logic, the idea of double-negation . . . if you have
not-not-X, you can simplify it to X. However, I am not going to go so far
as to claim that, as a result of the fact that the Technical Manuals are not
not-Canon, that they are canon. I do this because there may be other rules
governing canonicity which the Technical Manuals fail under, though I am not
aware of any at this time.
**********
It would, however, be accurate to state that ASVS has created, out of thin
air, it's own rule about Star Trek canon.
**********
Now, if anyone has any further quotations I should be aware of by authorized
Paramount officials or groups which state that the Technical Manuals are
bunk, then please feel free to post them in replies. Though my newsreading
difficulties have been mentioned elsewhere, I'll see them eventually, if
even
via the quotes of others.
###############
And, a reply to a reply:
snip
>
>I can see that the TM is *not* in that list of what they call canon.
>Humans default to, "If there is no permission, then so far, it means
>no."
>
That rather depends on the human, wouldn't you say?
(snip)
>> Some will undoubtedly balk that I have the audacity to say this, but the
fact
>> remains that until Paramount makes a comment on the TM specifically, it
has
>> not said they aren't canon . . . that means Paramount has made no comment
on
>> the TM specifically. To say that a lack of answer means "no" is not
>> logical.
>
>I can say equally correctly that until Paramount makes a comment on the
>TM specifically, it has not said they ARE canon, OR official, or
>anything at all. And because the TM goes against canon too many times,
>they aren't very reliable. I don't think anyoen would say that the TM
>overrides canon, would they. To say the lack of answer means "yes" or
>anything is not logical or even within normal human patterns.
Same for "no", which is what you just said happens.
As for their status, we know they fulfill the canonicity rule of having been
written by the production staff (much as the Jeri Taylor novels do). We
know they claim internally to be "official".
However, if it is true that Paramount has only canon and crap (where's the
quote for this, BTW?) then the TM, it seems, would fit the bill for what is
canon.
>If I'm your superior, and you ask me for permission to do something and
>I don't respond, it does not necessarily mean I've turned down your
>request. But I had not approved it either. And if you did it before my
>approval letter came down, technically you're insubordinate.
That's not a good analogy, though. Neither Paramount nor LucasFilm are my
superior, nor is there punishment for not following their edicts. Now, if
a fellow rational being said that they'd not decided whether or not I ought
to use a certain resource that relates to them, I would prepare
contingencies . . . one with, one without, until such time as my fellow
rational being said which they liked. (So, if [SPEC] is inappropriate, we
should figure out some other terminology).
><snip>
<snip>
>> The one reference in official Paramountdom I can find in regards to the
>> Technical Manuals comes from the following:
>>
>> "Pocket Books have published several excellent reference guides, but due
to
>> the overwhelming nature of the Star Trek oeuvre, it's nearly impossible
to
>> create technical reference for every ship seen on the show. However, they
>> have gone a long way to help those of you who are technically minded by
>> publishing the following books: "Star Trek: The Next Generation - U.S.S.
>> Enterprise NCC-1701-D Blueprints" (Rick Sternbach), "Star Trek: Deep
Space
>> Nine Technical Manual" (Herman Zimmerman, Rick Sternbach and Doug
Drexler)
>> and the "Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual" (Rick Sternbach
and
>> Michael Okuda).
>
>Personally, I'll focus on the word *reference*. They've graded it and
>decided: they're meant for interest. If they wanted them to be official
>or canon events, they'll have said so. Saxton's work could be considered
>a "reference" too, in that it is for some SW fan's interest, and in fact
>sticks a lot closer than the TMs. It hardly means they're canon or
>official in any way - a real pity, Saxton would have been a great person
>to write a Sourcebook or Manual for Wars.
Agreed, but so far as I can tell most of those who try to work from canon
primary sources (myself included) are prone to error and having their
figures quite properly disagreed with. The above is thus a somewhat
dangerous notion.
<snip>
><snip a bunch of meaningless, convoluted logic statements, put it in
>English and come back>
>
I just wanted to make sure everyone got the reasoning behind it. Not like
the logic helped any. :-)
<snip>
Dalton
> I just wanted to make sure everyone got the reasoning behind it. Not like
> the logic helped any. :-)
I thought Mr. Ordover made all this VERY clear.
--
Rob Dalton | http://daltonator.net
"Remember, you can't polish a turd." ---Wayne Poe
Guardian 2000
Dalton wrote in message <3ABFE3EC...@nospam.daltonator.net>...
>[snip]
>
>> I just wanted to make sure everyone got the reasoning behind it. Not
like
>> the logic helped any. :-)
>
>I thought Mr. Ordover made all this VERY clear.
>
Like I showed in the message, Ordover is the *novels* editor for Pocket
Books. He is not a Paramount official in any way, nor did he even have
anything to do with the Technical Manuals. He has, so far as I can tell,
simply stated his own opinion. (And, I'd love to see his original quote, so
that whatever was behind the brackets can be seen.)
G2k
Transcend
It is part of his *job* to know what is and is not canon. Therefore he is a
good authority on the subject.
--
Natural selection won't matter soon, not anywhere as much as concious
selection. We will civilize and alter ourselves to suit our ideas of what
we can be. Within one more human lifespan, we will have changed ourselves
unrecognizably. -- Greg Bear
Chuck
"Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:99ooi8$257l3$1...@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de...
their entirety specifically to avoid any accusations of unfair
interpretations.
--
Chuck
"Are you willing to die for stupidity? You see, I am, if it'll teach you
something." -187
Guardian 2000
Transcend wrote in message <99oopj$26tvf$1...@ID-75240.news.dfncis.de>...
Guardian 2000 wrote:
>
> Dalton wrote in message <3ABFE3EC...@nospam.daltonator.net>...
> >[snip]
> >
> >> I just wanted to make sure everyone got the reasoning behind it. Not
> like
> >> the logic helped any. :-)
> >
> >I thought Mr. Ordover made all this VERY clear.
> >
>>
>>
>> Like I showed in the message, Ordover is the *novels* editor for Pocket
>> Books. He is not a Paramount official in any way, nor did he even have
>> anything to do with the Technical Manuals. He has, so far as I can
>> tell,
>> simply stated his own opinion. (And, I'd love to see his original quote,
>> so that whatever was behind the brackets can be seen.)
>It is part of his *job* to know what is and is not canon. Therefore he is a
>good authority on the subject.
Actually, his job is to know what he can and cannot do with his novels.
Knowing what Paramount considers canon outside of the television shows would
be outside the scope of his job. (However, I do recall the novel "Vendetta"
leaning heavily on the TMs, whatever that implies about the variability of
Ordover's personal opinion on the topic of canonicity.)
Robert A. Healey
<snip enough BS to keep several ranches supplied for many years>
<flame>
Dear:
Clueless [ ]Jerk [ ] Idiot [ ] Asshole
Complete [ ] Moron [ ] Loser
Waste of [X] My time [ ] bandwith [ ] humanity
[X] Troll
[ ] TOWNMNBS's offspring
[ ] Elim clone
[ ] PHJ, Jr wannabe
[ ] Nameless Dancing Borg
[ ] Other:
You are recieving this because you are a fanatical (check one) [X]
trekkie [ ] warsie [ ] b5er [ ] other( ),
who thinks that [ ] Star Trek and or [ ] Star Wars does not stand a
chance against above Sci-Fi universe. To back this up, you have made a
post involving:
[ ] Turbolasers are lasers
[ ] the outrageous okona
[ ] Q
[ ] Other omnipotent, godlike beings
[ ] Wesley Crusher
[ ] Holograms
[ ] BDZ
[ ] The Asteroid Calcs
[ ] X-wings at Hoth
[X] Other:
Paramount's canon policy
[X] It's in the R&R
If you had:
[X] read the Rules and Regs
[X] read the FAQ
[X] lurked for:
[ ] 3 months
[ ] 6 months
[ ] 1 year
[ ] your entire life
[X] any period of time
[ ] watched the [ ] series and or [ ] movies
[X] a clue
[ ] other:
you would have seen that this was something that this NG had covered
many, many times in the past. As a result, you have drawn the wrath of
the entire group. To repent:
READ THE F***ING R&R (http://asvs.org)
READ THE F***ING FAQ (http://www.sfdebris.com/FAQ)
[ ] lurk for the next:
[ ] week
[ ] month
[ ] year
[ ] natural lifespan
[ ] other
[X] apologize
[X] get a clue
[ ] learn the art of compromise
[ ] realize there is more to life than
[ ] ST
[ ] SW
[ ] B5
[ ] Other
[ ] Other
So in conclusion, we would just like to say:
[ ] Get lost
[ ] and never come back
[ ] FOAD (look it up)
[ ] Serve as a wrestling mat for the lump club
[ ] Volunteer for Hit-Man's experiments
[ ] find a brain
[X] be original next time
Thank you, and have a shitty day
P.S. Complaining, Folding, Mutilating or Spindling this form will result
in further flaming.
</FLAME>
Graeme Dice
Mr. Ordover is the managing editor for trek publications. I think he is
quite capable of telling us what the canon policy of Trek is. You are
essentially saying that the secratary of defense doesn't know what
American foreign policy is.
Graeme Dice
--
640K ought to be enough for anybody.
-- Bill Gates in 1981
Guardian 2000
Chuck wrote in message <99or8p$228np$1...@ID-64862.news.dfncis.de>...
<snip>
>> Like I showed in the message, Ordover is the *novels* editor for Pocket
>> Books. He is not a Paramount official in any way, nor did he even have
>> anything to do with the Technical Manuals. He has, so far as I can
>tell,
>> simply stated his own opinion. (And, I'd love to see his original quote,
>so
>> that whatever was behind the brackets can be seen.)
>>
>You can read it in the FAQ. All the original sources are reproduced in
>their entirety specifically to avoid any accusations of unfair
>interpretations.
Ah, thank you for pointing that out.
However, it does not alter the facts. A novel editor's interpretation of
Paramount's views of canon must not override Paramount's own stated rules of
canon . . . otherwise, we might as well also accept Ordover's dictum that,
since Lucas plans to ignore certain parts of Boba Fett's backstory, the SW
novels are in the same boat as the ST novel, whether he was right or wrong.
And so, what are Paramount's rules?
Answer: they have no specific rules.
They do have a "rule of thumb"
http://startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1321), but this does not
consitute a firm rule.
