---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:26:21 GMT Subject: official? Message-ID: -------- Hi all I have a question. I looked here: http://www.sfdebris.com/faq.html#8 ... and saw the "order of canon" and the official stuff. It looked neat and tidy... But, then I looked here: http://jceu.tripod.com/faq.html#4 ... and saw a few conflicting interpretations, while here: http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html ... a guy from LucasBooks says that only the films are canon, and he says something about "continuity," but apparently he refers only to internal consistency within the realm of the books. Meanwhile, here: http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20000424.html ... we once again get the concept of degrees of canon, along with the reiteration that the only true canon is the films. Okay, so my question is, where in the world does the concept of "official" come from, including the neat and tidy degrees of canon thing? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 23:29:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [FANFIC] Common items that can be exchanged for cash in the AQ? Message-ID: <3B413C05.A017477F@daltonator.net> -------- Andras Otto Schneider wrote: > > In article <3B4127B5.17D5FAAC@home.com>, Strowbridge > wrote: > > > Chuck wrote: > > > > > > "Nathan Yates" wrote > > > > > > Yeah, I'm doing more research (Thanks to those who helped before, > > > > BTW). > > > > Let's say you wanted to gamble at Quark's, but you needed some cold > > > > hard > > > > latinum. What common objects could be traded for cash in the AQ? > > > > > > Women. > > > > Or at the very least, Holovids featuring women. > > > > C.S.Strowbridge > > hmm, what about music? they have a whole galaxy of music to import. has > anyone read the music section in WEGs Fragments from the Outer Rim > sourcebook? interseting stuff Most interesting? Jizz Wailing. hehehehe -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "Kynes sets the stove on fire." ---ASVS House ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Phil Skayhan" Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:37:15 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:x5LQ8.65405$_j6.3331231@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > Hi all > > I have a question. I looked here: > > http://www.sfdebris.com/faq.html#8 > > ... and saw the "order of canon" and the official stuff. It looked neat and > tidy... > > But, then I looked here: > > http://jceu.tripod.com/faq.html#4 > > ... and saw a few conflicting interpretations, while here: > > http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html > > ... a guy from LucasBooks says that only the films are canon, and he says > something about "continuity," but apparently he refers only to internal > consistency within the realm of the books. Meanwhile, here: > > http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20000424.html > > ... we once again get the concept of degrees of canon, along with the > reiteration that the only true canon is the films. > > Okay, so my question is, where in the world does the concept of "official" > come from, including the neat and tidy degrees of canon thing? http://www.theforce.net/swtc/continuity.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:58:48 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message news:LfLQ8.181$t7.10@nwrddc03.gnilink.net... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:x5LQ8.65405$_j6.3331231@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > Hi all > > > > I have a question. I looked here: > > > > http://www.sfdebris.com/faq.html#8 > > > > ... and saw the "order of canon" and the official stuff. It looked neat > and > > tidy... > > > > But, then I looked here: > > > > http://jceu.tripod.com/faq.html#4 > > > > ... and saw a few conflicting interpretations, while here: > > > > http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html > > > > ... a guy from LucasBooks says that only the films are canon, and he says > > something about "continuity," but apparently he refers only to internal > > consistency within the realm of the books. Meanwhile, here: > > > > http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20000424.html > > > > ... we once again get the concept of degrees of canon, along with the > > reiteration that the only true canon is the films. > > > > Okay, so my question is, where in the world does the concept of "official" > > come from, including the neat and tidy degrees of canon thing? > > http://www.theforce.net/swtc/continuity.html Yeah, I saw that, too, but I didn't think it helped matters any, for several minor reasons and one main one. First, the minors: The magazine article he quotes first says nothing about official, other than the "between us, we've read everything" line, but that says nothing except that the guy being interviewed reads Star Wars novels. What I don't get at all is how the author of that webpage then says "Therefore ... Any other form of unfilmed STAR WARS fiction may be official ...", since the magazine article never said anything about it. However, I do like his definition of official, meaning "subordinate to canon and required to be consistent with other official works," because it is perfectly correct and in keeping with the statements made on the other websites. I don't like it, though, because it renders the "official" category meaningless ... it just says that the works aren't canon, but have to maintain consistency with each other. Interestingly, he uses a comment made in one of the books to prove the books are "quasi-canon", which my readings here suggest isn't allowed (for example, the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual calls itself "official"). And now, the major reason I don't think this webpage is of any value: The page opens up with the following explanation/disclaimer: "Below I describe the principles employed to resolve these difficulties as a basis for my STAR WARS Technical Commentaries." In other words, that's just what he's using for his own stuff, and isn't an official statement of what is and isn't canon, official, apocryphal, and so on. Several other websites had similar "This is how we do it" statements, and I ignored them, too. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chuck, Dark Lord of the Rings" Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:49:48 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:YzLQ8.318407$%y.25894753@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > news:LfLQ8.181$t7.10@nwrddc03.gnilink.net... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:x5LQ8.65405$_j6.3331231@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > Hi all > > > > > > I have a question. I looked here: > > > > > > http://www.sfdebris.com/faq.html#8 > > > > > > ... and saw the "order of canon" and the official stuff. It looked neat > > and > > > tidy... > > > > > > But, then I looked here: > > > > > > http://jceu.tripod.com/faq.html#4 > > > > > > ... and saw a few conflicting interpretations, while here: > > > > > > http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html > > > > > > ... a guy from LucasBooks says that only the films are canon, and he > says > > > something about "continuity," but apparently he refers only to internal > > > consistency within the realm of the books. Meanwhile, here: > > > > > > http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20000424.html > > > > > > ... we once again get the concept of degrees of canon, along with the > > > reiteration that the only true canon is the films. > > > > > > Okay, so my question is, where in the world does the concept of > "official" > > > come from, including the neat and tidy degrees of canon thing? > > > > http://www.theforce.net/swtc/continuity.html > > Yeah, I saw that, too, but I didn't think it helped matters any, for several > minor reasons and one main one. First, the minors: > > The magazine article he quotes first says nothing about official, other than > the "between us, we've read everything" line, but that says nothing except > that the guy being interviewed reads Star Wars novels. > > What I don't get at all is how the author of that webpage then says > "Therefore ... Any other form of unfilmed STAR WARS fiction may be official > ...", since the magazine article never said anything about it. > > However, I do like his definition of official, meaning "subordinate to canon > and required to be consistent with other official works," because it is > perfectly correct and in keeping with the statements made on the other > websites. I don't like it, though, because it renders the "official" > category meaningless ... it just says that the works aren't canon, but have > to maintain consistency with each other. > > Interestingly, he uses a comment made in one of the books to prove the books > are "quasi-canon", which my readings here suggest isn't allowed (for > example, the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual calls itself "official"). > > And now, the major reason I don't think this webpage is of any value: > > The page opens up with the following explanation/disclaimer: "Below I > describe the principles employed to resolve these difficulties as a basis > for my STAR WARS Technical Commentaries." > > In other words, that's just what he's using for his own stuff, and isn't an > official statement of what is and isn't canon, official, apocryphal, and so > on. Several other websites had similar "This is how we do it" statements, > and I ignored them, too. > To my knowledge, Curtis Saxton merely gave the category a name; the category exists as "those parts of the Star Wars universe that were not written by George Lucas but is nevertheless considered part of that universe where it does not conflict with canon." "Official" is shorter. The category itself is based on the statements given us by Lucasfilm on the subject, including the SWI quote and remarks about the EU on the website. The Sansweet remarks came after the writing of the FAQ and the R&R. This is how I (the writer of the FAQ) decided to interpret it: "Canon" is a reference to the level of truth as far as SW is concerned. There are many layers to that canon as Sansweet remarked, and the layers go down the further you get from Lucas' final vision. When he says the only "true canon" is the films, he means that the ultimate Star Wars truth is the films. The FAQ states this. The remaining parts of the category called "canon" are lesser truths and are (and always have been) subordinate to the films. However, they remain true to Lucas' vision with only some minor deviations. They are accepted as truth so long as they do not conflict with the films. The "official" category is further from the truth because it didn't come directly from Lucas story, but by expanding upon it (hence, expanded universe). This level of separation means that it's not going to be as high a level of canon as those other parts of the "canon" list (radio dramas, scripts, novelizations), and certainly not the films. However, since they are nevertheless part of the universe they are accepted where they do not conflict. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 02:09:44 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Chuck, Dark Lord of the Rings" wrote in message news:g4OQ8.94118$X9.3526580@typhoon.kc.rr.com... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:YzLQ8.318407$%y.25894753@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > > news:LfLQ8.181$t7.10@nwrddc03.gnilink.net... > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:x5LQ8.65405$_j6.3331231@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > Hi all > > > > > > > > I have a question. I looked here: > > > > > > > > http://www.sfdebris.com/faq.html#8 > > > > > > > > ... and saw the "order of canon" and the official stuff. It looked > neat > > > and > > > > tidy... > > > > > > > > But, then I looked here: > > > > > > > > http://jceu.tripod.com/faq.html#4 > > > > > > > > ... and saw a few conflicting interpretations, while here: > > > > > > > > http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html > > > > > > > > ... a guy from LucasBooks says that only the films are canon, and he > > says > > > > something about "continuity," but apparently he refers only to > internal > > > > consistency within the realm of the books. Meanwhile, here: > > > > > > > > http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20000424.html > > > > > > > > ... we once again get the concept of degrees of canon, along with the > > > > reiteration that the only true canon is the films. > > > > > > > > Okay, so my question is, where in the world does the concept of > > "official" > > > > come from, including the neat and tidy degrees of canon thing? > > > > > > http://www.theforce.net/swtc/continuity.html > > > > Yeah, I saw that, too, but I didn't think it helped matters any, for > several > > minor reasons and one main one. First, the minors: > > > > The magazine article he quotes first says nothing about official, other > than > > the "between us, we've read everything" line, but that says nothing except > > that the guy being interviewed reads Star Wars novels. > > > > What I don't get at all is how the author of that webpage then says > > "Therefore ... Any other form of unfilmed STAR WARS fiction may be > official > > ...", since the magazine article never said anything about it. > > > > However, I do like his definition of official, meaning "subordinate to > canon > > and required to be consistent with other official works," because it is > > perfectly correct and in keeping with the statements made on the other > > websites. I don't like it, though, because it renders the "official" > > category meaningless ... it just says that the works aren't canon, but > have > > to maintain consistency with each other. > > > > Interestingly, he uses a comment made in one of the books to prove the > books > > are "quasi-canon", which my readings here suggest isn't allowed (for > > example, the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual calls itself "official"). > > > > And now, the major reason I don't think this webpage is of any value: > > > > The page opens up with the following explanation/disclaimer: "Below I > > describe the principles employed to resolve these difficulties as a basis > > for my STAR WARS Technical Commentaries." > > > > In other