*******
rule of thumb [from the method of measuring by the thumb] 1. a rule
based on experience or practice rather than on scientific knowledge 2.
any method of estimating that is practical though not precise
(Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language)
*******
This lack of a firm rule, coupled with the fact (as proven in the original
post of this thread) that the Sternback-Okuda Technical Manuals are *not*
not-Canon, coupled once more with the statement by some (for which I still
have not received a specific source from those who make the claim, unless it
is derived from the above StarTrek.com quote) that Paramount has stated that
all is either canon or not-canon . . . you see where I'm going? You guessed
it. The double-negation holds.
1. Canon or not-Canon
2. not not-Canon
3. Therefore Canon (by both double negation and
disjunctive syllogism)
Therefore, the Technical Manuals are Canon, as per Paramount's statements.
I shall brazenly suggest an immediate revision to the rules to reflect the
facts of the matter.
Guardian 2000
Alves
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
> <snip enough BS to keep several ranches supplied for many years>
I am sorry, but I just don't see any trekkie bitching at him. Just be
educate with him that he will do just like us (trekkies) in a short time,
he will give up.
Guardian 2000
Graeme Dice wrote in message <3ABFFE2C...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
[snip]
>
>Mr. Ordover is the managing editor for trek publications. I think he is
>quite capable of telling us what the canon policy of Trek is. You are
>essentially saying that the secratary of defense doesn't know what
>American foreign policy is.
>
>Graeme Dice
No, I'm saying the Secretary of the Interior doesn't know what American
foreign policy is, except perhaps in reference to his own job (i.e. possibly
Canada and Mexico).
That is not to say that I'm supporting your analogy, for it doesn't actually
work. A better one would have the United States as Paramount and John
Ordover as a chief design overseer at Grumman or McDonnell-Douglas (aircraft
manufacturers, which I used because they actually exchange funds with the
government, much like Paramount and Pocket Books).
Or, hell, maybe even better . . . . The United States is Paramount, and
Ordover is Tom Clancy (writer of "Hunt for Red October" and "Patriot Games",
among others).
Graeme Dice
>
> Robert A. Healey wrote in message <3ABFFEA0...@rpi.edu>...
> >Guardian 2000 wrote:
> ><snip enough BS to keep several ranches supplied for many years>
>
> necessary to embarrass yourself by the following falsehoods:
>
> >[X] Other:
> >Paramount's canon policy
> > [X] It's in the R&R
>
Nope. You didn't show they were in error. You showed that they weren't
included in a list of canon materials. Since they aren't canon they are
absolutely and _utterly_ useless to use in determining new information.
Graeme Dice
--
Men were real men. Women were real women. And small, furry
creatures from Alpha Centauri were *real* small, furry
creatures from Alpha Centauri.
-- "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
Guardian 2000
><snip enough BS to keep several ranches supplied for many years>
Perhaps if you had read it and understood, you would not have found it
necessary to embarrass yourself by the following falsehoods:
>[X] Other:
>Paramount's canon policy
> [X] It's in the R&R
Which, as shown, is in error.
>
>If you had:
>[X] read the Rules and Regs
>[X] read the FAQ
Both in error, thanks.
>[X] lurked for:
> [ ] 3 months
> [ ] 6 months
> [ ] 1 year
> [ ] your entire life
> [X] any period of time
Been there, done that.
>[X] apologize
Feel free to do so, and I will accept.
>[X] get a clue
That's your role. I suggest you fill it.
Graeme Dice
>
> Chuck wrote in message <99or8p$228np$1...@ID-64862.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Like I showed in the message, Ordover is the *novels* editor for Pocket
> >> Books. He is not a Paramount official in any way, nor did he even have
> >> anything to do with the Technical Manuals. He has, so far as I can
> >tell,
> >> simply stated his own opinion. (And, I'd love to see his original quote,
> >so
> >> that whatever was behind the brackets can be seen.)
> >>
> >You can read it in the FAQ. All the original sources are reproduced in
> >their entirety specifically to avoid any accusations of unfair
> >interpretations.
>
> Ah, thank you for pointing that out.
<snip>
> And so, what are Paramount's rules?
>
> Answer: they have no specific rules.
Wrong. Mr. Ordover has told us very plainly what their rules are.
>
>
> They do have a "rule of thumb"
> http://startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1321), but this does not
> consitute a firm rule.
>
> This lack of a firm rule, coupled with the fact (as proven in the original
> post of this thread)
No, you said Paramount has a list of what is canon. The technical
manuals are not included in that list, so they are not canon.
> that the Sternback-Okuda Technical Manuals are *not*
> not-Canon, coupled once more with the statement by some (for which I still
> have not received a specific source from those who make the claim, unless it
> is derived from the above StarTrek.com quote) that Paramount has stated that
> all is either canon or not-canon . . . you see where I'm going? You guessed
> it. The double-negation holds.
I guess you haven't read the FAQ then. It's available at
www.sfdebris.com.
> 1. Canon or not-Canon
> 2. not not-Canon
> 3. Therefore Canon (by both double negation and
> disjunctive syllogism)
>
> Therefore, the Technical Manuals are Canon, as per Paramount's statements.
An argument based on a fallacy. There is only canon and not canon to
Paramount. Any source which is not canon is useless in determining
anything.
> I shall brazenly suggest an immediate revision to the rules to reflect the
> facts of the matter.
Graeme Dice
--
Aerodynamics are for people that cannot build engines.
-- Enzo Ferrari
Durandal
Seeing as how _I'm_ the one who talked to him (Kynes as well), I ASKED him
QUITE explicity what his statements were regarding. The exchange went something
like this:
ME: What is canon?
HIM: Anything seen on-screen. All else is speculation.
ME: Is this your own, personal policy for novels, or is this Paramount's?
HIM: Paramount's.
The full exchange can be found in the R&R.
--
Damien Sorresso
"The wall is painted green, therefore F does not equal M A. That's about the
train of logical
thought in a woman."
-My Esteemed Father.
"Last night, Darth Vader came down from the planet Vulcan and said that if I
didn't take Lorain
out to the dance, he'd melt my brain."
-George McFly in Back to the Future
Strowbridge
> > I just wanted to make sure everyone got the reasoning behind it. Not like
> > the logic helped any. :-)
>
> I thought Mr. Ordover made all this VERY clear.
As clear as can be, that why the Pro-ST side likes to confuse the
issues.
C.S.Strowbridge
Graeme Dice
>
> > "[The Technical Manual is correct] only to the extent that they accurately
> > reflect what has been seen on-screen. All else is speculation. I'm not
> > sure why this is such a hard concept to get across." -John Ordover
>
> person related to paramount you ask.
May I assume that you have asked others?
> And this is also the quote you should be working with.
>
> If you want to prove the TMs are canon you should be showing there is a good
> chance of anything from the TM "acccurately reflecting what has ben seen
> onscreen"
Yep.
> If you can show that then everyone else has no option but to accept what you
> are saying, because the quote they are using to support their position would
> directly support yours.
>
> To start proving this the person you need to ask is John Ordover's
> colleague in charge of editing the TMs, encyclopaedia and other
> non-fictional books. You can find out who they are from the Pocket Books
> website. If the editor of the TM says it is largely canon material that
> would overule Ordover's statment.
Thanks Lord Edam.
Graeme Dice
--
"The Earth is the cradle of Humanity. But one doesn't always live
in the cradle." — Konstantin Tsiokolvsky.
Lord Edam de Fromage
news:99ons4$2441v$1...@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de...
> "[The Technical Manual is correct] only to the extent that they accurately
> reflect what has been seen on-screen. All else is speculation. I'm not
> sure why this is such a hard concept to get across." -John Ordover
This isn't just a quote from John Ordover - this is the quote from any
person related to paramount you ask.
And this is also the quote you should be working with.
If you want to prove the TMs are canon you should be showing there is a good
chance of anything from the TM "acccurately reflecting what has ben seen
onscreen"
If you can show that then everyone else has no option but to accept what you
Lord Edam de Fromage
news:3AC046A9...@sk.sympatico.ca...
> > > "[The Technical Manual is correct] only to the extent that they
accurately
> > > reflect what has been seen on-screen. All else is speculation. I'm
not
> > > sure why this is such a hard concept to get across." -John Ordover
> >
> > This isn't just a quote from John Ordover - this is the quote from any
> > person related to paramount you ask.
>
> May I assume that you have asked others?
No, you may assume I have done more than the simplistic "he's an editor I'll
ask him" or "he doesn't work for paramount so he doesn't count" everyone
else seems to be doing.
Guardian is right - john ordover is (was) in charge of the novels. Whilst he
knows what is canon, he does not know the extent to which the encyclopaedia
or TMs stick to canon, so can't say if they are accceptable or not. That is
something controlled by another person.
Guardian 2000
Durandal wrote:
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
>
> > Transcend wrote in message <99oopj$26tvf$1...@ID-75240.news.dfncis.de>...
> > Guardian 2000 wrote:
> >
> > Actually, his job is to know what he can and cannot do with his novels.
> > Knowing what Paramount considers canon outside of the television shows would
> > be outside the scope of his job. (However, I do recall the novel "Vendetta"
> > leaning heavily on the TMs, whatever that implies about the variability of
> > Ordover's personal opinion on the topic of canonicity.)
>
> Seeing as how _I'm_ the one who talked to him (Kynes as well), I ASKED him
> QUITE explicity what his statements were regarding. The exchange went something
> like this:
> ME: What is canon?
> HIM: Anything seen on-screen. All else is speculation.
> ME: Is this your own, personal policy for novels, or is this Paramount's?
> HIM: Paramount's.
>
> The full exchange can be found in the R&R.
>
So, the opinion of the novels editor at Pocket Books about Paramount's official
canon policy overrides Paramount's own statements of their canon policy??
>
>
Distribution: world
Followup-To:
Keywords:
In article <3AC00B84...@mac.com>
Guardian 2000
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> Guardian 2000 <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:99ons4$2441v$1...@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > "[The Technical Manual is correct] only to the extent that they accurately
> > reflect what has been seen on-screen. All else is speculation. I'm not
> > sure why this is such a hard concept to get across." -John Ordover
>
> This isn't just a quote from John Ordover - this is the quote from any
> person related to paramount you ask.
. . . but it is not their official statement as seen on the startrek.com website, and
Paramount's official statements must take precedence.
> And this is also the quote you should be working with.
>
I respect you greatly, but I must disagree. Ordover's opinion MUST BE secondary to
Paramount's officially stated official statements, or else this newsgroup will be in a
state of chaos (even moreso than it already is, thanks to the erroneous rule set).
> If you want to prove the TMs are canon you should be showing there is a good
> chance of anything from the TM "acccurately reflecting what has ben seen
> onscreen"
>
Unnecessary. I have already shown the proof by Paramount's own statements.
It is simple, basic logic . . . and all I've really received against it are more verbose
editions of the phrase "Unh-Unh!!!"
> If you can show that then everyone else has no option but to accept what you
> are saying, because the quote they are using to support their position would
> directly support yours.
The quotes they are using already support my position, and always have. They
were simply misinterpreted.
This is not a case of funky spin-doctoring. It is a case of correctly reassigning
the importance of Ordover's statements by demonstrating the fact that Paramount
overrules Ordover (obviously), and demonstrating the fact that Paramount has stated that
the TMs fall within the sphere of canon.
Can anyone show where I have failed on any one of these?
> To start proving this the person you need to ask is John Ordover's
> colleague in charge of editing the TMs, encyclopaedia and other
> non-fictional books. You can find out who they are from the Pocket Books
> website. If the editor of the TM says it is largely canon material that
> would overule Ordover's statment.
>
While that would be a nice piece of secondary evidence, it is unnecessary.
>
>
>
>
Distribution: world
Followup-To:
Keywords:
In article <99pgn9$27n8r$1...@ID-41346.news.dfncis.de>
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
Guardian 2000
Graeme Dice wrote:
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
> >
> > Chuck wrote in message <99or8p$228np$1...@ID-64862.news.dfncis.de>...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >> Like I showed in the message, Ordover is the *novels* editor for Pocket
> > >> Books. He is not a Paramount official in any way, nor did he even have
> > >> anything to do with the Technical Manuals. He has, so far as I can
> > >tell,
> > >> simply stated his own opinion. (And, I'd love to see his original quote,
> > >so
> > >> that whatever was behind the brackets can be seen.)
> > >>
> > >You can read it in the FAQ. All the original sources are reproduced in
> > >their entirety specifically to avoid any accusations of unfair
> > >interpretations.
> >
> > Ah, thank you for pointing that out.
>
> <snip>
>
> > And so, what are Paramount's rules?
> >
> > Answer: they have no specific rules.
>
> Wrong. Mr. Ordover has told us very plainly what their rules are.
You are in error, my good sir, and clinging to Ordover to maintain your
personal belief. Ordover is overruled by Paramount.
Paramount has told us what their rules are or are not.
Ordover does not make the rules for Paramount. Paramount's official
statements *MUST* overrule Ordover, or else this newsgroup is finished . .
if you accept Ordover over Paramount, you might as well argue that West End Games
overrides the TESB Special Edition, and that "Dark Force Rising" overrules the Ep IV movie.
Your side's argument runs contrary to clearly demonstrated logic, runs contrary to the
very method of newsgroup decisionmaking previously established, and is in error.
>
> >
> >
> > They do have a "rule of thumb"
> > http://startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1321), but this does not
> > consitute a firm rule.
> >
> > This lack of a firm rule, coupled with the fact (as proven in the original
> > post of this thread)
>
> No, you said Paramount has a list of what is canon. The technical
> manuals are not included in that list, so they are not canon.
>
False, as shown previously. You're leaping to a conclusion, but it is an illogical
conclusion. Re-read my first post in this thread to see why your conclusion
does not follow from the fact that the TM is not mentioned in your "list".
> > that the Sternback-Okuda Technical Manuals are *not*
> > not-Canon, coupled once more with the statement by some (for which I still
> > have not received a specific source from those who make the claim, unless it
> > is derived from the above StarTrek.com quote) that Paramount has stated that
> > all is either canon or not-canon . . . you see where I'm going? You guessed
> > it. The double-negation holds.
>
> I guess you haven't read the FAQ then. It's available at
> www.sfdebris.com.
I read it. It's based on faulty reasoning. I have shown you how. It's wrong.
> > 1. Canon or not-Canon
> > 2. not not-Canon
> > 3. Therefore Canon (by both double negation and
> > disjunctive syllogism)
> >
> > Therefore, the Technical Manuals are Canon, as per Paramount's statements.
>
> An argument based on a fallacy. There is only canon and not canon to
> Paramount. Any source which is not canon is useless in determining
> anything.
What fallacy? If there is only Canon and not-Canon, and I have shown that
<1> a source falls within the officially stated bounds of canonicity, as per their statements
in reference to said source and
<2> This source has already been proven not not-Canon
. . . then what the hell is your dispute? I do not understand where you are coming from.
So far as I can tell, and correct me if I am wrong, you are leaping from Point A to Point B,
but you can't get there from here.
>
> > I shall brazenly suggest an immediate revision to the rules to reflect the
> > facts of the matter.
>
> Graeme Dice
> --
> Aerodynamics are for people that cannot build engines.
> -- Enzo Ferrari
Distribution: world
Followup-To:
Keywords:
In article <3AC00406...@sk.sympatico.ca>
Cyborg Stan of CyKoLaJx, Inc.
wrote:
>Forgive me for reposting this, but it ended up relegated to the doldrums
>of another thread (the "[SPEC] [TECH] . . ." thread., thanks to my former
>news server's peculiarities of behavior. I wanted to open it up for further
>discussion/viewing.
<snip>
Quoting from : http://www.lcarscom.net/rdmjanuary.htm
***
Q: What type of books are considered canon? The ones written by
Production staff?
A: Actually, NONE of the books are considered canon. We consider only
the filmed episodes (and movies) to be canon for our purposes. We do
use things like the Encylopedia, the Chronology, the Technical Manual
etc. for reference, but unless it was explicitly mentioned on screen,
we won't feel bound by anything stated even in those books.
***
This is in an interview with Ron Moore.
Cyborg Stan, Aimless Wanderer and Part-Time Galatic Hero
Outlyer Base : http://www.ipass.net/~bdiller/
email : bdi...@ipass.net, jwdi...@unity.ncsu.edu
ICQ : 32779556
Alves
bdiller@.BLARGNESS!.ipass.net says...
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 18:51:38 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Forgive me for reposting this, but it ended up relegated to the doldrums
> >of another thread (the "[SPEC] [TECH] . . ." thread., thanks to my former
> >news server's peculiarities of behavior. I wanted to open it up for further
> >discussion/viewing.
>
> <snip>
>
> Quoting from : http://www.lcarscom.net/rdmjanuary.htm
>
> ***
>
> Q: What type of books are considered canon? The ones written by
> Production staff?
>
> A: Actually, NONE of the books are considered canon.
Stuff from two books are considered canon, and one TAS episode too.
Direct from Paramount FAQ.
> We consider only
> the filmed episodes (and movies) to be canon for our purposes. We do
> use things like the Encylopedia, the Chronology, the Technical Manual
> etc. for reference,
This is good... and even obvious, when we think who wrote it.
> but unless it was explicitly mentioned on screen,
> we won't feel bound by anything stated even in those books.
And this is the funny part, not even episodes bound them, as we know. ;)
Graeme Dice
<snip>
> > Guardian 2000 wrote:
> > > Answer: they have no specific rules.
> >
> > Wrong. Mr. Ordover has told us very plainly what their rules are.
>
> You are in error, my good sir, and clinging to Ordover to maintain your
> personal belief. Ordover is overruled by Paramount.
> Paramount has told us what their rules are or are not.
>
No, they haven't. They have a "rule of thumb". Mr. Ordover has told us
the real rule.
> Ordover does not make the rules for Paramount.
That's right, he can just tell us what they are.
> Paramount's official
> statements *MUST* overrule Ordover, or else this newsgroup is finished . .
Paramount has not made any statements.
> > No, you said Paramount has a list of what is canon. The technical
> > manuals are not included in that list, so they are not canon.
> >
>
> False, as shown previously. You're leaping to a conclusion, but it is an illogical
> conclusion. Re-read my first post in this thread to see why your conclusion
> does not follow from the fact that the TM is not mentioned in your "list".
If there is only canon and not-canon, then anything that is included in
a list of canon is not-canon.
<snip>
> > An argument based on a fallacy. There is only canon and not canon to
> > Paramount. Any source which is not canon is useless in determining
> > anything.
>
> What fallacy? If there is only Canon and not-Canon, and I have shown that
> <1> a source falls within the officially stated bounds of canonicity, as per their statements
> in reference to said source and
> <2> This source has already been proven not not-Canon
> . . . then what the hell is your dispute? I do not understand where you are coming from.
>
> So far as I can tell, and correct me if I am wrong, you are leaping from Point A to Point B,
> but you can't get there from here.
Show me where Paramount has said that the technical manuals are canon.
Learn not to quote a person twice.
Graeme Dice
--
Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of
combating the forces of evil...prayer, fasting, good
works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to
have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat
leaden death, demon...
-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Graeme Dice
>
> In article <99pgn9$27n8r$1...@ID-41346.news.dfncis.de>
> Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
>
> > Guardian 2000 <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:99ons4$2441v$1...@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > > "[The Technical Manual is correct] only to the extent that they accurately
> > > reflect what has been seen on-screen. All else is speculation. I'm not
> > > sure why this is such a hard concept to get across." -John Ordover
> >
> > This isn't just a quote from John Ordover - this is the quote from any
> > person related to paramount you ask.
>
> . . . but it is not their official statement as seen on the startrek.com website, and
> Paramount's official statements must take precedence.
These are Paramount's official statements:
"As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action
episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines,
characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional
novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not
canon.
There are a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned
novels
"Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature
background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters. (Note:
There are a few details from an episode of the Animated Adventures that
have entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode "Yesteryear," written
by D.C. Fontana, features some biographical background on Spock.)
Pocket Books have published several excellent reference guides, but due
to the overwhelming nature of the Star Trek oeuvre, it's nearly
impossible
to create technical reference for every ship seen on the show. However,
they have gone a long way to help those of you who are technically
minded by publishing the following books: "Star Trek: The Next
Generation
- U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-D Blueprints" (Rick Sternbach), "Star Trek:
Deep Space Nine Technical Manual" (Herman Zimmerman, Rick
Sternbach and Doug Drexler) and the "Star Trek: The Next Generation
Technical Manual" (Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda).
There have been earlier versions of technical manuals, including "Mr.
Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" (Shane Johnson) and the "Star Trek
Starfleet Technical Manual" (Franz Joseph), but these books, although
fun
to read, were not written by production personnel and are not considered
'canon.'
For the computer minded, Simon & Schuster Interactive have provided
some fun CD-ROMs over the years, namely the "Star Trek Encyclopedia,"
the "Star Trek: The Next Generation Interactive Technical Manual" and
the
"Star Trek Captain's Chair." If you are interested in "building" your
own
starship, try a peek at "Star Trek Starship Creator." "
John Ordover is the editor in charge of pocket books. I think he is
quite capable of determining whether they are useful or not.
Graeme Dice
--
"It's like comparing a cool theme park to a padded white cell."