words, that's just what he's using for his own stuff, and isn't > an > > official statement of what is and isn't canon, official, apocryphal, and > so > > on. Several other websites had similar "This is how we do it" > statements, > > and I ignored them, too. > > > To my knowledge, Curtis Saxton merely gave the category a name; the category > exists as "those parts of the Star Wars universe that were not written by > George Lucas but is nevertheless considered part of that universe where it > does not conflict with canon." "Official" is shorter. The category itself > is based on the statements given us by Lucasfilm on the subject, including > the SWI quote and remarks about the EU on the website. The Star Wars Insider #23 quote makes no reference to "official", or even "those parts of the Star Wars universe that were not written by George Lucas but is nevertheless considered part of that universe wehre it does not conflict with canon." The person/people interviewed explained that "between us, we've read everything", but that's personal testimony. What remarks about the Expanded Universe are you referring to? The Jedi Council pages I've referenced seem to make it pretty clear that the EU is not canon. Without their being an "official" status created within any of the statements of Lucas or his authorized agents, that would seem to leave the Expanded Universe out. :( > The Sansweet remarks came after the writing of the FAQ and the R&R. This is > how I (the writer of the FAQ) decided to interpret it: > "Canon" is a reference to the level of truth as far as SW is concerned. > There are many layers to that canon as Sansweet remarked, and the layers go > down the further you get from Lucas' final vision. When he says the only > "true canon" is the films, he means that the ultimate Star Wars truth is the > films. The FAQ states this. The remaining parts of the category called > "canon" are lesser truths and are (and always have been) subordinate to the > films. However, they remain true to Lucas' vision with only some minor > deviations. They are accepted as truth so long as they do not conflict with > the films. The "official" category is further from the truth because it > didn't come directly from Lucas story, but by expanding upon it (hence, > expanded universe). This level of separation means that it's not going to > be as high a level of canon as those other parts of the "canon" list (radio > dramas, scripts, novelizations), and certainly not the films. However, > since they are nevertheless part of the universe they are accepted where > they do not conflict. The part I'm bothered by, though, is the fact that nowhere is there any reference to an official category anywhere, and I don't just mean by name. I mean the concept of official ... it doesn't exist. There are the levels of canon, but nowhere is the Expanded Universe given any weight, except in reference to other elements within the Expanded Universe. Lucas himself said that he isn't bound by it in his movie-making. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:42:31 -0400 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:I%QQ8.320253$%y.26136374@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > Interestingly, he uses a comment made in one of the books to prove the > > books > > > are "quasi-canon", which my readings here suggest isn't allowed (for > > > example, the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual calls itself "official"). > > > > > > And now, the major reason I don't think this webpage is of any value: > > > > > > The page opens up with the following explanation/disclaimer: "Below I > > > describe the principles employed to resolve these difficulties as a > basis > > > for my STAR WARS Technical Commentaries." > > > > > > In other words, that's just what he's using for his own stuff, and isn't > > an > > > official statement of what is and isn't canon, official, apocryphal, and > > so > > > on. Several other websites had similar "This is how we do it" > > statements, > > > and I ignored them, too. > > > > > To my knowledge, Curtis Saxton merely gave the category a name; the > category > > exists as "those parts of the Star Wars universe that were not written by > > George Lucas but is nevertheless considered part of that universe where it > > does not conflict with canon." "Official" is shorter. The category > itself > > is based on the statements given us by Lucasfilm on the subject, including > > the SWI quote and remarks about the EU on the website. > > The Star Wars Insider #23 quote makes no reference to "official", or even > "those parts of the Star Wars universe that were not written by George Lucas > but is nevertheless considered part of that universe wehre it does not > conflict with canon." The person/people interviewed explained that "between > us, we've read everything", but that's personal testimony. That "personal testimony" was from the continuity editors at the time. They also explained, if you missed, that everything else is part of the SW history. In other words they affirm that the "canon" or unmutable truth of SW lies in the films, radio plays, novelisations, and scripts but that there is a whole catalog of works which are part of the SW universe subordinate in authenticity to the films, novelisations, etc. > What remarks about the Expanded Universe are you referring to? The Jedi > Council pages I've referenced seem to make it pretty clear that the EU is > not canon. Without their being an "official" status created within any of > the statements of Lucas or his authorized agents, that would seem to leave > the Expanded Universe out. :( > You may note his use of the term "quasi-canon." This is Steven Sansweet's pet term for what we call "official." Those works which are not direct products of Lucas's vision (again the films, novelisations, etc) are not absolute canon but still maintain the position of "quasi-canon" in that we must consider the means of delivery in so far as how that piece of the expanded universe fits into the overall continuity. > > The Sansweet remarks came after the writing of the FAQ and the R&R. This > is > > how I (the writer of the FAQ) decided to interpret it: > > "Canon" is a reference to the level of truth as far as SW is concerned. > > There are many layers to that canon as Sansweet remarked, and the layers > go > > down the further you get from Lucas' final vision. When he says the only > > "true canon" is the films, he means that the ultimate Star Wars truth is > the > > films. The FAQ states this. The remaining parts of the category called > > "canon" are lesser truths and are (and always have been) subordinate to > the > > films. However, they remain true to Lucas' vision with only some minor > > deviations. They are accepted as truth so long as they do not conflict > with > > the films. The "official" category is further from the truth because it > > didn't come directly from Lucas story, but by expanding upon it (hence, > > expanded universe). This level of separation means that it's not going to > > be as high a level of canon as those other parts of the "canon" list > (radio > > dramas, scripts, novelizations), and certainly not the films. However, > > since they are nevertheless part of the universe they are accepted where > > they do not conflict. > > The part I'm bothered by, though, is the fact that nowhere is there any > reference to an official category anywhere, and I don't just mean by name. > I mean the concept of official ... it doesn't exist. There are the levels > of canon, but nowhere is the Expanded Universe given any weight, except in > reference to other elements within the Expanded Universe. Lucas himself > said that he isn't bound by it in his movie-making. > Sanswet uses the term "quasi-canon" rather than "official" replace one with the other and ask yourself which is easier to say. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 05:09:06 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:af0rq4$ae3l6$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:I%QQ8.320253$%y.26136374@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > Interestingly, he uses a comment made in one of the books to prove the > > > books > > > > are "quasi-canon", which my readings here suggest isn't allowed (for > > > > example, the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual calls itself "official"). > > > > > > > > And now, the major reason I don't think this webpage is of any value: > > > > > > > > The page opens up with the following explanation/disclaimer: "Below I > > > > describe the principles employed to resolve these difficulties as a > > basis > > > > for my STAR WARS Technical Commentaries." > > > > > > > > In other words, that's just what he's using for his own stuff, and > isn't > > > an > > > > official statement of what is and isn't canon, official, apocryphal, > and > > > so > > > > on. Several other websites had similar "This is how we do it" > > > statements, > > > > and I ignored them, too. > > > > > > > To my knowledge, Curtis Saxton merely gave the category a name; the > > category > > > exists as "those parts of the Star Wars universe that were not written > by > > > George Lucas but is nevertheless considered part of that universe where > it > > > does not conflict with canon." "Official" is shorter. The category > > itself > > > is based on the statements given us by Lucasfilm on the subject, > including > > > the SWI quote and remarks about the EU on the website. > > > > The Star Wars Insider #23 quote makes no reference to "official", or even > > "those parts of the Star Wars universe that were not written by George > Lucas > > but is nevertheless considered part of that universe wehre it does not > > conflict with canon." The person/people interviewed explained that > "between > > us, we've read everything", but that's personal testimony. > > That "personal testimony" was from the continuity editors at the time. They > also explained, if you missed, that everything else is part of the SW > history. In other words they affirm that the "canon" or unmutable truth of > SW lies in the films, radio plays, novelisations, and scripts but that there > is a whole catalog of works which are part of the SW universe subordinate in > authenticity to the films, novelisations, etc. They don't say anything like that in the part quoted. I don't have that magazine, so I'm just going on the quote. They define canon, but all they say about the other stuff is that it is "a vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents." I'm saying that doesn't actually mean anything about "official." The old TV show Gunsmoke "comprises a vast history" of life in the West, but has nothing to do with "canon" history. Also, they never say it is "part of the SW universe subordinate in authenticity" to anything. All they say is that they read it. > > > What remarks about the Expanded Universe are you referring to? The Jedi > > Council pages I've referenced seem to make it pretty clear that the EU is > > not canon. Without their being an "official" status created within any > of > > the statements of Lucas or his authorized agents, that would seem to leave > > the Expanded Universe out. :( > > > > You may note his use of the term "quasi-canon." This is Steven Sansweet's > pet term for what we call "official." Those works which are not direct > products of Lucas's vision (again the films, novelisations, etc) are not > absolute canon but still maintain the position of "quasi-canon" in that we > must consider the means of delivery in so far as how that piece of the > expanded universe fits into the overall continuity. "Quasi-canon" isn't on the website, so I don't think that is what he was talking about. Those statements by Sansweet are only found in one of the book's forewards, which I don't think is any different than how the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual authors say their book is "official". To say otherwise is a double-standard, and I hope we don't want to go down that road. > > > > The Sansweet remarks came after the writing of the FAQ and the R&R. > This > > is > > > how I (the writer of the FAQ) decided to interpret it: > > > "Canon" is a reference to the level of truth as far as SW is concerned. > > > There are many layers to that canon as Sansweet remarked, and the layers > > go > > > down the further you get from Lucas' final vision. When he says the > only > > > "true canon" is the films, he means that the ultimate Star Wars truth is > > the > > > films. The FAQ states this. The remaining parts of the category called > > > "canon" are lesser truths and are (and always have been) subordinate to > > the > > > films. However, they remain true to Lucas' vision with only some minor > > > deviations. They are accepted as truth so long as they do not conflict > > with > > > the films. The "official" category is further from the truth because it > > > didn't come directly from Lucas story, but by expanding upon it (hence, > > > expanded universe). This level of separation means that it's not going > to > > > be as high a level of canon as those other parts of the "canon" list > > (radio > > > dramas, scripts, novelizations), and certainly not the films. However, > > > since they are nevertheless part of the universe they are accepted where > > > they do not conflict. > > > > The part I'm bothered by, though, is the fact that nowhere is there any > > reference to an official category anywhere, and I don't just mean by name. > > I mean the concept of official ... it doesn't exist. There are the levels > > of canon, but nowhere is the Expanded Universe given any weight, except in > > reference to other elements within the Expanded Universe. Lucas himself > > said that he isn't bound by it in his movie-making. > > > > Sanswet uses the term "quasi-canon" rather than "official" replace one with > the other and ask yourself which is easier to say. Point taken. :) Unfortunately, the deeper problem remains. There is no mention of quasi-canon/official in canon policy statements by Lucas or his agents, except in a book foreward, and that book foreward isn't canon (according to stated canon policy). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 17:35:04 -0400 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:SDTQ8.378356$Oa1.27861858@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:af0rq4$ae3l6$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:I%QQ8.320253$%y.26136374@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > Unfortunately, the deeper problem remains. There is no mention of > quasi-canon/official in canon policy statements by Lucas or his agents, > except in a book foreward, and that book foreward isn't canon (according to > stated canon policy). "...every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them" This is Sansweet's exact quote. We also knwo from the LucasFilm continuity editors that "canon" is the FIlms, Novelisations, Radio Plays, and Scripts. By common definition of the word canon (or "Gospel" as they say) these are the immutabele truths of the SW unvierse. AS Sansweet points out on SW.com "every piece of published SW fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars." Now for clarity we are saying that everything not a Film, Novelisation, etc is "official" and the rest are "canon." We use a term that LucasFilm doesn't use but it doens't change the fact that everything that LucasFilm approves of as a "published Star Wars fiction" is part of the continuity (excepting those things marked with the Infinities symbol). -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 03:24:00 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:af2qjb$b2f5g$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:SDTQ8.378356$Oa1.27861858@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:af0rq4$ae3l6$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:I%QQ8.320253$%y.26136374@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > Unfortunately, the deeper problem remains. There is no mention of > > quasi-canon/official in canon policy statements by Lucas or his agents, > > except in a book foreward, and that book foreward isn't canon (according > to > > stated canon policy). > > > "...every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' > Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are > decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them" You're taking that meaningless quote out of context and giving it meaning it doesn't have. It is clear, by what he said in the prior paragraph and what he said afterward, that he's talking about the "continuity" of the Expanded Universe. In the paragraph above, for example, he says that "the further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play." Speculation does not make fact, which is precisely what you are arguing. The very next sentence makes clear that he's talking about the Expanded Universe, and he then gives the analogy you quote. Also, I have to point out that the "nugget of truth" might not be something never seen in canon, as you seem to be suggesting ... the nuggets of truth might be taken from the canon and placed in the Expanded Universe. In other words, if I wrote a completely fictional and counterfactual version of the second World War, but used a real speech by Churchill, my work could be said to contain "a nugget of truth", or be "a window into the 'real' World War II universe", but it would still be complete crap. http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html > This is Sansweet's exact quote. We also knwo from the LucasFilm continuity > editors that "canon" is the FIlms, Novelisations, Radio Plays, and Scripts. > By common definition of the word canon (or "Gospel" as they say) these are > the immutabele truths of the SW unvierse. AS Sansweet points out on SW.com > "every piece of published SW fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars." If we take that quote out of context, the quote would then allow for the stuff with the "Infinities" symbol to have happened. But, at the same time, it leaves out anything that isn't a story, so stuff like the ICS would be out. Context is very important. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 01:44:14 -0400 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:kbbR8.34403$Ny6.1891152@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:af2qjb$b2f5g$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:SDTQ8.378356$Oa1.27861858@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:af0rq4$ae3l6$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > news:I%QQ8.320253$%y.26136374@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, the deeper problem remains. There is no mention of > > > quasi-canon/official in canon policy statements by Lucas or his agents, > > > except in a book foreward, and that book foreward isn't canon (according > > to > > > stated canon policy). > > > > > > "...every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' > > Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are > > decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them" > > You're taking that meaningless quote out of context and giving it meaning it > doesn't have. It is clear, by what he said in the prior paragraph and what > he said afterward, that he's talking about the "continuity" of the Expanded > Universe. In the paragraph above, for example, he says that "the further > one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation > come into play." Speculation does not make fact, which is precisely what > you are arguing. > > The very next sentence makes clear that he's talking about the Expanded > Universe, and he then gives the analogy you quote. Also, I have to point > out that the "nugget of truth" might not be something never seen in canon, > as you seem to be suggesting ... the nuggets of truth might be taken from > the canon and placed in the Expanded Universe. In other words, if I wrote > a completely fictional and counterfactual version of the second World War, > but used a real speech by Churchill, my work could be said to contain "a > nugget of truth", or be "a window into the 'real' World War II universe", > but it would still be complete crap. The significant difference here is that the expanded universe is part of the "continuity." Now if you want to get technical Main Entry: con·ti·nu·i·ty Pronunciation: "kän-t&n-'ü-&-tE, -'yü- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties Date: 15th century 1 a : uninterrupted connection, succession, or union b : uninterrupted duration or continuation especially without essential change 2 : something that has, exhibits, or provides continuity: as a : a script or scenario in the performing arts b : transitional spoken or musical matter especially for a radio or television program c : the story and dialogue of a comic strip 3 : the property of being mathematically continuous and Main Entry: con·tin·u·ous Pronunciation: k&n-'tin-yü-&s Function: adjective Etymology: Latin continuus, from continEre to hold together -- more at CONTAIN Date: 1673 1 : marked by uninterrupted extension in space, time, or sequence Now this means that being part of the "continuity" of star Wars means that the EU is part of the whole, if it is part of the whole then it occupies a position of authoritative testimony on the SW universe. We also know that the "absolute truth" of SW is held within the films, novelisations, radio plays, and scripts yet we also knwo that these other works exist as part of the continuity of SW thus they are part of the SW universe BUT they are less authoritative than the "canon" works as they are excluded from that list. The terms we use are ones of convenience but they are vaslid as it applies to the continuity/canon policies of Lucasfilm. As an aside we have provide, in essence, a coherent theory to explain the informaiton we have recieved. It is not enough to simply tooss a theory out the window, a bad theory which explains MOST of the data is perferable to no theory at all. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:32:37 -0700 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > I have a question. http://h4h.com/louis/sources.html http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wouter Valentijn" Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 20:17:01 +0200 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" schreef in bericht news:uh86g778nhaf30@corp.supernews.com... > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > I have a question. > > http://h4h.com/louis/sources.html > > > > > > > > http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html > > > It is also here: http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html -- Wouter Valentijn www.zeppodunsel.nl ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 23:04:55 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:uh86g778nhaf30@corp.supernews.com... > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > I have a question. > > http://h4h.com/louis/sources.html Yes, I found your page in my research, too. I didn't reference it since the important points were in the primary sources I referenced. I agree that you can try to combine the Insider quote and the Cerasi-Sansweet quote to find the canon policy between them. It is worthy of mentioning, though, that the official order of canon isn't stated. See, order of canon usually given (as seen on your page) is: (a) the films (b) the scripts (c) the film novelizations (d) the radio-plays But, I don't see that order directly reflected in the quotes. The Insider mentions the screenplays, films, radio dramas, and novelisations, in that order. I think that is best ignored, though, in favor of the Cerasi quote about how the "further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play." So the films naturally should come first, with scripts second. The movie novelisations versus the radio-plays is tricky, but I don't see a problem with the radio stuff coming last. After all, Cerasi says that the novels "should be regarded as very accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies," which are the absolute canon. So that's fine, but here our troubles begin. Now we get into sticky territory. Your page has the same basic idea seen in a few other places, that "ALL other materials have the status "official" .. not "canon" which means that if the EU novels, roleplaying games, the cardgames, PC and console games, comics, etc. contradict the accepted 'canon', movies, novelizations, or radioplays on some particular detail, then they do NOT hold true, ON THAT POINT." But, nowhere is this stated by Lucas or any of his authorized agents. Nowhere are the words "official" or "quasi-canon" in official statements by Lucas or his authorized agents. _The_very_concept_ is missing from these statements. The only place we see "quasi-canon" is in a book which itself would be "quasi-canon", much like the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual proclaims itself "official", but is not regarded as such because Paramount has never referred to or suggested the existence of an official category. Don't get me wrong ... I think that idea is fine as a person's individual view. That is, in fact, how I look at Star Wars canon. I agree with Sansweet that issues like canon are indeed best left to an individual's point of view. But, we can't use an arbitrary judgement like that to determine Star Wars or Star Trek. If I had my way, the Earth-Romulan War era of Star Trek would look more like this: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sfmuseum/index.htm . It's got continuity and a cool World War II theme about it. We have to be more rigid here, I think. And so we need to find something official that allows official things in. We don't have it. Your page also has several quotes about official stuff. For instance, you have a quote from Handley about Marvel comics. However, at no point does Handley say that Lucas or Lucasfilm consider any publication besides the movie novelisations canon, official, or anything else. That just says the same thing shown elsewhere, that the novels, comics, and other similar things try to stay consistent with each other and the canon. "The continuity" they refer to doesn't mean "official/quasi-canon fact", but an "internal" consistency with other publications. You also have a quote from Kevin J. Anderson, where he responds to a reader's beliefs by pointing out that the background on the Sith he had came from Lucas. (By the way, where did you get the idea that the storylines of Tales of the Jedi are "directly from George Lucas himself"? Anderson doesn't say that.) This doesn't prove that the novels have some "official" status either, but only that Anderson got a chance to talk to Lucas and pick his brain. They are Lucas' beliefs, but if they aren't part of the stated canon, they aren't canon. So, the person who wrote the letter saying that his views on the Sith were wrong was not wrong for disagreeing, since he or she has the liberty of ignoring that idea. Finally, there is the quote from the "Star by Star" author. But, like Saxton's comment that he was only giving the rules for use _on_his_site_, the author is talking about the things he needs _for_a_book_, and we already know that the books are supposed to maintain "continuity" _with_each_other_. Do we have anything direct from Lucas/LFL about the canonicity of the Expanded Universe, compared to the canon adventures? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 21:51:36 -0700 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > > http://h4h.com/louis/sources.html > > Yes, I found your page in my research, too. I didn't reference it since the > important points were in the primary sources I referenced. > > I agree that you can try to combine the Insider quote and the > Cerasi-Sansweet quote to find the canon policy between them. It is worthy > of mentioning, though, that the official order of canon isn't stated. > > See, order of canon usually given (as seen on your page) is: > (a) the films > (b) the scripts > (c) the film novelizations > (d) the radio-plays > > But, I don't see that order directly reflected in the quotes. "The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play." What is so hard to understand? > The Insider > mentions the screenplays, films, radio dramas, and novelisations, in that > order. I think that is best ignored, though, in favor of the Cerasi quote > about how the "further one branches away from the movies, the more > interpretation and speculation come into play." Ok, so you answered your own question above. > So the films naturally > should come first, with scripts second. The movie novelisations versus the > radio-plays is tricky, but I don't see a problem with the radio stuff coming > last. You shouldn't, since they did, after all. > After all, Cerasi says that the novels "should be regarded as very > accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies," which are the > absolute canon. > > So that's fine, but here our troubles begin. > Now we get into sticky territory. Your page has the same basic idea seen > in a few other places, that "ALL other materials have the status "official" > .. not "canon" which means that if the EU novels, roleplaying games, the > cardgames, PC and console games, comics, etc. contradict the accepted > 'canon', movies, novelizations, or radioplays on some particular detail, > then they do NOT hold true, ON THAT POINT." > But, nowhere is this stated by Lucas or any of his authorized agents. > Nowhere are the words "official" or "quasi-canon" in official statements by > Lucas or his authorized agents. _The_very_concept_ is missing from these > statements. Is it really? "The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them." Again, what is so hard to understand? The novels, games, comics, etc, are NOT the MOVIES, are they? They are NOT the SCRIPTS, are they? They are NOT the NOVELIZATIONS, are they? They are NOT the RADIO PLAYS, are they? Therefore, they are "official". If you have a better name for SW EU materials that are not canon but accepted sources, fine. > Don't get me wrong ... I think that idea is fine as a person's individual > view. That is, in fact, how I look at Star Wars canon. I agree with > Sansweet that issues like canon are indeed best left to an individual's > point of view. This isn't my personal view. This is Lucasfilm's view. > But, we can't use an arbitrary judgement like that to determine Star Wars or > Star Trek. We aren't. We are using Lucasfilm and Paramount stated policy. You seem to be able to reference those sources, but refuse to understand the concept. > Your page also has several quotes about official stuff. For instance, you > have a quote from Handley about Marvel comics. However, at no point does > Handley say that Lucas or Lucasfilm consider any publication besides the > movie novelisations canon, official, or anything else. That just says the > same thing shown elsewhere, that the novels, comics, and other similar > things try to stay consistent with each other and the canon. "The > continuity" they refer to doesn't mean "official/quasi-canon fact", but an > "internal" consistency with other publications. Other publications which are NOT the MOVIES, NOT the SCRIPTS, NOT the NOVELIZATIONS, and NOT the RADIO PLAYS. Therefore, they are "official". > You also have a quote from Kevin J. Anderson, where he responds to a > reader's beliefs by pointing out that the background on the Sith he had came > from Lucas. (By the way, where did you get the idea that the storylines of > Tales of the Jedi are "directly from George Lucas himself"? Anderson > doesn't say that.) Do you have a problem reading? "Sorry you don't like the framework of the Sith and Dark Jedi, Chris, but that background came directly to us from George Lucas. We're following his guidelines and building a story within the parameters he himself had laid down." No, Lucas didn't write the dialogue bubbles or number the pages, but the story backgrounds and story parameters "came directly to us from George Lucas." "Storylines" is not an incorrect word for me to use. I know you're having fun attempting to be a pedantic ass, but give it a rest. > Do we have anything direct from Lucas/LFL about the canonicity of the > Expanded Universe, compared to the canon adventures? Yes, and there are all in the references already pointed out. You simply have a problem understanding them. http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 06:01:58 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:uhakuqht7toaa5@corp.supernews.com... > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > > http://h4h.com/louis/sources.html > > > > Yes, I found your page in my research, too. I didn't reference it since > the > > important points were in the primary sources I referenced. > > > > I agree that you can try to combine the Insider quote and the > > Cerasi-Sansweet quote to find the canon policy between them. It is worthy > > of mentioning, though, that the official order of canon isn't stated. > > > > See, order of canon usually given (as seen on your page) is: > > (a) the films > > (b) the scripts > > (c) the film novelizations > > (d) the radio-plays > > > > But, I don't see that order directly reflected in the quotes. > > "The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and > speculation come into play." > > What is so hard to understand? Speculation does not fact make. > > > The Insider > > mentions the screenplays, films, radio dramas, and novelisations, in that > > order. I think that is best ignored, though, in favor of the Cerasi > quote > > about how the "further one branches away from the movies, the more > > interpretation and speculation come into play." > > Ok, so you answered your own question above. In reference to the canon, I think that quote applies well. We know from the Insider quote what is considered canon, which with the Cerasi quote defines a clear line ... after canon, it is interpretation and speculation (unless, of course, they are directly referencing canon fact). > > > So the films naturally > > should come first, with scripts second. The movie novelisations versus > the > > radio-plays is tricky, but I don't see a problem with the radio stuff > coming > > last. > > You shouldn't, since they did, after all. I didn't think canon was a matter of chronology. I figure the prequel movies are more canon than the 1981 radio dramas, for example. > > After all, Cerasi says that the novels "should be regarded as very > > accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies," which are the > > absolute canon. > > > > So that's fine, but here our troubles begin. > > > Now we get into sticky territory. Your page has the same basic idea seen > > in a few other places, that "ALL other materials have the status > "official" > > .. not "canon" which means that if the EU novels, roleplaying games, the > > cardgames, PC and console games, comics, etc. contradict the accepted > > 'canon', movies, novelizations, or radioplays on some particular detail, > > then they do NOT hold true, ON THAT POINT." > > > But, nowhere is this stated by Lucas or any of his authorized agents. > > Nowhere are the words "official" or "quasi-canon" in official statements > by > > Lucas or his authorized agents. _The_very_concept_ is missing from these > > statements. > > Is it really? > > "The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window > into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than > others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to > them." As I told cmdrwilkens: "You're taking that meaningless quote out of context and giving it meaning it doesn't have. It is clear, by what he said in the prior paragraph and what he said afterward, that he's talking about the "continuity" of the Expanded Universe. In the paragraph above, for example, he says that "the further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play." Speculation does not make fact, which is precisely what you are arguing. The very next sentence makes clear that he's talking about the Expanded Universe, and he then gives the analogy you quote. Also, I have to point out that the "nugget of truth" might not be something never seen in canon, as you seem to be suggesting ... the nuggets of truth might be taken from the canon and placed in the Expanded Universe. In other words, if I wrote a completely fictional and counterfactual version of the second World War, but used a real speech by Churchill, my work could be said to contain "a nugget of truth", or be "a window into the 'real' World War II universe", but it would still be complete crap." > Again, what is so hard to understand? The novels, games, comics, etc, are > NOT the MOVIES, are they? They are NOT the SCRIPTS, are they? They are NOT > the NOVELIZATIONS, are they? They are NOT the RADIO PLAYS, are they? > > Therefore, they are "official". If you have a better name for SW EU > materials that are not canon but accepted sources, fine. You just repeated the mistake of _assuming_ they are accepted sources. Perhaps Saxton said it best: "Any STAR WARS material that is official but not canon is apocryphal." http://www.theforce.net/swtc/faq.html#3.4 The only people who are forced to accept the Expanded Universe are those who are writing for it, and are expected to maintain continuity with it. > > Don't get me wrong ... I think that idea is fine as a person's individual > > view. That is, in fact, how I look at Star Wars canon. I agree with > > Sansweet that issues like canon are indeed best left to an individual's > > point of view. > > This isn't my personal view. This is Lucasfilm's view. Says who? Not them. > > But, we can't use an arbitrary judgement like that to determine Star Wars > or > > Star Trek. > > We aren't. We are using Lucasfilm and Paramount stated policy. You seem to > be able to reference those sources, but refuse to understand the concept. You're trying to insert a concept that isn't present in the stated policy. > > Your page also has several quotes about official stuff. For instance, > you > > have a quote from Handley about Marvel comics. However, at no point does > > Handley say that Lucas or Lucasfilm consider any publication besides the > > movie novelisations canon, official, or anything else. That just says > the > > same thing shown elsewhere, that the novels, comics, and other similar > > things try to stay consistent with each other and the canon. "The > > continuity" they refer to doesn't mean "official/quasi-canon fact", but an > > "internal" consistency with other publications. > > Other publications which are NOT the MOVIES, NOT the SCRIPTS, NOT the > NOVELIZATIONS, and NOT the RADIO PLAYS. Therefore, they are "official". I do not see how this constitutes a reply to the part you quote. It seems like you're trying to say that the Expanded Universe is official (and a valid source of information) because the new Expanded Universe adventures have to maintain continuity with the older Expanded Universe stuff. So what? Just because EU must follow EU doesn't mean that all Star Wars fans are supposed to consider the Expanded Universe factual. According to Lucas and his authorized agents, only the canon is supposed to be considered factual. > > You also have a quote from Kevin J. Anderson, where he responds to a > > reader's beliefs by pointing out that the background on the Sith he had > came > > from Lucas. (By the way, where did you get the idea that the storylines > of > > Tales of the Jedi are "directly from George Lucas himself"? Anderson > > doesn't say that.) > > Do you have a problem reading? No. > "Sorry you don't like the framework of the Sith and Dark Jedi, Chris, but > that background came directly to us from George Lucas. We're following his > guidelines and building a story within the parameters he himself had laid > down." > > No, Lucas didn't write the dialogue bubbles or number the pages, but the > story backgrounds and story parameters "came directly to us from George > Lucas." "Storylines" is not an incorrect word for me to use. I know you're > having fun attempting to be a pedantic ass, but give it a rest. I'm not being a pedantic ass ... I'm just not ignoring the meaning of words, like you are. "Background" ... "guidelines" ... "parameters" ... "rules". You seem to think these terms mean that Lucas snatched Anderson off the street and ordered him to write a book with certain details and plotlines. The quote from Anderson doesn't say that at all. The quote says that perhaps Anderson got to pick Lucas' brain a bit and find out what Lucas thought the Sith were like, their powers, and something of their origins. After all, Anderson is replying to a letter about _the_characterization_ of the Sith, defending his characterization by pointing out that he followed the rules Lucas laid down. > > > Do we have anything direct from Lucas/LFL about the canonicity of the > > Expanded Universe, compared to the canon adventures? > > Yes, and there are all in the references already pointed out. You simply > have a problem understanding them. No, I understand them fine. I just don't add to them with my own imagination like you do. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 23:53:44 -0700 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote > > "Wayne Poe" wrote > > "The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation > > and speculation come into play." > > What is so hard to understand? > Speculation does not fact make. Making a nonsensical statement does not negate the EU either. > > > The Insider > > > mentions the screenplays, films, radio dramas, and novelisations, in > that > > > order. I think that is best ignored, though, in favor of the Cerasi > > quote > > > about how the "further one branches away from the movies, the more > > > interpretation and speculation come into play." > > > > Ok, so you answered your own question above. > In reference to the canon, I think that quote applies well. We know from > the Insider quote what is considered canon, which with the Cerasi quote > defines a clear line ... after canon, it is interpretation and speculation > (unless, of course, they are directly referencing canon fact). "These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology." This refers to the canon AND the EU. You're not fooling anyone. You are just another whiny asshole who is looking for a backdoor to invalidate the AOTC:ICS. Too bad. > > > So the films naturally > > > should come first, with scripts second. The movie novelisations versus > > the > > > radio-plays is tricky, but I don't see a problem with the radio stuff > > coming > > > last. > > > > You shouldn't, since they did, after all. > > I didn't think canon was a matter of chronology. You would if you knew what you were talking about. Most of the backstory in the RPs come from the novelizations. And if you were able to read what you reference, you'd understand why the RPs are the last rung on the canon ladder. "The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play. " > I figure the prequel movies are more canon than the 1981 radio dramas, for example. Ooh! What a zinger! You've cut our whole charade to the quick! Why, you're like that Garrison guy exposing the JFK conspiracy! Oops wait.....the prequels are MOVIES, aren't they? "Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelisations." >>> But, nowhere is this stated by Lucas or any of his authorized agents. Nowhere are the words "official" or "quasi-canon" in >>> official statements by Lucas or his authorized agents. _The_very_concept_ is missing from these statements. > > Is it really? >> "The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some >> windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them." > As I told cmdrwilkens: As Wilkens told you: The significant difference here is that the expanded universe is part of the "continuity." Now if you want to get technical Main Entry: con·ti·nu·i·ty Pronunciation: "kän-t&n-'ü-&-tE, -'yü- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties Date: 15th century 1 a : uninterrupted connection, succession, or union b : uninterrupted duration or continuation especially without essential change 2 : something that has, exhibits, or provides continuity: as a : a script or scenario in the performing arts b : transitional spoken or musical matter especially for a radio or television program c : the story and dialogue of a comic strip 3 : the property of being mathematically continuous and Main Entry: con·tin·u·ous Pronunciation: k&n-'tin-yü-&s Function: adjective Etymology: Latin continuus, from continEre to hold together -- more at CONTAIN Date: 1673 1 : marked by uninterrupted extension in space, time, or sequence Now this means that being part of the "continuity" of star Wars means that the EU is part of the whole, if it is part of the whole then it occupies a position of authoritative testimony on the SW universe. We also know that the "absolute truth" of SW is held within the films, novelisations, radio plays, and scripts yet we also knwo that these other works exist as part of the continuity of SW thus they are part of the SW universe BUT they are less authoritative than the "canon" works as they are excluded from that list. The terms we use are ones of convenience but they are vaslid as it applies to the continuity/canon policies of Lucasfilm. > In other words, if I wrote > a completely fictional and counterfactual version of the second World War, > but used a real speech by Churchill, my work could be said to contain "a > nugget of truth", or be "a window into the 'real' World War II universe", > but it would still be complete crap." What an idiotic analogy. First of all, you are not an authorized historian. Secondly, such a thing wouldn't be officially sanctioned in the same way EU novels are by Lucas Books. Grab another straw. > > Again, what is so hard to understand? The novels, games, comics, etc, are > > NOT the MOVIES, are they? They are NOT the SCRIPTS, are they? They are NOT > > the NOVELIZATIONS, are they? They are NOT the RADIO PLAYS, are they? > > > > Therefore, they are "official". If you have a better name for SW EU > > materials that are not canon but accepted sources, fine. > > You just repeated the mistake of _assuming_ they are accepted sources. > Perhaps Saxton said it best: There is no mistake, except on your part. I won't repeat all the quotes that prove your stance wrong. You won't understand them the fifth time around anyway. http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 08:15:28 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:uhas4chkq3op5b@corp.supernews.com... > > "DarkStar" wrote > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote > > > > "The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation > > > and speculation come into play." > > > > What is so hard to understand? > > > Speculation does not fact make. > > Making a nonsensical statement does not negate the EU either. > > > > > The Insider > > > > mentions the screenplays, films, radio dramas, and novelisations, in > > that > > > > order. I think that is best ignored, though, in favor of the Cerasi > > > quote > > > > about how the "further one branches away from the movies, the more > > > > interpretation and speculation come into play." > > > > > > Ok, so you answered your own question above. > > > In reference to the canon, I think that quote applies well. We know from > > the Insider quote what is considered canon, which with the Cerasi quote > > defines a clear line ... after canon, it is interpretation and speculation > > (unless, of course, they are directly referencing canon fact). > > "These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are > written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and > much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire > catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots, > variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology." > > This refers to the canon AND the EU. I would prefer if you would stop taking quotes out of context. The complete Insider quote is: "Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology." So, the "these works" are the canon, the rest is simply written by other writers, and is therefore not canon. They say they've read all of it (not that they had to), and much of it is taken into account (or was at the time of that article). So, which parts aren't? Can you tell me what is and is not taken into account? They sure don't let us in on it, and a lot of non-canon was ignored for the prequels. > You're not fooling anyone. You are just another whiny asshole who is looking > for a backdoor to invalidate the AOTC:ICS. > > Too bad. You can claim whatever motivations you want, it doesn't change the facts. I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate the ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway. > > > > So the films naturally > > > > should come first, with scripts second. The movie novelisations > versus > > > the > > > > radio-plays is tricky, but I don't see a problem with the radio stuff > > > coming > > > > last. > > > > > > You shouldn't, since they did, after all. > > > > I didn't think canon was a matter of chronology. > > You would if you knew what you were talking about. Most of the backstory in > the RPs come from the novelizations. And if you were able to read what you > reference, you'd understand why the RPs are the last rung on the canon > ladder. Actually, the radio-play has a few scenes that were deleted from the movie after being filmed, so he could have been working from any number of sources ... early scripts, the novel, cut scenes, whatever. I never claimed the ability to pull ideas out of my ass and proclaim them fact like you do. (See, when you call me an asshole, I get less nice.) :) > > "The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and > speculation come into play. " > > > I figure the prequel movies are more canon than the 1981 radio dramas, for > example. > > Ooh! What a zinger! You've cut our whole charade to the quick! Why, you're > like that Garrison guy exposing the JFK conspiracy! Oops wait.....the > prequels are MOVIES, aren't they? > > "Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, > the radio dramas and the novelisations." > > >>> But, nowhere is this stated by Lucas or any of his authorized agents. > Nowhere are the words "official" or "quasi-canon" in >>> official statements > by Lucas or his authorized agents. _The_very_concept_ is missing from > these statements. > > > > Is it really? > > >> "The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a > window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some > >> windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But > each contains a nugget of truth to them." > > > As I told cmdrwilkens: > > As Wilkens told you: > > The significant difference here is that the expanded universe is part of the > "continuity." Now if you want to get technical > > Main Entry: con·ti·nu·i·ty > Pronunciation: "kän-t&n-'ü-&-tE, -'yü- > Function: noun > Inflected Form(s): plural -ties > Date: 15th century > 1 a : uninterrupted connection, succession, or union b : uninterrupted > duration or continuation especially without essential change > 2 : something that has, exhibits, or provides continuity: as a : a script or > scenario in the performing arts b : transitional spoken or musical matter > especially for a radio or television program c : the story and dialogue of a > comic strip > 3 : the property of being mathematically continuous > > and > > Main Entry: con·tin·u·ous > Pronunciation: k&n-'tin-yü-&s > Function: adjective > Etymology: Latin continuus, from continEre to hold together -- more at > CONTAIN > Date: 1673 > 1 : marked by uninterrupted extension in space, time, or sequence > > > Now this means that being part of the "continuity" of star Wars means that > the EU is part of the whole, if it is part of the whole then it occupies a > position of authoritative testimony on the SW universe. We also know that > the "absolute truth" of SW is held within the films, novelisations, radio > plays, and scripts yet we also knwo that these other works exist as part of > the continuity of SW thus they are part of the SW universe BUT they are less > authoritative than the "canon" works as they are excluded from that list. > The terms we use are ones of convenience but they are vaslid as it applies > to the continuity/canon policies of Lucasfilm. "Continuity" is a term used in the primary sources I have referenced and that you have quoted on your webpage, and it clearly refers only to the internal consistency of the Expanded Universe. The only exception might be the use of the term in the several-year-old Insider quote, but even then there is no suggestion that they are using it to refer to anything that includes the canon. > > In other words, if I wrote > > a completely fictional and counterfactual version of the second World War, > > but used a real speech by Churchill, my work could be said to contain "a > > nugget of truth", or be "a window into the 'real' World War II universe", > > but it would still be complete crap." > > What an idiotic analogy. First of all, you are not an authorized historian. Analogies aren't perfect. That's why they're called analogies. Your protest is idiotic, though... what the hell is an "authorized" historian? > Secondly, such a thing wouldn't be officially sanctioned in the same way EU > novels are by Lucas Books. Grab another straw. Big deal. Just because there is no requirement to get permission to use the term "World War II" or "Churchill" doesn't suddenly make the Expanded Universe any less apocryphal. > > > Again, what is so hard to understand? The novels, games, comics, etc, > are > > > NOT the MOVIES, are they? They are NOT the SCRIPTS, are they? They are > NOT > > > the NOVELIZATIONS, are they? They are NOT the RADIO PLAYS, are they? > > > > > > Therefore, they are "official". If you have a better name for SW EU > > > materials that are not canon but accepted sources, fine. > > > > You just repeated the mistake of _assuming_ they are accepted sources. > > Perhaps Saxton said it best: > > There is no mistake, except on your part. I won't repeat all the quotes that > prove your stance wrong. You won't understand them the fifth time around > anyway. > > > http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html I have no problem understanding what you are trying to say. Your problem with me is the fact that I also have no problem understanding the fact that what you say is wrong. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Phil Skayhan" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 08:27:17 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:AsfR8.353222$Gs.27461507@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > news:uhas4chkq3op5b@corp.supernews.com... > > You're not fooling anyone. You are just another whiny asshole who is > looking > > for a backdoor to invalidate the AOTC:ICS. > > > > Too bad. > > You can claim whatever motivations you want, it doesn't change the facts. > > I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate the > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway. Such as....? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 08:33:51 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message news:FDfR8.8529$5k6.1941@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:AsfR8.353222$Gs.27461507@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > news:uhas4chkq3op5b@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > You're not fooling anyone. You are just another whiny asshole who is > > looking > > > for a backdoor to invalidate the AOTC:ICS. > > > > > > Too bad. > > > > You can claim whatever motivations you want, it doesn't change the facts. > > > > I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate the > > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway. > > Such as....? For the moment, I shall refer you to the "Incredible Cross Sections" thread, and related threads at that time. I'm trying to avoid letting Wayne Poe derail the thread with his red herrings, so it wouldn't be good for me to branch off in that direction again right now. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Phil Skayhan" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 08:44:07 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:PJfR8.397880$Oa1.28812755@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > news:FDfR8.8529$5k6.1941@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:AsfR8.353222$Gs.27461507@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > > news:uhas4chkq3op5b@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > > You're not fooling anyone. You are just another whiny asshole who is > > > looking > > > > for a backdoor to invalidate the AOTC:ICS. > > > > > > > > Too bad. > > > > > > You can claim whatever motivations you want, it doesn't change the > facts. > > > > > > I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate the > > > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway. > > > > Such as....? > > For the moment, I shall refer you to the "Incredible Cross Sections" thread, > and related threads at that time. I'm trying to avoid letting Wayne Poe > derail the thread with his red herrings, so it wouldn't be good for me to > branch off in that direction again right now. :) There is no such thread here. And if you're refering to something someone over at SB.com said (if so, I realize why you're loth to repeat it), then post the link. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 09:42:08 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message news:rTfR8.8543$5k6.5025@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:PJfR8.397880$Oa1.28812755@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > > news:FDfR8.8529$5k6.1941@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:AsfR8.353222$Gs.27461507@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > > > news:uhas4chkq3op5b@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not fooling anyone. You are just another whiny asshole who is > > > > looking > > > > > for a backdoor to invalidate the AOTC:ICS. > > > > > > > > > > Too bad. > > > > > > > > You can claim whatever motivations you want, it doesn't change the > > facts. > > > > > > > > I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate > the > > > > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway. > > > > > > Such as....? > > > > For the moment, I shall refer you to the "Incredible Cross Sections" > thread, > > and related threads at that time. I'm trying to avoid letting Wayne Poe > > derail the thread with his red herrings, so it wouldn't be good for me to > > branch off in that direction again right now. :) > > There is no such thread here. Uh, yeah there is. The thread is titled "Incredible Cross Sections", the date is 5/25/02. I started it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Phil Skayhan" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 10:10:50 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:QJgR8.91788$_j6.4698765@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > news:rTfR8.8543$5k6.5025@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > > > > I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate > > the > > > > > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway. > > > > > > > > Such as....? > > > > > > For the moment, I shall refer you to the "Incredible Cross Sections" > > thread, > > > and related threads at that time. I'm trying to avoid letting Wayne Poe > > > derail the thread with his red herrings, so it wouldn't be good for me > to > > > branch off in that direction again right now. :) > > > > There is no such thread here. > > Uh, yeah there is. The thread is titled "Incredible Cross Sections", the > date is 5/25/02. I started it. I looked through the entire thread, no such evidence that that ICS is contradicted by the film (at least in the points brought up). Your main thrust seemed to be that it was a "warsie" conspiricy intended solely to defeat Star Trek (ie: Mike Wong recieves credit in the book and on Saxton's website). This, as you were told, is wrong. The other topics you mentioned were dealt with quite well, such as the Slave I shots. You remembered the name of the thread but little else about it apparently. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 10:58:22 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message news:K8hR8.8860$5k6.1790@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:QJgR8.91788$_j6.4698765@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > > news:rTfR8.8543$5k6.5025@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to > invalidate > > > the > > > > > > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway. > > > > > > > > > > Such as....? > > > > > > > > For the moment, I shall refer you to the "Incredible Cross Sections" > > > thread, > > > > and related threads at that time. I'm trying to avoid letting Wayne > Poe > > > > derail the thread with his red herrings, so it wouldn't be good for me > > to > > > > branch off in that direction again right now. :) > > > > > > There is no such thread here. > > > > Uh, yeah there is. The thread is titled "Incredible Cross Sections", the > > date is 5/25/02. I started it. > > I looked through the entire thread, no such evidence that that ICS is > contradicted by the film (at least in the points brought up). > > Your main thrust seemed to be that it was a "warsie" conspiricy intended > solely to defeat Star Trek (ie: Mike Wong recieves credit in the book and on > Saxton's website). This, as you were told, is wrong. > Huh? That was never my main thrust, as I made clear several times, even going so far as to apologize for the mean-spirited line at the end of the first post after my main thrust. > The other topics you mentioned were dealt with quite well, such as the Slave > I shots. > > You remembered the name of the thread but little else about it apparently. No, since I pointed out, correctly, that there is no canon evidence for 600 gigajoule shots from Slave 1, and other similar things. You might want to read over it again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Phil Skayhan" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:24:26 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:iRhR8.40228$Ny6.2120001@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > Uh, yeah there is. The thread is titled "Incredible Cross Sections", > the > > > date is 5/25/02. I started it. > > > > I looked through the entire thread, no such evidence that that ICS is > > contradicted by the film (at least in the points brought up). > > > > Your main thrust seemed to be that it was a "warsie" conspiricy intended > > solely to defeat Star Trek (ie: Mike Wong recieves credit in the book and > on > > Saxton's website). This, as you were told, is wrong. > > > > Huh? That was never my main thrust, as I made clear several times, even > going so far as to apologize for the mean-spirited line at the end of the > first post after my main thrust. > > > The other topics you mentioned were dealt with quite well, such as the > Slave > > I shots. > > > > You remembered the name of the thread but little else about it apparently. > > No, since I pointed out, correctly, that there is no canon evidence for 600 > gigajoule shots from Slave 1, and other similar things. You might want to > read over it again. No, there is no canon evidence *contradicting* ICS in regards to the 600 GJ shots from Slave I. This is not an unimportant distinction. Trust me, we're going to examine/disect/quantify the asteroid scene when the means presents itself. I have my eye, in particular, on the missile launched by Slave I. It may explain some anomalous items in RotJ: http://www.skayhan.net/Torp.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 19:01:01 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message news:KdiR8.9287$5k6.8283@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:iRhR8.40228$Ny6.2120001@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > Uh, yeah there is. The thread is titled "Incredible Cross Sections", > > the > > > > date is 5/25/02. I started it. > > > > > > I looked through the entire thread, no such evidence that that ICS is > > > contradicted by the film (at least in the points brought up). > > > > > > Your main thrust seemed to be that it was a "warsie" conspiricy intended > > > solely to defeat Star Trek (ie: Mike Wong recieves credit in the book > and > > on > > > Saxton's website). This, as you were told, is wrong. > > > > > > > Huh? That was never my main thrust, as I made clear several times, even > > going so far as to apologize for the mean-spirited line at the end of the > > first post after my main thrust. > > > > > The other topics you mentioned were dealt with quite well, such as the > > Slave > > > I shots. > > > > > > You remembered the name of the thread but little else about it > apparently. > > > > No, since I pointed out, correctly, that there is no canon evidence for > 600 > > gigajoule shots from Slave 1, and other similar things. You might want > to > > read over it again. > > No, there is no canon evidence *contradicting* ICS in regards to the 600 GJ > shots from Slave I. This is not an unimportant distinction. Well, the ICS says 600 gigajoules per shot. The movie doesn't show 600 gigajoules being fired. You can try to rationalize it, but it either means that Slave I can't do 600 gigajoules, or that Star Wars weapons take several minutes to charge up fully, even on a craft ready to take flight. > Trust me, we're going to examine/disect/quantify the asteroid scene when the > means presents itself. I know, I can't wait to get the first half of the movie. > I have my eye, in particular, on the missile launched by Slave I. It may > explain some anomalous items in RotJ: > > http://www.skayhan.net/Torp.htm Wow, that's a really interesting page. Those look like the proton torpedoes from the old TIE-fighter computer game. (Concussion missiles were red, proton torpedoes were blue, and the big heavy bombs were just sort of there.) :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 23 Jun 2002 19:07:31 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: <20020623150731.01534.00000576@mb-cg.aol.com> -------- >"Phil Skayhan" wrote in message >news:KdiR8.9287$5k6.8283@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message >> news:iRhR8.40228$Ny6.2120001@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> >> >> >> > > > Uh, yeah there is. The thread is titled "Incredible Cross >Sections", >> > the >> > > > date is 5/25/02. I started it. >> > > >> > > I looked through the entire thread, no such evidence that that ICS is >> > > contradicted by the film (at least in the points brought up). >> > > >> > > Your main thrust seemed to be that it was a "warsie" conspiricy >intended >> > > solely to defeat Star Trek (ie: Mike Wong recieves credit in the book >> and >> > on >> > > Saxton's website). This, as you were told, is wrong. >> > > >> > >> > Huh? That was never my main thrust, as I made clear several times, >even >> > going so far as to apologize for the mean-spirited line at the end of >the >> > first post after my main thrust. >> > >> > > The other topics you mentioned were dealt with quite well, such as the >> > Slave >> > > I shots. >> > > >> > > You remembered the name of the thread but little else about it >> apparently. >> > >> > No, since I pointed out, correctly, that there is no canon evidence for >> 600 >> > gigajoule shots from Slave 1, and other similar things. You might want >> to >> > read over it again. >> >> No, there is no canon evidence *contradicting* ICS in regards to the 600 >GJ >> shots from Slave I. This is not an unimportant distinction. > >Well, the ICS says 600 gigajoules per shot. The movie doesn't show 600 >gigajoules being fired. You can try to rationalize it, but it either means >that Slave I can't do 600 gigajoules, or that Star Wars weapons take several >minutes to charge up fully, even on a craft ready to take flight. > Or they have multiple power settings, something which fits many other peices of evidence. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius The most powerful attack of them all... DALTONDOKEN! Brought to you by cheese. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 19:21:01 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020623150731.01534.00000576@mb-cg.aol.com... > >"Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > >news:KdiR8.9287$5k6.8283@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > >> > >> "DarkStar" wrote in message > >> news:iRhR8.40228$Ny6.2120001@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > Uh, yeah there is. The thread is titled "Incredible Cross > >Sections", > >> > the > >> > > > date is 5/25/02. I started it. > >> > > > >> > > I looked through the entire thread, no such evidence that that ICS is > >> > > contradicted by the film (at least in the points brought up). > >> > > > >> > > Your main thrust seemed to be that it was a "warsie" conspiricy > >intended > >> > > solely to defeat Star Trek (ie: Mike Wong recieves credit in the book > >> and > >> > on > >> > > Saxton's website). This, as you were told, is wrong. > >> > > > >> > > >> > Huh? That was never my main thrust, as I made clear several times, > >even > >> > going so far as to apologize for the mean-spirited line at the end of > >the > >> > first post after my main thrust. > >> > > >> > > The other topics you mentioned were dealt with quite well, such as the > >> > Slave > >> > > I shots. > >> > > > >> > > You remembered the name of the thread but little else about it > >> apparently. > >> > > >> > No, since I pointed out, correctly, that there is no canon evidence for > >> 600 > >> > gigajoule shots from Slave 1, and other similar things. You might want > >> to > >> > read over it again. > >> > >> No, there is no canon evidence *contradicting* ICS in regards to the 600 > >GJ > >> shots from Slave I. This is not an unimportant distinction. > > > >Well, the ICS says 600 gigajoules per shot. The movie doesn't show 600 > >gigajoules being fired. You can try to rationalize it, but it either means > >that Slave I can't do 600 gigajoules, or that Star Wars weapons take several > >minutes to charge up fully, even on a craft ready to take flight. > > > > Or they have multiple power settings, something which fits many other peices of > evidence. There's nothing canon to support that, the ICS doesn't say that, and even the novel disagrees. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 23 Jun 2002 19:25:25 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: <20020623152525.01534.00000582@mb-cg.