---PREDATOR, commenting on Star Wars and Star Trek
Strowbridge
> >Forgive me for reposting this, but it ended up relegated to the doldrums
> >of another thread (the "[SPEC] [TECH] . . ." thread., thanks to my former
> >news server's peculiarities of behavior. I wanted to open it up for
> >further discussion/viewing.
>
> <snip>
>
> Quoting from : http://www.lcarscom.net/rdmjanuary.htm
>
> ***
>
> Q: What type of books are considered canon? The ones written by
> Production staff?
>
> A: Actually, NONE of the books are considered canon. We consider only
> the filmed episodes (and movies) to be canon for our purposes. We do
> use things like the Encylopedia, the Chronology, the Technical Manual
> etc. for reference, but unless it was explicitly mentioned on screen,
> we won't feel bound by anything stated even in those books.
>
> ***
>
> This is in an interview with Ron Moore.
Gee, another source that agrees with us. With all this evidence you'd
think we're right.
C.S.Strowbridge
Lord Edam de Fromage
news:99qnm0$2eahm$5...@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de...
> > > "[The Technical Manual is correct] only to the extent that they
accurately
> > > reflect what has been seen on-screen. All else is speculation. I'm
not
> > > sure why this is such a hard concept to get across." -John Ordover
> > This isn't just a quote from John Ordover - this is the quote from any
> > person related to paramount you ask.
> . . . but it is not their official statement as seen on the startrek.com
website, and
> Paramount's official statements must take precedence.
It is also the quote as the editor of the technical manuals will tell you if
you ask her, it is also the quote as any one of the people who wrote teh
technical manuals will tell you
> > If you want to prove the TMs are canon you should be showing there is a
good
> > chance of anything from the TM "acccurately reflecting what has ben seen
> > onscreen"
> Unnecessary. I have already shown the proof by Paramount's own
statements.
> It is simple, basic logic . . . and all I've really received against it
are more verbose
> editions of the phrase "Unh-Unh!!!"
No, you have shown the rule of thumb paramount have put on their web site.
As a rule of thumb, birds can fly.
Ostriches are an example of a bird that can't fly.
By your reckoning, penguins must be able to fly as well.
Do the work I have suggested. Choose a paramount person and ask them what
the official paramount policy concerning this is. You'll see the
interpretation of Ordover's statment is correct, but no one has yet bothered
to do the work to prove the TMs are also valid.
Learn how to use your newsreader properly
Guardian 2000
Graeme Dice wrote in message <3AC00453...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
>> Which, as shown, is in error.
>
>Nope. You didn't show they were in error. You showed that they weren't
>included in a list of canon materials. Since they aren't canon they are
>absolutely and _utterly_ useless to use in determining new information.
>
You know, I was about to simply reply by suggesting that you reread my post
. . . however, it is clear by some of the responses that it was not read
(or, if read, not understood) the first time.
So, let me try to be as clear as possible. Follow along, and if I miss
anything, let me know:
We know Paramount's stated policy, as found at
http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1321
If you look at the page, it is an answer to a question of whether novels or
comics fall within the canon. The answer? "As a rule of thumb, the events
that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or
official Star Trek facts."
This suggests that nothing else is canon, according to that "rule of thumb".
But, as with any rule of thumb, there are exceptions:
"There are a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned
novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels
feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters."
Certain details of the Animated Series episode "Yesteryear" are also canon.
The reason there is nothing said about the Technical Manuals is obvious . .
. the question was about novels and comic books, and the TMs are neither.
However, not only do we get a good general "rule of thumb", but the page
does contain a few nice listings of canon things outside episodes or movies,
and provides a wonderful list of non-Canon things:
"Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the
fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are
not canon."
But, we've still heard nothing of the Technical Manuals. However, as
fortune would have it, just a few clicks up the page we find
http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1374 .
This is in answer to a question about getting blueprints and technical
information about the ships of Star Trek. It mentions the blueprints and
Technical Manuals created by production personnel of the show, and goes on
to refer to earlier efforts by Franz Joseph and Shane Johnson, "but these
books, although fun to read, were not written by production personnel and
are not considered 'canon.'"
Hmm . . . so it seems the criteria of 'canon' may have to do with production
personnel. This would seem to fit in with the canonicity of D.C.
Fontana's "Yesteryear" and Jeri Taylor's novels.
What we do know is that they are not uncanon, or not not-Canon.
There is potential contrary evidence that would suggest that they are not
Canon . . . that comes from John Ordover, Star Trek novels editor at Pocket
Books. However, this evidence is weak, not only because it does not come
from Paramount (and is thus, at minimum, second-hand), but also because we
do not know where he got it, and if his interpretation is correct.
Furthermore, he edits the novels, not the Technical Manuals.
Finally, a piece of reasoning:
It has been said, apparently accurately (if taken from the first referenced
site above), that, for Star Trek, there is only canon and not-canon (leaving
aside, for the moment, all of the "official" publications out there).
So, if the TMs are either canon or not-canon, and we know that they are not
not-canon (as well as the fact that they fulfill the requirement of having
been made by the production staff, and thus fall nicely within the same rule
of the exception), then they must be canon.
This is not to say that I'm not willing to compromise, for I know that some
aren't willing to listen (or, alternately, aren't willing to accept the fact
that what is here written is factually accurate). I would be willing to
entertain the notion that the Technical Manuals take the status of
"official", not unlike the official works of the Star Wars side.
However, just so you know, my willingness to compromise is not based on the
weakness of the argument, for none has yet been shown. It is based upon
the fact that, so far as I can tell, I am correct, but the Star Wars side,
firmly entrenched in the upper eschelons of ASVS, would be unwilling to
accept that fact. :-)
G2k
Guardian 2000
>>
>> Robert A. Healey wrote in message <3ABFFEA0...@rpi.edu>...
>> >Guardian 2000 wrote:
>> ><snip enough BS to keep several ranches supplied for many years>
>>
>> Perhaps if you had read it and understood, you would not have found it
>> necessary to embarrass yourself by the following falsehoods:
>>
>> >[X] Other:
>> >Paramount's canon policy
>> > [X] It's in the R&R
>>
>> Which, as shown, is in error.
>
>Nope. You didn't show they were in error. You showed that they weren't
>included in a list of canon materials. Since they aren't canon they are
>absolutely and _utterly_ useless to use in determining new information.
They weren't in the list of what isn't canon, either. Besides, the list of
materials which are canon but exceptions to the "rule of thumb" were
materials which answered the specific question on the site, in reference to
novels and comics.
Finally, I do not understand your leap beyond logic. You say that they
are not Canon. But I've already shown that they are not not-Canon. They
cannot be both. It must be one or the other. Why not show me where
Paramount says I'm wrong?
Guardian 2000
Alves wrote in message ...
Why surrender if no one can show me to be in error? (Or, if they can,
they've not done so.)
Chris Arcand
not-canon came from.
Chris
Guardian 2000
Graeme Dice wrote in message <3AC11CBA...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
>Guardian 2000 wrote:
>>
>> In article <3AC00406...@sk.sympatico.ca>
>> Graeme Dice wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> > Guardian 2000 wrote:
>> > > Answer: they have no specific rules.
>> >
>> > Wrong. Mr. Ordover has told us very plainly what their rules are.
>>
>> You are in error, my good sir, and clinging to Ordover to maintain your
>> personal belief. Ordover is overruled by Paramount.
>> Paramount has told us what their rules are or are not.
>>
>
>No, they haven't. They have a "rule of thumb". Mr. Ordover has told us
>the real rule.
That, sir, is illogical. Paramount has a "rule of thumb", officially.
Mr. Ordover's fanciful creation of a firm rule is just that . . . a fanciful
creation, unless and until it can be shown that he has a document stating
firmly the rules of Paramount, and we get to see it verbatim. Besides
which, how do you know that Ordover did not simply misinterpret Paramount's
statements as you previously did?
>
>> Ordover does not make the rules for Paramount.
>
>That's right, he can just tell us what they are.
Were he qualified to do so . . .
>
>> Paramount's official
>> statements *MUST* overrule Ordover, or else this newsgroup is finished .
.
>
>Paramount has not made any statements.
>
False. They have made it clear that the TMs are not not-Canon, which
contradicts Ordover . . . in any contradiction between Ordover and
Paramount, Paramount must win.
>> > No, you said Paramount has a list of what is canon. The technical
>> > manuals are not included in that list, so they are not canon.
>> >
>>
>> False, as shown previously. You're leaping to a conclusion, but it is an
illogical
>> conclusion. Re-read my first post in this thread to see why your
conclusion
>> does not follow from the fact that the TM is not mentioned in your
"list".
>
>If there is only canon and not-canon, then anything that is included in
>a list of canon is not-canon.
>
What?
><snip>
>
>> > An argument based on a fallacy. There is only canon and not canon to
>> > Paramount. Any source which is not canon is useless in determining
>> > anything.
>>
>> What fallacy? If there is only Canon and not-Canon, and I have shown
that
>> <1> a source falls within the officially stated bounds of canonicity, as
per their statements
>> in reference to said source and
>> <2> This source has already been proven not not-Canon
>> . . . then what the hell is your dispute? I do not understand where
you are coming from.
>>
>> So far as I can tell, and correct me if I am wrong, you are leaping from
Point A to Point B,
>> but you can't get there from here.
>
>Show me where Paramount has said that the technical manuals are canon.
>
http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1321
and
http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1374 .
plus basic logic.
>Learn not to quote a person twice.
That is a peculiarity of the newsreader I was using at work (the Netscape
news reader and Microsoft Outlook are "taken" for official business, and the
third-party application I was using would not send if the other quote was
not present. I assumed, at the time, that it would not show up if I sent
it with the second quotation . . . I shall endeavor to locate yet another
third-party reader).
Graeme Dice
>
> Graeme Dice wrote in message <3AC11CBA...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
> >Guardian 2000 wrote:
<snip>
> >> You are in error, my good sir, and clinging to Ordover to maintain your
> >> personal belief. Ordover is overruled by Paramount.
> >> Paramount has told us what their rules are or are not.
> >>
> >
> >No, they haven't. They have a "rule of thumb". Mr. Ordover has told us
> >the real rule.
>
> That, sir, is illogical. Paramount has a "rule of thumb", officially.
> Mr. Ordover's fanciful creation of a firm rule is just that . . . a fanciful
> creation, unless and until it can be shown that he has a document stating
> firmly the rules of Paramount, and we get to see it verbatim. Besides
> which, how do you know that Ordover did not simply misinterpret Paramount's
> statements as you previously did?
Since you refuse to believe official statements from the people in
charge of the material, I think that we have nothing further to discuss.
<snip>
> >Show me where Paramount has said that the technical manuals are canon.
> >
>
> http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1321
This doesn't say the TM's are canon.
> and
>
> http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1374 .
Neither does this.
>
> plus basic logic.
Your logic is faulty.
Graeme Dice
--
"It is rare to find learned men who are clean, do not stink and
have a sense of humour." — Montesquieu (1689-1755) about
Leibniz (1646-1716).
Guardian 2000
<snip>
>> That, sir, is illogical. Paramount has a "rule of thumb", officially.
>> Mr. Ordover's fanciful creation of a firm rule is just that . . . a fanciful
>> creation, unless and until it can be shown that he has a document stating
>> firmly the rules of Paramount, and we get to see it verbatim. Besides
>> which, how do you know that Ordover did not simply misinterpret Paramount's
>> statements as you previously did?
>
>Since you refuse to believe official statements from the people in
>charge of the material, I think that we have nothing further to discuss.
Oh, I believe him utterly in reference to the novels that he is, in fact, in
charge of. However, the wondrous fabrication that Ordover is god of canon,
overruling Paramount, is a foolhardy notion.
>
>Your logic is faulty.
Explain how.
Guardian 2000
<snip>
>> That, sir, is illogical. Paramount has a "rule of thumb", officially.
>> Mr. Ordover's fanciful creation of a firm rule is just that . . . a fanciful
>> creation, unless and until it can be shown that he has a document stating
>> firmly the rules of Paramount, and we get to see it verbatim. Besides
>> which, how do you know that Ordover did not simply misinterpret Paramount's
>> statements as you previously did?
>
>Since you refuse to believe official statements from the people in
>charge of the material, I think that we have nothing further to discuss.
Oh, I believe him utterly in reference to the novels that he is, in fact, in
cmdrwilkens
Therefore it has listed the exceptions. Since the TM is not included either
in the rule of thumb OR the exceptions it is NOT EXCEPTED therefore it is
NOT CANON.
<snip mindless assumption that production personnel are required to make a
book canon>
> What we do know is that they are not uncanon, or not not-Canon.
>
> There is potential contrary evidence that would suggest that they are not
> Canon . . . that comes from John Ordover, Star Trek novels editor at
Pocket
> Books. However, this evidence is weak, not only because it does not come
> from Paramount (and is thus, at minimum, second-hand), but also because we
> do not know where he got it, and if his interpretation is correct.
> Furthermore, he edits the novels, not the Technical Manuals.
Hardly weak or second hand since he is in a position in the very company
that PUBLISHES THE TM!
> Finally, a piece of reasoning:
That would be a refreshing change of pace.
> It has been said, apparently accurately (if taken from the first
referenced
> site above), that, for Star Trek, there is only canon and not-canon
(leaving
> aside, for the moment, all of the "official" publications out there).
Good so far.
> So, if the TMs are either canon or not-canon, and we know that they are
not
> not-canon (as well as the fact that they fulfill the requirement of having
> been made by the production staff, and thus fall nicely within the same
rule
> of the exception), then they must be canon.
How do we know they are not-not-canon? Have you provided any evidence of
this? You are falling back on an unproven double-negative to make your point
when SIMPLE logic given the canon policy statement which you neatly link to
would exclude the TM.
Once more, how have you proved the TM is "not-not-canon?"
> This is not to say that I'm not willing to compromise, for I know that
some
> aren't willing to listen (or, alternately, aren't willing to accept the
fact
> that what is here written is factually accurate). I would be willing to
> entertain the notion that the Technical Manuals take the status of
> "official", not unlike the official works of the Star Wars side.
There is no official. Unless the group wants to adopt its own canon policy
(which I have argued for in alternative forms) then we must adhere to the
companies policy on canon which would exclude the TM, there isn't room for a
compromise. Either it is or it isn't.
> However, just so you know, my willingness to compromise is not based on
the
> weakness of the argument, for none has yet been shown. It is based upon
> the fact that, so far as I can tell, I am correct, but the Star Wars side,
> firmly entrenched in the upper eschelons of ASVS, would be unwilling to
> accept that fact. :-)
Your argument is weak since it is based ENTIRELY on an unproven double
negative. When you show PROOF that the TM is "not-not-canon" I might think
you have an argument here but you haven't so go wack off and come back when
you are a little clearer headed.
--
cmdrwilkens
AIM: cmdrwilkens
"Flamethrowers, when you need to set someone on fire...but
they're all the way over there."
-Brian Blackman
cmdrwilkens
"Guardian 2000" <usmguy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:99te3i$2p8th$2...@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de...
No of course he isn't the "god of canon" BUT he MUST have a working
knowledge of what is canon and what is not. He MUST have this knowledge and
NOTHING you have shown disproves his view. If anything it reinforces it.
> >
> >Your logic is faulty.
>
> Explain how.
You seem to think that your interpretation of a single statement is worth
more than the insider knowledge that Ordover MUST have as a requirement for
his position.
Guardian 2000
cmdrwilkens wrote in message
<_ntw6.211885$B6.47...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com>...
<snip>
>>
>> Oh, I believe him utterly in reference to the novels that he is, in fact,
>in
>> charge of. However, the wondrous fabrication that Ordover is god of
>canon,
>> overruling Paramount, is a foolhardy notion.
>>
>
>No of course he isn't the "god of canon" BUT he MUST have a working
>knowledge of what is canon and what is not. He MUST have this knowledge and
>NOTHING you have shown disproves his view. If anything it reinforces it.
>
"Working knowledge" . . . that is synonymous with "rule of thumb". But,
since Ordover's "working knowledge" contradicts Paramount's officially
stated "rule of thumb", we're right back where I started.
>> >
>> >Your logic is faulty.
>>
>> Explain how.
>
>You seem to think that your interpretation of a single statement is worth
>more than the insider knowledge that Ordover MUST have as a requirement for
>his position.
>
A. My interpretation of (more than just a) single statement is logically
valid.
B. This hypothesized "working knowledge" or "insider knowledge" that
Ordover has
still cannot be shown to overrule Paramount's official statements. If
it fleshed out their official statements without contradiction, I would
accept it . . . however, as it stands, Ordover contradicts Paramount.
Ordover loses.
Guardian 2000
cmdrwilkens wrote in message ...
>
[snip]
>>
>> The reason there is nothing said about the Technical Manuals is obvious .
>.
>> . the question was about novels and comic books, and the TMs are neither.
>> However, not only do we get a good general "rule of thumb", but the page
>> does contain a few nice listings of canon things outside episodes or
>movies,
>> and provides a wonderful list of non-Canon things:
>
>Therefore it has listed the exceptions. Since the TM is not included either
>in the rule of thumb OR the exceptions it is NOT EXCEPTED therefore it is
>NOT CANON.
They are also not listed in the rundown of what is not-Canon . . . so your
point, though vehemently stated, is moot.
Also, read the piece of my message above that you quoted.
><snip mindless assumption that production personnel are required to make a
>book canon>
It is not a mindless assumption. It is the obvious criteria of the page.
Look at it and see that fact.
>
>> What we do know is that they are not uncanon, or not not-Canon.
>>
>> There is potential contrary evidence that would suggest that they are not
>> Canon . . . that comes from John Ordover, Star Trek novels editor at
>Pocket
>> Books. However, this evidence is weak, not only because it does not
come
>> from Paramount (and is thus, at minimum, second-hand), but also because
we
>> do not know where he got it, and if his interpretation is correct.
>> Furthermore, he edits the novels, not the Technical Manuals.
>
>Hardly weak or second hand since he is in a position in the very company
>that PUBLISHES THE TM!
So is the janitor, but he's no more qualified to speak for Paramount about
the TMs than Ordover.
>> It has been said, apparently accurately (if taken from the first
>referenced
>> site above), that, for Star Trek, there is only canon and not-canon
>(leaving
>> aside, for the moment, all of the "official" publications out there).
>
>Good so far.
>
Thank you.
>> So, if the TMs are either canon or not-canon, and we know that they are
>not
>> not-canon (as well as the fact that they fulfill the requirement of
having
>> been made by the production staff, and thus fall nicely within the same
>rule
>> of the exception), then they must be canon.
>
>How do we know they are not-not-canon? Have you provided any evidence of
>this? You are falling back on an unproven double-negative to make your
point
>when SIMPLE logic given the canon policy statement which you neatly link to
>would exclude the TM.
What simple logic? You haven't shown me any. However, I have repeatedly
attempted to show you and others what the simple logic really is, and how it
shows that the TMs are not not-canon. Sit back, take a deep breath, and
re-read my first post, as well as the one you replied to, and read them
objectively.
>
>Once more, how have you proved the TM is "not-not-canon?"
I will restate it as simply as possible, to be sure my point gets across . .
. thus, this will not take the form of the rigorous logical proof I've shown
elsewhere, but it should be more readable:
1. Nowhere are they stated to be not-Canon, including in a rough listing of
not-Canon things.
2. While nowhere are they directly stated to be Canon, they are contrasted
with earlier efforts at technical manuals, which ". . . although fun to
read,
were not written by production personnel and are not considered 'canon.'"
(Logical inference (proved deductively in other posts of mine): The TMs may
be canon)
3. We get Paramount's rule of thumb in reference to novels and comics, with
exceptions which also jive with the above "production personnel" bit (namely
Jeri Taylor and D.C. Fontana).
(Logical inference (proved deductively in other posts of mine): Material
created by production personnel is likely to be canon)
4. Paramount's official statements overrule Ordover, especially in the case
of contradiction, and especially in reference to things other than his
novels.
5. Paramount's official statements suggest that something is either Canon
Star Trek, or it is not-Canon Star Trek.
6. Even if we abandon the use of the double-negative (which, contrary to
your statements, is not unproven . . . it's basic to logic), we are still
left with the fact that, if the TMs are not stated to be not-Canon, and if
they fulfill all the requirements of canonicity, then they cannot be
considered to be not-Canon, unless Paramount (arbitrarily) states it as
such.
That is, somewhat briefly and loosely compared to other ways I've phrased
it, why they are not not-Canon.
Extension of 1-6. And so, if they are not not-Canon, and they must be
either Canon or not-Canon, they they must be canon.
>> This is not to say that I'm not willing to compromise, for I know that
>some
>> aren't willing to listen (or, alternately, aren't willing to accept the
>fact
>> that what is here written is factually accurate). I would be willing to
>> entertain the notion that the Technical Manuals take the status of
>> "official", not unlike the official works of the Star Wars side.
>
>There is no official. Unless the group wants to adopt its own canon policy
>(which I have argued for in alternative forms) then we must adhere to the
>companies policy on canon which would exclude the TM, there isn't room for
a
>compromise. Either it is or it isn't.
The group has already adopted its own self-created canon policy by excluding
the TMs.
>
>> However, just so you know, my willingness to compromise is not based on
>the
>> weakness of the argument, for none has yet been shown. It is based upon
>> the fact that, so far as I can tell, I am correct, but the Star Wars
side,
>> firmly entrenched in the upper eschelons of ASVS, would be unwilling to
>> accept that fact. :-)
>
>Your argument is weak since it is based ENTIRELY on an unproven double
>negative. When you show PROOF that the TM is "not-not-canon" I might think
>you have an argument here but you haven't so go wack off and come back when
>you are a little clearer headed.
>
There is no unproven double-negative.
I have an argument. It is sound, and I've not been shown contrary
evidence.
And finally, I'll not be whacking off right now. I just don't feel that way
about you. :-)
G2k
Guardian 2000
home. Thus, a quick re-do:
Graeme Dice wrote in message <3AC11E01...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
<snip>
>
>John Ordover is the editor in charge of pocket books. I think he is
>quite capable of determining whether they are useful or not.
John Ordover is the editor in charge of the Star Trek novels *only*, and is
an employee of Pocket Books.
While Mr. Ordover no doubt appreciates your efforts to see to it that he is
promoted, those efforts and good wishes are not relevant in this thread.
Graeme Dice
>
> Hmm . . . the reply I made to this at work does not seem to be showing up at
> home. Thus, a quick re-do:
>
> Graeme Dice wrote in message <3AC11E01...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
> <snip>
> >
> >John Ordover is the editor in charge of pocket books. I think he is
> >quite capable of determining whether they are useful or not.
>
> John Ordover is the editor in charge of the Star Trek novels *only*, and is
> an employee of Pocket Books.
Who publish the Technical Manuals.
> While Mr. Ordover no doubt appreciates your efforts to see to it that he is
> promoted, those efforts and good wishes are not relevant in this thread.
Graeme Dice
--
Real programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Guardian 2000
Strowbridge wrote in message <3AC1251E...@home.com>...
>
>Gee, another source that agrees with us. With all this evidence you'd
>think we're right.
Think again.
Guardian 2000
Alves wrote in message ...
>
>Stuff from two books are considered canon, and one TAS episode too.
>Direct from Paramount FAQ.
Exactly what I was about to say . . .
Further, though Ron D. Moore is better since he is actually of Paramount
fame, even Ron D. Moore is not authorized to dictate canon policy (nor is
lcarscom.net what I would call an official statement, but that's just me).
Whoever the Paramount official in charge of the Star Trek franchise (or his
or her duly authorized representative for dictating canon policy) is, that
is the source that, if they say the TMs are not canon in official
statements, I will accept.
It is very simple to prove me wrong in this . . . would someone PLEASE do
so?
>> We consider only
>> the filmed episodes (and movies) to be canon for our purposes. We do
>> use things like the Encylopedia, the Chronology, the Technical Manual
>> etc. for reference,
>
>This is good... and even obvious, when we think who wrote it.
>
>> but unless it was explicitly mentioned on screen,
>> we won't feel bound by anything stated even in those books.
>
>And this is the funny part, not even episodes bound them, as we know. ;)
I'm not even sure, at times, that the Voyager people know that it's a Star
Trek show.
Guardian 2000
The messages I posted at work don't seem to be showing up tonight, so if I
reply twice, my apologies.
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote in message
<99scfn$2lrh7$1...@ID-41346.news.dfncis.de>...
Come now, you know that is not an accurate representation of the argument.
I'm surprised you used such a blatantly false analogy.
By my reckoning, Eagles must be able to fly as well.
>
>Do the work I have suggested. Choose a paramount person and ask them what
>the official paramount policy concerning this is. You'll see the
>interpretation of Ordover's statment is correct, but no one has yet
bothered
>to do the work to prove the TMs are also valid.
You make your prophecies with remarkable assurance considering your lack of
data on the subject.
>
>
>Learn how to use your newsreader properly
One cannot use properly that which does not operate properly. One
newsreader requires a second quote of the message, the other (used today)
doesn't seem to post replies at all.
cmdrwilkens
>
> cmdrwilkens wrote in message ...
> >
> [snip]
> >>
> >> The reason there is nothing said about the Technical Manuals is obvious
.
> >.
> >> . the question was about novels and comic books, and the TMs are
neither.
> >> However, not only do we get a good general "rule of thumb", but the
page
> >> does contain a few nice listings of canon things outside episodes or
> >movies,
> >> and provides a wonderful list of non-Canon things:
> >
> >Therefore it has listed the exceptions. Since the TM is not included
either
> >in the rule of thumb OR the exceptions it is NOT EXCEPTED therefore it is
> >NOT CANON.
>
> They are also not listed in the rundown of what is not-Canon . . . so your
> point, though vehemently stated, is moot.
No it says here is the rule and here are the exceptions. Since it does not
list the TMs with the exceptions it MUST fall under the rule of thumb in
which case it is considered not-canon.
> Also, read the piece of my message above that you quoted.
>
> ><snip mindless assumption that production personnel are required to make
a
> >book canon>
>
>
> It is not a mindless assumption. It is the obvious criteria of the page.
> Look at it and see that fact.
No it simply states that the people who wrote them weren't production staff
and that they are not considered canon. It does not state that you MUST have
production staff involved in order to have something considered "canon"
otherwise whya re only SOME episodes of the Animated Series considered
canon?
> >
> >> What we do know is that they are not uncanon, or not not-Canon.
> >>
> >> There is potential contrary evidence that would suggest that they are
not
> >> Canon . . . that comes from John Ordover, Star Trek novels editor at
> >Pocket
> >> Books. However, this evidence is weak, not only because it does not
> come
> >> from Paramount (and is thus, at minimum, second-hand), but also because
> we
> >> do not know where he got it, and if his interpretation is correct.
> >> Furthermore, he edits the novels, not the Technical Manuals.
> >
> >Hardly weak or second hand since he is in a position in the very company
> >that PUBLISHES THE TM!
>
>
> So is the janitor, but he's no more qualified to speak for Paramount about
> the TMs than Ordover.
Ordover is the managing editor which means he is in charge of the
publicaiton of the very TM in question therefore he MUST know the policy.
The problem is that is relies on the idea that you MUST have production
members to be canon and that in the abscence of production members that an
item is non-canon. According to this then ALL of the animated series should
be included in canon since it is not-not-canon.
Once again you rely on the assumption that you MUST have produciton
personnel involved to make an item canon and that their inclusion
AUTOMATICALLY makes an item canon. In other words where have you shown that
inclusion of Production Personnel (your 'P') automatically equals 'C'.
You have failed to show they are not-not Canon since your entire proof rests
on the assumption that inclusion of Production Personnel means an item is
Canon.
Let me illustrate why this is a problem.
You have accuratley stated that the "Earlier" tech manuals were considered
not-canon since they lacked production personnel.
Let us equate the tech manuals with a night club. You want to get in the
night club (obtain Canon status). The rules are very simple "You must know
someone famous." (Production Personnel). If you don't know someon famous
(production personnel) then you won't get in. BUT even if you do this is no
garuntee you will get in. The sign does NOT say 'If you know someone famous
you will get in."
It might not be the best analogy but let me put it this way just because one
factor creates an automatic exclusion to a situation DOES NOT mean that
meeting that criteria AUTOMATICALLY leads to inclusion.
> >> This is not to say that I'm not willing to compromise, for I know that
> >some
> >> aren't willing to listen (or, alternately, aren't willing to accept the
> >fact
> >> that what is here written is factually accurate). I would be willing
to
> >> entertain the notion that the Technical Manuals take the status of
> >> "official", not unlike the official works of the Star Wars side.
> >
> >There is no official. Unless the group wants to adopt its own canon
policy
> >(which I have argued for in alternative forms) then we must adhere to the
> >companies policy on canon which would exclude the TM, there isn't room
for
> a
> >compromise. Either it is or it isn't.
>
>
> The group has already adopted its own self-created canon policy by
excluding
> the TMs.
Its not self-created its Paramount's own policy.
> >
> >> However, just so you know, my willingness to compromise is not based on
> >the
> >> weakness of the argument, for none has yet been shown. It is based
upon
> >> the fact that, so far as I can tell, I am correct, but the Star Wars
> side,
> >> firmly entrenched in the upper eschelons of ASVS, would be unwilling to
> >> accept that fact. :-)
> >
> >Your argument is weak since it is based ENTIRELY on an unproven double
> >negative. When you show PROOF that the TM is "not-not-canon" I might
think
> >you have an argument here but you haven't so go wack off and come back
when
> >you are a little clearer headed.
> >
>
>
> There is no unproven double-negative.
> I have an argument. It is sound, and I've not been shown contrary
> evidence.
>
> And finally, I'll not be whacking off right now. I just don't feel that
way
> about you. :-)
>
The double negative of not-not-Canon rests entirely on the equating of
Production Personnel with canon, something you have decidedly NOT been able
to do.
Alves
says...
>
> Alves wrote in message ...
> >> A: Actually, NONE of the books are considered canon.
> >
> >Stuff from two books are considered canon, and one TAS episode too.
> >Direct from Paramount FAQ.
>
>
> Exactly what I was about to say . . .
>
> Further, though Ron D. Moore is better since he is actually of Paramount
> fame, even Ron D. Moore is not authorized to dictate canon policy (nor is
> lcarscom.net what I would call an official statement, but that's just me).
Some of his statement goes hand in hand with what we find in the ST
official FAQ, in the link that someone gave, he recommends that the
reporter look for information in the TMs, the official FAQ do the same
thing.
> Whoever the Paramount official in charge of the Star Trek franchise (or his
> or her duly authorized representative for dictating canon policy) is, that
> is the source that, if they say the TMs are not canon in official
> statements, I will accept.
>
> It is very simple to prove me wrong in this . . . would someone PLEASE do
> so?
I think that you are in a crusade that will not have results. It is
obvious that the TMs aren't canon, and it is obvious that they aren't in
the same level of the books (Roger Moore and the official FAQ points to
it, plus the fact that it is the production personel that write these
books), but Paramount officials are way too dumb to recognize the
difference between canon and official as we know it to the SW franchise,
so we are in this mad place that is ASvS.
So, if you want to debate something related to the TMs or any other
official ST publication, minus the books, of course, the correct place to
do it is rec.arts.startrek.tech, things there got as hot as in here
sometimes too.
There you will find a bunch of long time trekkies that accept the
official stuff as backstage info (which give way to any canon stuff, of
course), and it is a good place to hang arround or just to read (the
posting volume is not too high, though). When you start using a real news
reader I can point you to another place too, just give a shout.
About what Edam is talking about, I have a long time disagreement with it
that goes back to the dismissal of the official stuff and the scripts
war, there is no reason to bring it back now...
<snip>
Alves
burn...@glue.umd.edu says...
<snip>
> > It is not a mindless assumption. It is the obvious criteria of the page.
> > Look at it and see that fact.
>
> No it simply states that the people who wrote them weren't production staff
> and that they are not considered canon. It does not state that you MUST have
> production staff involved in order to have something considered "canon"
> otherwise whya re only SOME episodes of the Animated Series considered
> canon?
Because Gene said so, or so I was told by the chick who is responsible
for the production of the TMs.
<snip>
> > So is the janitor, but he's no more qualified to speak for Paramount about
> > the TMs than Ordover.
>
> Ordover is the managing editor which means he is in charge of the
> publicaiton of the very TM in question
OK, lets get it straight once and for all.
John Ordover is the Senior Editor of the Star Trek novels.
The person responsible for the publication of the TMs and stuff is
Margaret Clark, which is the Senior Editor of Star Trek Trade books
(anything but novels).
... this rumour is almost as bad as saying that Ordover works for
Paramount.
<snip>
Strowbridge
> Whoever the Paramount official in charge of the Star Trek franchise (or his
> or her duly authorized representative for dictating canon policy) is, that
> is the source that, if they say the TMs are not canon in official
> statements, I will accept.
>
> It is very simple to prove me wrong in this . . . would someone PLEASE do
> so?
Sure, ass wipe. It says in the fucking TM that their not canon.
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
Fuck you.
You can argue all you want that John Ordover doesn't know what he's
talking about but he NEEDS this information to do his job. Ron Moore
agrees with us, the Web site says they don't count, etc. etc. etc. We're
right your wrong, end of story.
Now be a good bitch and shut the fuck up.
C.S.Strowbridge
Alves
burn...@glue.umd.edu says...
>
> "Alves" <tum...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.152cbe588...@news-central.giganews.com...
> > In article <Qezw6.213013$B6.48...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com>,
> > burn...@glue.umd.edu says...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > It is not a mindless assumption. It is the obvious criteria of the
> page.
> > > > Look at it and see that fact.
> > >
> > > No it simply states that the people who wrote them weren't production
> staff
> > > and that they are not considered canon. It does not state that you MUST
> have
> > > production staff involved in order to have something considered "canon"
> > > otherwise whya re only SOME episodes of the Animated Series considered
> > > canon?
> >
> > Because Gene said so, or so I was told by the chick who is responsible
> > for the production of the TMs.
>
> want to toss out TFiC along with all the rest of DS9 and Voyager?
Hello? What I am saying came from the woman that edits the TMs, it has
the exact same value as what Ordover said, it is an informed opinion, so
this is why TAS is not canon to Paramount.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > So is the janitor, but he's no more qualified to speak for Paramount
> about
> > > > the TMs than Ordover.
> > >
> > > Ordover is the managing editor which means he is in charge of the
> > > publicaiton of the very TM in question
> >
> > OK, lets get it straight once and for all.
> >
> > John Ordover is the Senior Editor of the Star Trek novels.
>
> My bad
OK.
> > The person responsible for the publication of the TMs and stuff is
> > Margaret Clark, which is the Senior Editor of Star Trek Trade books
> > (anything but novels).
> >
> > ... this rumour is almost as bad as saying that Ordover works for
> > Paramount.
> >
> Regardless he is a managing editor in a position to know Paramount's
> position on what is canon and what is not. His statement should be given
> great weight especially in the light of the rest of the evidence that would
> go against a Canon TM (such as the foundationless argument about the double
> negative proving that the TM is canon by Gaurdian)
I am not arguing it.
cmdrwilkens
> burn...@glue.umd.edu says...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > It is not a mindless assumption. It is the obvious criteria of the
page.
> > > Look at it and see that fact.
> >
> > No it simply states that the people who wrote them weren't production
staff
> > and that they are not considered canon. It does not state that you MUST
have
> > production staff involved in order to have something considered "canon"
> > otherwise whya re only SOME episodes of the Animated Series considered
> > canon?
>
> Because Gene said so, or so I was told by the chick who is responsible
> for the production of the TMs.
Gene also said that the only stuff that was Canon was stuff he did so do you
want to toss out TFiC along with all the rest of DS9 and Voyager?
> <snip>
>
> > > So is the janitor, but he's no more qualified to speak for Paramount
about
> > > the TMs than Ordover.
> >
> > Ordover is the managing editor which means he is in charge of the
> > publicaiton of the very TM in question
>
> OK, lets get it straight once and for all.
>
> John Ordover is the Senior Editor of the Star Trek novels.
My bad
> The person responsible for the publication of the TMs and stuff is
> Margaret Clark, which is the Senior Editor of Star Trek Trade books
> (anything but novels).
>
> ... this rumour is almost as bad as saying that Ordover works for
> Paramount.
>
Regardless he is a managing editor in a position to know Paramount's
position on what is canon and what is not. His statement should be given
great weight especially in the light of the rest of the evidence that would
go against a Canon TM (such as the foundationless argument about the double
negative proving that the TM is canon by Gaurdian)
--
Chris Arcand
who edits the TM's or Paramount that says the they are cannon directly. The
FAQ says nothing about them being canon, but it says that everything on
screen, plus to books and one animated series show are canon. TM's are not
there. And your logic wouldn't even give me a full mark on any of my
descrete tests(incomplete proof). Show that production staff = canon, then
people will beleive you. More likely, as pointed out somewhere else, they
are backstage info only.
Chris
"Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:99uckc$2n7dk$1...@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de...
Guardian 2000
(NewsPro) still seems to be reluctant to actually post, though it claims to
have done so. I shall battle with it tomorrow, at which point you will
receive the reply.
(My reply was long, and thus I don't wish to expend the time to repeat
myself.)
Guardian 2000
Graeme Dice wrote in message <3AC2B257...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >John Ordover is the editor in charge of pocket books. I think he is
>> >quite capable of determining whether they are useful or not.
>>
>> John Ordover is the editor in charge of the Star Trek novels *only*, and
is
>> an employee of Pocket Books.
>
>Who publish the Technical Manuals.
>
<snip>
So any employee of Pocket Books can overrule Paramount and dictate canon to
the newsgroup and fans?
Guardian 2000
Strowbridge wrote in message <3AC2D839...@home.com>...
Your message was lacking in both eloquence and fact. Nowhere does the TM
say it is not canon.
Guardian 2000
Chris Arcand wrote in message <99vrc1$869$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>there. And your logic wouldn't even give me a full mark on any of my
>descrete tests(incomplete proof). Show that production staff = canon, then
>people will beleive you.
<snip>
The reason you believe it is an incomplete proof is because you missed the
point . . . I am not trying to show, nor do I need to show that production
staff = canon.
However, some individuals participating in this thread are performing the
intellectual equivalent of closing their eyes, sticking their fingers in
their ears, and chanting Imperial slogans.
Strowbridge
Have you bothered reading the TM?
"How 'official' is this stuff? Well, this is the first Technical manual
done by folks who actually work on Star Trek. It's closely based on
source material we've developed in conjunction with our writers and
producers in our role as technical consultants for the series. in that
sense it is 'pretty official'"
Gee, not even official. Can't be canon then.
"On the other hand, we'd like to make it very clear that it is not our
intention for this document to serve as a straitjacket, limiting the
options of future writers"
"Not required reading"
Pretty clear that the TM is NOT the law and can be (and has been)
contradicted.
C.S.Strowbridge
cmdrwilkens
Where does the overruling come in? You have yet to show that his statement
in ANY way overrules Paramount's policy.
cmdrwilkens
No you must show it.
You stated that the TM is "P" and therefore it equals not-not C. Given this
you are in effect saying that P=C. You have shown no proof of this OTHER
than the double negative.
As an aside you state that not-P therefore not-C. The ONLY way you can go
from a negative like not-C to a double negative (not-not-C = C) is by
somehow showing what C is equal to.
In other words if P = not not-C and not-not-C = C then P=C but this is
unconfirmed. You have a leap from the double negative to the positive
without the support. In other words P=C is not true therefore all the logic
that requires this is faulty.
Guardian 2000
cmdrwilkens wrote in message ...
>and
>> is
>> >> an employee of Pocket Books.
>> >
>> >Who publish the Technical Manuals.
>> >
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> So any employee of Pocket Books can overrule Paramount and dictate canon
>to
>> the newsgroup and fans?
>>
>
>Where does the overruling come in? You have yet to show that his statement
>in ANY way overrules Paramount's policy.
He contradicts Paramount. The newsgroup accepts his word over Paramount's.
Thus, so far as this newsgroup (or at least Graeme Dice) is concerned,
Ordover trumps Paramount.
Graeme Dice
>
> cmdrwilkens wrote in message ...
<snip>
> >Where does the overruling come in? You have yet to show that his statement
> >in ANY way overrules Paramount's policy.
>
> He contradicts Paramount.
Really? Where is the direct contradiction?
>The newsgroup accepts his word over Paramount's.
We aren't accepting his word over Paramount's, Paramount hasn't told us
anything about the TNG:TM.
> Thus, so far as this newsgroup (or at least Graeme Dice) is concerned,
> Ordover trumps Paramount.
He doesn't have to trump Paramount. Paramount hasn't stated anything.
Graeme Dice
--
"Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think."
— Niels Bohr.
Guardian 2000
Strowbridge wrote in message <3AC3E435...@home.com>...
>Guardian 2000 wrote:
>>
>> Strowbridge wrote in message <3AC2D839...@home.com>...
>> >Guardian 2000 wrote:
>
>> >> Whoever the Paramount official in charge of the Star Trek franchise
(or
>> >> his or her duly authorized representative for dictating canon policy)
is,
>> >> that is the source that, if they say the TMs are not canon in official
>> >> statements, I will accept.
>> >>
>> >> It is very simple to prove me wrong in this . . . would someone PLEASE
do
>> >> so?
>> >
>> >Sure, ass wipe. It says in the fucking TM that their not canon.
>>
>> Your message was lacking in both eloquence and fact. Nowhere does the
TM
>> say it is not canon.
>
>Have you bothered reading the TM?
Have you read almost anything I've ever written?
>
>"How 'official' is this stuff? Well, this is the first Technical manual
>done by folks who actually work on Star Trek. It's closely based on
>source material we've developed in conjunction with our writers and
>producers in our role as technical consultants for the series. in that
>sense it is 'pretty official'"
Nice misquote. It is supposed to read { pretty "official" }, not as you
have it above. That seems nitpicky, but is important in this case.
>
>Gee, not even official. Can't be canon then.
>
Who said it was not official? They didn't. Paramount didn't. You did,
but you don't count.
Furthermore, how does not-official magically become not-canon? Something
canon need not be official, just as something official may not be canon.
>"On the other hand, we'd like to make it very clear that it is not our
>intention for this document to serve as a straitjacket, limiting the
>options of future writers"
>
>"Not required reading"
>
>Pretty clear that the TM is NOT the law and can be (and has been)
>contradicted.
>
So have some episodes, but we're not throwing them out, either. The
episodes themselves do not serve as a straitjacket, limiting the options of
future writers, nor is a freelance writer required to watch them.
By the above reasoning, it would seem that it is, to paraphrase, "pretty
clear that the episodes and movies are NOT the law and can be (and have
been) contradicted," and thus are not canon.
Graeme Dice
>
> Strowbridge wrote in message <3AC3E435...@home.com>...
> >Guardian 2000 wrote:
<snip>
> >Gee, not even official. Can't be canon then.
> >
>
> Who said it was not official? They didn't. Paramount didn't. You did,
> but you don't count.
>
> Furthermore, how does not-official magically become not-canon? Something
> canon need not be official, just as something official may not be canon.
To Paramount there is only canon and not-canon. There is no official
material, and something that calls itself official cannot be used. It
must directly be confirmed to be canon before it can be such.
Graeme Dice
--
Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of
combating the forces of evil...prayer, fasting, good
works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to
have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat
leaden death, demon...
-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Guardian 2000
cmdrwilkens wrote in message ...
>
(See my upcoming reply to my own original post)
Guardian 2000
nevertheless amusing demonstration of the lack of logic in this newsgroup.
You heard it here first.
You see, one of the bases of my argument in rigorous logical form was the
following:
If not-P then not-C
P
Therefore not not-C
In replying to a message from cmdrwilkens, I was trying to make plain what
was going on. In doing so, I was using in logic what are referred to as
truth tables . . . assigning truth values to symbols and making sure that
they all line up. While painstakingly doing the truth tables for the
above argument (I was starting over from scratch), I realized that something
was fubar. I then came to a horrifying realization, which I broke out a
logic book to confirm.
I have committed one of the fallacies that many before me have committed . .
. indeed, I don't feel too bad, since some of the best and brightest have
screwed up just as nicely as I have. The fallacy is infamous in the
history of philosophy. I also don't feel too bad since no one here caught
me on it . . . I had to do that all by myself.
You see, the above argument is an invalid logical form, known as "Denying
the Antecedent". It is usually shown as:
If p then q
not-p
Therefore not-q
However, as I used it, it would be:
If not-p then not-q
p
Therefore not not-q (or, simplified by double negation, q)
As proof of invalidity, let's substitute:
If I am not-alive, then I am not-breathing.
I am alive.
Therefore I am breathing.
(Looks good, right? They don't call it infamous for nothin'. Well, try
this one, using the same argument form:)
If I am not-alive, then I am not-President of the United States.
I am alive.
Therefore I am the President of the United States.
Now, although I'm still awaiting the final tally from Florida, I think it's
a pretty safe bet that I am not the president (though I may have received
votes from confused elderly citizens who could not follow arrows on the
simple ballots).
Of course, I originally used the argument in a semi-okay fashion . . . I
said that the TMs might be not-Canon for reasons other than the production
staff issue. That was true. However, I ought to have realized at that
point that I had a situation wherein my premises were true but conclusion
could still be false, which is a sign that something may be (or probably is)
wrong.
What does this mean for my argument?
1. Well, soon I will check to see whether or not there is any other logical
form that can salvage the situation in its entirety. However, I doubt it,
since any logical argument that would prove that denying the antecedent is
true would itself be false, I would think. But, I'm stubborn, so I'm going
to check anyway.
2. I was right in that the official ASVS stuff needs to be changed . . .
it just needs to be changed to reflect the fact that Ordover is not a
"Paramount official" as stated. He works for Pocket Books, and is the
novels editor only.
3. Paramount still overrules Ordover. However, Paramount has not
officially stated whether or not the TMs are canon. I would still suggest
confirmation with Paramount as a cross-check of Ordover's statements, just
to be sure . . . going by Ordover's statements alone is risky, in my
opinion, since he is not duly authorized to make such statements, and that
can easily lead to cries of "foul!"
4. There were still a number of asinine statements made in this thread by
those opposed to my position. The fact that my logical argument was
faulty does not make those statements any less asinine.
5. For those of you who remained in the thread and were actually arguing
the point, good show. Even though you didn't discover the logical fallacy,
you did lead me to do so, which, I'm sure, is just as good. There is value
to stubbornness on both sides . . . but it is also true that there is value
to being willing to admit demonstrable error, as I'm doing right now.
Guardian 2000
Guardian 2000
Graeme Dice wrote in message <3AC43FA2...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
>We aren't accepting his word over Paramount's, Paramount hasn't told us
>anything about the TNG:TM.
>
Then you are accepting his word in lieu of Paramount's . . . wouldn't you
like to check with Paramount to make sure he's accurate?
(See also my reply to the original post of this thread. You'll like it, I'm
sure, even though some of your statements are referred to in the end, in the
numbered section.)
:-)
Strowbridge
>
> Graeme Dice wrote
> >We aren't accepting his word over Paramount's, Paramount hasn't told us
> >anything about the TNG:TM.
>
> Then you are accepting his word in lieu of Paramount's . . . wouldn't you
> like to check with Paramount to make sure he's accurate?
For the love of fuck, Ordover MUST know Paramount's position on the
matter for him to be able to do his job. Your claims that his statement
was only his position and his word means nothing is complete crap. If
you read the quotes we gave you you'd see how wrong you are.
To paraphrase the multitude of conversation that went on:
Question.) What is canon?
Ordover.) Only stuff seen on screen is canon. All else is speculation.
Q.) Is this your policy or Paramount's?
O.) Paramount's.
Q.) No offense, but how can we trust you.
O.) I need to know this to do my job.
End of the fucking story. There is NO WAY to claim the TMs are anything
but speculation.
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
> What does this mean for my argument?
>
> 1. Well, soon I will check to see whether or not there is any other logical
> form that can salvage the situation in its entirety. However, I doubt it,
> since any logical argument that would prove that denying the antecedent is
> true would itself be false, I would think. But, I'm stubborn, so I'm going
> to check anyway.
Oh joy. Do us all a favour, including yourself, and don't post anymore
on the subject till AFTER you have convincing evidence. Bringing up the
subject every time you think you've made progress will NOT help your
cause.
> 2. I was right in that the official ASVS stuff needs to be changed . . .
> it just needs to be changed to reflect the fact that Ordover is not a
> "Paramount official" as stated. He works for Pocket Books, and is the
> novels editor only.
That's like saying, 'I work for ABC, not Disney.'
He works directly for Pocket Books, but his 'boss' is Paramount.
> 3. Paramount still overrules Ordover. However, Paramount has not
> officially stated whether or not the TMs are canon. I would still suggest
> confirmation with Paramount as a cross-check of Ordover's statements, just
> to be sure . . . going by Ordover's statements alone is risky, in my
> opinion, since he is not duly authorized to make such statements, and that
> can easily lead to cries of "foul!"
But we didn't go by his statement alone. When we brought up other
evidence you ignored it. Remember, 'Think again.'
> 4. There were still a number of asinine statements made in this thread by
> those opposed to my position. The fact that my logical argument was
> faulty does not make those statements any less asinine.
You brought it on yourself with you debate style. Remember, 'Think
again.'
> 5. For those of you who remained in the thread and were actually arguing
> the point, good show. Even though you didn't discover the logical fallacy,
> you did lead me to do so, which, I'm sure, is just as good. There is value
> to stubbornness on both sides . . . but it is also true that there is value
> to being willing to admit demonstrable error, as I'm doing right now.
'Bout damn time.
C.S.Strowbridge
Guardian 2000
Strowbridge wrote in message <3AC4BFA7...@home.com>...
>Guardian 2000 wrote:
>
>> What does this mean for my argument?
>>
>> 1. Well, soon I will check to see whether or not there is any other
logical
>> form that can salvage the situation in its entirety. However, I doubt
it,
>> since any logical argument that would prove that denying the antecedent
is
>> true would itself be false, I would think. But, I'm stubborn, so I'm
going
>> to check anyway.
>
>Oh joy. Do us all a favour, including yourself, and don't post anymore
>on the subject till AFTER you have convincing evidence. Bringing up the
>subject every time you think you've made progress will NOT help your
>cause.
Since no pro-Trek evidence will ever convince you, are you not, then,
telling me (and everyone else) to shut up?
>
>> 2. I was right in that the official ASVS stuff needs to be changed . .
.
>> it just needs to be changed to reflect the fact that Ordover is not a
>> "Paramount official" as stated. He works for Pocket Books, and is the
>> novels editor only.
>
>That's like saying, 'I work for ABC, not Disney.'
>
>He works directly for Pocket Books, but his 'boss' is Paramount.
>
I stand by my statements.
>> 3. Paramount still overrules Ordover. However, Paramount has not
>> officially stated whether or not the TMs are canon. I would still
suggest
>> confirmation with Paramount as a cross-check of Ordover's statements,
just
>> to be sure . . . going by Ordover's statements alone is risky, in my
>> opinion, since he is not duly authorized to make such statements, and
that
>> can easily lead to cries of "foul!"
>
>But we didn't go by his statement alone. When we brought up other
>evidence you ignored it. Remember, 'Think again.'
>
I did not ignore it. I explained why it was better than Ordover's
statements, but still could not be taken as the official Paramount line.
>> 4. There were still a number of asinine statements made in this thread
by
>> those opposed to my position. The fact that my logical argument was
>> faulty does not make those statements any less asinine.
>
>You brought it on yourself with you debate style. Remember, 'Think
>again.'
That statement was made long after the asinine statements, and I do
apologize for dropping down to your level of debate style with my one-liner
reply.
>> 5. For those of you who remained in the thread and were actually
arguing
>> the point, good show. Even though you didn't discover the logical
fallacy,
>> you did lead me to do so, which, I'm sure, is just as good. There is
value
>> to stubbornness on both sides . . . but it is also true that there is
value
>> to being willing to admit demonstrable error, as I'm doing right now.
>
>'Bout damn time.
How about, in the future, actually arguing my points? It would save us all
a lot of time.