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20020623150731.01534.00000576@mb-cg.aol.com... >> >"Phil Skayhan" wrote in message >> >news:KdiR8.9287$5k6.8283@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... >> >> >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message >> >> news:iRhR8.40228$Ny6.2120001@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Uh, yeah there is. The thread is titled "Incredible Cross >> >Sections", >> >> > the >> >> > > > date is 5/25/02. I started it. >> >> > > >> >> > > I looked through the entire thread, no such evidence that that ICS >is >> >> > > contradicted by the film (at least in the points brought up). >> >> > > >> >> > > Your main thrust seemed to be that it was a "warsie" conspiricy >> >intended >> >> > > solely to defeat Star Trek (ie: Mike Wong recieves credit in the >book >> >> and >> >> > on >> >> > > Saxton's website). This, as you were told, is wrong. >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > Huh? That was never my main thrust, as I made clear several times, >> >even >> >> > going so far as to apologize for the mean-spirited line at the end of >> >the >> >> > first post after my main thrust. >> >> > >> >> > > The other topics you mentioned were dealt with quite well, such as >the >> >> > Slave >> >> > > I shots. >> >> > > >> >> > > You remembered the name of the thread but little else about it >> >> apparently. >> >> > >> >> > No, since I pointed out, correctly, that there is no canon evidence >for >> >> 600 >> >> > gigajoule shots from Slave 1, and other similar things. You might >want >> >> to >> >> > read over it again. >> >> >> >> No, there is no canon evidence *contradicting* ICS in regards to the >600 >> >GJ >> >> shots from Slave I. This is not an unimportant distinction. >> > >> >Well, the ICS says 600 gigajoules per shot. The movie doesn't show 600 >> >gigajoules being fired. You can try to rationalize it, but it either >means >> >that Slave I can't do 600 gigajoules, or that Star Wars weapons take >several >> >minutes to charge up fully, even on a craft ready to take flight. >> > >> >> Or they have multiple power settings, something which fits many other >peices of >> evidence. > >There's nothing canon to support that, the ICS doesn't say that, and even >the novel disagrees. > Oh? The Novel states they were fired at full power? Blow me down, I didn't notice that. Of course, if you want to say we can't claim power levels at all without direct proof, it should be noted this now means all photon torpedos are as powerful as the one that didn't touch Kirk in ST5. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius The most powerful attack of them all... DALTONDOKEN! Brought to you by cheese. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 13:47:23 -0600 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: <3D1625CB.278D38CD@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > news:KdiR8.9287$5k6.8283@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > No, there is no canon evidence *contradicting* ICS in regards to the 600 > GJ > > shots from Slave I. This is not an unimportant distinction. > > Well, the ICS says 600 gigajoules per shot. The movie doesn't show 600 > gigajoules being fired. You can try to rationalize it, but it either means > that Slave I can't do 600 gigajoules, or that Star Wars weapons take several > minutes to charge up fully, even on a craft ready to take flight. Where's the direct unexlainable contradiction? Graeme Dice -- Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 23 Jun 2002 19:51:21 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: <20020623155121.01534.00000597@mb-cg.aol.com> -------- >DarkStar wrote: >> >> "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message >> news:KdiR8.9287$5k6.8283@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > >> > No, there is no canon evidence *contradicting* ICS in regards to the 600 >> GJ >> > shots from Slave I. This is not an unimportant distinction. >> >> Well, the ICS says 600 gigajoules per shot. The movie doesn't show 600 >> gigajoules being fired. You can try to rationalize it, but it either >means >> that Slave I can't do 600 gigajoules, or that Star Wars weapons take >several >> minutes to charge up fully, even on a craft ready to take flight. > >Where's the direct unexlainable contradiction? > He found it in his ass, where he stows his head. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius The most powerful attack of them all... DALTONDOKEN! Brought to you by cheese. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 19:59:29 +0800 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:iRhR8.40228$Ny6.2120001@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > No, since I pointed out, correctly, that there is no canon evidence for 600 > gigajoule shots from Slave 1, and other similar things. You might want to > read over it again. Sorry, official doesn't work like that. An official source can stand on its own. The best you can prove is that they didn't USE the setting in the film. This is like taking ST:VI or any other unimpressive photorp episode and saying that there is no way it can be 64MT in the days of the TM. You can prove that it is a Direct Contradiction, in general, only when: 1) It is explicitly stated that it is maximum power, and yet the outcome is substantially less impressive. 2) You can see a needle that wavers deep into the red zone. 3) Something roughly equivalent to these. I don't remember any of these things, so the book stands... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Phil Skayhan" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 10:25:23 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:QJgR8.91788$_j6.4698765@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > Uh, yeah there is. The thread is titled "Incredible Cross Sections", the > date is 5/25/02. I started it. Also, you apparently have the movie on disk, why don't you go to the asteroid scene and determine the power of Slave I's mid-ship gun shots there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 10:59:15 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: <7ShR8.40234$Ny6.2119972@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message news:nmhR8.8966$5k6.3810@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:QJgR8.91788$_j6.4698765@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > Uh, yeah there is. The thread is titled "Incredible Cross Sections", the > > date is 5/25/02. I started it. > > Also, you apparently have the movie on disk, why don't you go to the > asteroid scene and determine the power of Slave I's mid-ship gun shots > there. I only have the second half. :( That seems to be the half more people are interested in. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 17:25:30 -0400 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:7ShR8.40234$Ny6.2119972@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > news:nmhR8.8966$5k6.3810@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:QJgR8.91788$_j6.4698765@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > Uh, yeah there is. The thread is titled "Incredible Cross Sections", > the > > > date is 5/25/02. I started it. > > > > Also, you apparently have the movie on disk, why don't you go to the > > asteroid scene and determine the power of Slave I's mid-ship gun shots > > there. > > I only have the second half. :( That seems to be the half more people are > interested in. > So in other words you have no real proof other than "it doesn't look like 600 GJ to me?" -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 03:10:23 -0600 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: <3D15907F.C8C832C2@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > news:FDfR8.8529$5k6.1941@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate the > > > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway. > > > > Such as....? > > For the moment, I shall refer you to the "Incredible Cross Sections" thread, > and related threads at that time. I'm trying to avoid letting Wayne Poe > derail the thread with his red herrings, so it wouldn't be good for me to > branch off in that direction again right now. :) You're the one with the red herrings. Would you please care to point out why the fact that official materials are not canon makes them invalid? Graeme Dice -- "Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think." — Niels Bohr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 09:44:30 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: <2MgR8.91801$_j6.4698620@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3D15907F.C8C832C2@sk.sympatico.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > > news:FDfR8.8529$5k6.1941@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > I will point out, though, that I don't need a backdoor to invalidate the > > > > ICS, since canon strips it of validity in several cases anyway. > > > > > > Such as....? > > > > For the moment, I shall refer you to the "Incredible Cross Sections" thread, > > and related threads at that time. I'm trying to avoid letting Wayne Poe > > derail the thread with his red herrings, so it wouldn't be good for me to > > branch off in that direction again right now. :) > > You're the one with the red herrings. Would you please care to point > out why the fact that official materials are not canon makes them > invalid? You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not canon is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for an "official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified. Nowhere is it declared part of the official record of Star Wars. There's canon, and then there's the internal "continuity" used by the Expanded Universe (which is not canon), and then there's apocrypha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 10:09:48 -0600 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: <3D15F2CC.D16C3BB6@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > news:3D15907F.C8C832C2@sk.sympatico.ca... > > You're the one with the red herrings. Would you please care to point > > out why the fact that official materials are not canon makes them > > invalid? > > You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not canon > is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for an > "official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified. Nowhere is it > declared part of the official record of Star Wars. It is declared as such in the very paragraph you claim that we are not taking "in context". > There's canon, and then > there's the internal "continuity" used by the Expanded Universe (which is > not canon), and then there's apocrypha. -- "A scientist can discover a new star, but he cannot make one. He would have to ask an engineer to do that." — Gordon L. Glegg, American Engineer, 1969. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:31:18 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3D15F2CC.D16C3BB6@sk.sympatico.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > news:3D15907F.C8C832C2@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > > > > You're the one with the red herrings. Would you please care to point > > > out why the fact that official materials are not canon makes them > > > invalid? > > > > You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not canon > > is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for an > > "official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified. Nowhere is it > > declared part of the official record of Star Wars. > > It is declared as such in the very paragraph you claim that we are not > taking "in context". Where, in the "nugget of truth" sentence? That doesn't immediately mean that the Expanded Universe is showing new, previously unknown truthful elements of history. That can just as easily suggest that the "nuggets of truth" in the Expanded Universe are only those things derived from the canon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 13:35:47 -0600 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: <3D162313.22ECE20F@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > news:3D15F2CC.D16C3BB6@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not > canon > > > is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for an > > > "official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified. Nowhere is > it > > > declared part of the official record of Star Wars. > > > > It is declared as such in the very paragraph you claim that we are not > > taking "in context". > > Where, in the "nugget of truth" sentence? That doesn't immediately mean > that the Expanded Universe is showing new, previously unknown truthful > elements of history. That can just as easily suggest that the "nuggets of > truth" in the Expanded Universe are only those things derived from the > canon. How about we include some more recent quotes from SW Insider. "The idea [licensing deal with Bantam] was passed to George Lucas, who agreed that Licensing could expand upon his films with original fiction set after /Return of the Jedi/." "In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked closely with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing editor of the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the editorial projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would be crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision became one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest successes." Graeme Dice -- "Physicists use the wave theory on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and the particle on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays." -Sir William Henry Bragg ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 00:25:52 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3D162313.22ECE20F@sk.sympatico.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > news:3D15F2CC.D16C3BB6@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > > > > > You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not > > canon > > > > is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for an > > > > "official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified. Nowhere is > > it > > > > declared part of the official record of Star Wars. > > > > > > It is declared as such in the very paragraph you claim that we are not > > > taking "in context". > > > > Where, in the "nugget of truth" sentence? That doesn't immediately mean > > that the Expanded Universe is showing new, previously unknown truthful > > elements of history. That can just as easily suggest that the "nuggets of > > truth" in the Expanded Universe are only those things derived from the > > canon. > > How about we include some more recent quotes from SW Insider. > > "The idea [licensing deal with Bantam] was passed to George Lucas, who > agreed that Licensing could expand upon his films with original fiction > set after /Return of the Jedi/." > > "In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked closely > with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing editor of > the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the editorial > projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would be > crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none > of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision became > one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest successes." > > Graeme Dice > -- > "Physicists use the wave theory on Mondays, Wednesdays, and > Fridays, and the particle on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays." > -Sir William Henry Bragg Perfect!!!!!!!! Thanks! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:42:53 -0600 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: <3D166B0D.BD64CE2E@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > news:3D162313.22ECE20F@sk.sympatico.ca... > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > > news:3D15F2CC.D16C3BB6@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > > > > > > > > > You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not > > > canon > > > > > is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for an > > > > > "official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified. > Nowhere is > > > it > > > > > declared part of the official record of Star Wars. > > > > > > > > It is declared as such in the very paragraph you claim that we are not > > > > taking "in context". > > > > > > Where, in the "nugget of truth" sentence? That doesn't immediately > mean > > > that the Expanded Universe is showing new, previously unknown truthful > > > elements of history. That can just as easily suggest that the "nuggets > of > > > truth" in the Expanded Universe are only those things derived from the > > > canon. > > > > How about we include some more recent quotes from SW Insider. > > > > "The idea [licensing deal with Bantam] was passed to George Lucas, who > > agreed that Licensing could expand upon his films with original fiction > > set after /Return of the Jedi/." > > > > "In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked closely > > with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing editor of > > the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the editorial > > projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would be > > crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none > > of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision became > > one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest successes." > > > > Graeme Dice > > -- > > "Physicists use the wave theory on Mondays, Wednesdays, and > > Fridays, and the particle on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays." > > -Sir William Henry Bragg > > Perfect!!!!!!!! > > Thanks! I'm glad you agree that the canon policy as we have described it is correct. Graeme Dice -- HEALTH WARNING: Care Should Be Taken When Lifting This Product, Since Its Mass, and Thus Its Weight, Is Dependent on Its Velocity Relative to the User. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 06:30:39 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3D166B0D.BD64CE2E@sk.sympatico.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > news:3D162313.22ECE20F@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > > > news:3D15F2CC.D16C3BB6@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not > > > > canon > > > > > > is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for an > > > > > > "official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified. > > Nowhere is > > > > it > > > > > > declared part of the official record of Star Wars. > > > > > > > > > > It is declared as such in the very paragraph you claim that we are not > > > > > taking "in context". > > > > > > > > Where, in the "nugget of truth" sentence? That doesn't immediately > > mean > > > > that the Expanded Universe is showing new, previously unknown truthful > > > > elements of history. That can just as easily suggest that the "nuggets > > of > > > > truth" in the Expanded Universe are only those things derived from the > > > > canon. > > > > > > How about we include some more recent quotes from SW Insider. > > > > > > "The idea [licensing deal with Bantam] was passed to George Lucas, who > > > agreed that Licensing could expand upon his films with original fiction > > > set after /Return of the Jedi/." > > > > > > "In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked closely > > > with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing editor of > > > the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the editorial > > > projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would be > > > crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none > > > of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision became > > > one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest successes." > > > > > > Graeme Dice > > > -- > > > "Physicists use the wave theory on Mondays, Wednesdays, and > > > Fridays, and the particle on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays." > > > -Sir William Henry Bragg > > > > Perfect!!!!!!!! > > > > Thanks! > > I'm glad you agree that the canon policy as we have described it is > correct. > I think you misunderstood the quotes, and my reaction. They help my view. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:16:41 -0600 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: <3D17A859.BD6CC40@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > news:3D166B0D.BD64CE2E@sk.sympatico.ca... > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > How about we include some more recent quotes from SW Insider. > > > > > > > > "The idea [licensing deal with Bantam] was passed to George Lucas, who > > > > agreed that Licensing could expand upon his films with original > fiction > > > > set after /Return of the Jedi/." > > > > > > > > "In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked closely > > > > with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing editor of > > > > the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the > editorial > > > > projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would > be > > > > crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none > > > > of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision > became > > > > one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest successes." > > > > > > > > Graeme Dice > > > > -- > > > > "Physicists use the wave theory on Mondays, Wednesdays, and > > > > Fridays, and the particle on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays." > > > > -Sir William Henry Bragg > > > > > > Perfect!!!!!!!! > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > I'm glad you agree that the canon policy as we have described it is > > correct. > > > > I think you misunderstood the quotes, and my reaction. They help my view. That's odd, because the quotes very specifically state that the official materials expand upon the films, and that they are consistent with each other. When combined with all other sources, this is a confirmation of what we have always stated. Graeme Dice -- Linda Emery: A philosophy major? Now, what can you do with a philosophy major? Bruce Lee: You can think deep thoughts about being unemployed. -- from "Dragon - the Bruce Lee Story" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:02:22 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3D17A859.BD6CC40@sk.sympatico.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > > news:3D166B0D.BD64CE2E@sk.sympatico.ca... > > > DarkStar wrote: > > > > > > > > How about we include some more recent quotes from SW Insider. > > > > > > > > > > "The idea [licensing deal with Bantam] was passed to George Lucas, who > > > > > agreed that Licensing could expand upon his films with original > > fiction > > > > > set after /Return of the Jedi/." > > > > > > > > > > "In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked closely > > > > > with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing editor of > > > > > the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the > > editorial > > > > > projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would > > be > > > > > crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none > > > > > of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision > > became > > > > > one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest successes." > > > > > > > > > > Graeme Dice > > > > > -- > > > > > "Physicists use the wave theory on Mondays, Wednesdays, and > > > > > Fridays, and the particle on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays." > > > > > -Sir William Henry Bragg > > > > > > > > Perfect!!!!!!!! > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > I'm glad you agree that the canon policy as we have described it is > > > correct. > > > > > > > I think you misunderstood the quotes, and my reaction. They help my view. > > That's odd, because the quotes very specifically state that the official > materials expand upon the films, and that they are consistent with each > other. When combined with all other sources, this is a confirmation of > what we have always stated. > > Graeme Dice (Sigh) (Shakes head) Whatever, dude. If you're not going to listen, I'm not going to talk. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 25 Jun 2002 02:07:13 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: <20020624220713.01566.00000873@mb-cg.aol.com> -------- >"Graeme Dice" wrote in message >news:3D17A859.BD6CC40@sk.sympatico.ca... >> DarkStar wrote: >> > >> > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message >> > news:3D166B0D.BD64CE2E@sk.sympatico.ca... >> > > DarkStar wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > > How about we include some more recent quotes from SW Insider. >> > > > > >> > > > > "The idea [licensing deal with Bantam] was passed to George Lucas, >who >> > > > > agreed that Licensing could expand upon his films with original >> > fiction >> > > > > set after /Return of the Jedi/." >> > > > > >> > > > > "In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked >closely >> > > > > with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing >editor of >> > > > > the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the >> > editorial >> > > > > projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it >would >> > be >> > > > > crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that >none >> > > > > of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision >> > became >> > > > > one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest >successes." >> > > > > >> > > > > Graeme Dice >> > > > > -- >> > > > > "Physicists use the wave theory on Mondays, Wednesdays, and >> > > > > Fridays, and the particle on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays." >> > > > > -Sir William Henry Bragg >> > > > >> > > > Perfect!!!!!!!! >> > > > >> > > > Thanks! >> > > >> > > I'm glad you agree that the canon policy as we have described it is >> > > correct. >> > > >> > >> > I think you misunderstood the quotes, and my reaction. They help my >view. >> >> That's odd, because the quotes very specifically state that the official >> materials expand upon the films, and that they are consistent with each >> other. When combined with all other sources, this is a confirmation of >> what we have always stated. >> >> Graeme Dice > >(Sigh) > >(Shakes head) > >Whatever, dude. If you're not going to listen, I'm not going to talk. > Pot. Kettle. Black. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius The most powerful attack of them all... DALTONDOKEN! Brought to you by cheese. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Iceberg Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:39:12 -0500 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: <3ulfhu0agumoebthr8onblpov1qfgdnc61@4ax.com> -------- On 25 Jun 2002 02:07:13 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) wrote: >>"Graeme Dice" wrote in message >>news:3D17A859.BD6CC40@sk.sympatico.ca... >>> DarkStar wrote: >>> > >>> > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message >>> > news:3D166B0D.BD64CE2E@sk.sympatico.ca... >>> > > DarkStar wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > How about we include some more recent quotes from SW Insider. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > "The idea [licensing deal with Bantam] was passed to George Lucas, >>who >>> > > > > agreed that Licensing could expand upon his films with original >>> > fiction >>> > > > > set after /Return of the Jedi/." >>> > > > > >>> > > > > "In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked >>closely >>> > > > > with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing >>editor of >>> > > > > the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the >>> > editorial >>> > > > > projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it >>would >>> > be >>> > > > > crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that >>none >>> > > > > of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision >>> > became >>> > > > > one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest >>successes." >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Graeme Dice >>> > > > > -- >>> > > > > "Physicists use the wave theory on Mondays, Wednesdays, and >>> > > > > Fridays, and the particle on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays." >>> > > > > -Sir William Henry Bragg >>> > > > >>> > > > Perfect!!!!!!!! >>> > > > >>> > > > Thanks! >>> > > >>> > > I'm glad you agree that the canon policy as we have described it is >>> > > correct. >>> > > >>> > >>> > I think you misunderstood the quotes, and my reaction. They help my >>view. >>> >>> That's odd, because the quotes very specifically state that the official >>> materials expand upon the films, and that they are consistent with each >>> other. When combined with all other sources, this is a confirmation of >>> what we have always stated. >>> >>> Graeme Dice >> >>(Sigh) >> >>(Shakes head) >> >>Whatever, dude. If you're not going to listen, I'm not going to talk. We should be so lucky. -- Ice "This day will always be remembered! How it's remembered is up to us! Right here, right now! Let's make history!" - Vyse the Legend Skies of Arcadia: Sega Dreamcast (11/4/2000), Nintendo GameCube (Q4 2002), Sony PlayStation 2 (Q1-Q2, 2003). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:06:44 -0400 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020624220713.01566.00000873@mb-cg.aol.com... > >"Graeme Dice" wrote in message > >news:3D17A859.BD6CC40@sk.sympatico.ca... > >> DarkStar wrote: > >> > > >> > "Graeme Dice" wrote in message > >> > news:3D166B0D.BD64CE2E@sk.sympatico.ca... > >> > > DarkStar wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Graeme Dice > > > >(Sigh) > > > >(Shakes head) > > > >Whatever, dude. If you're not going to listen, I'm not going to talk. > > > > Pot. Kettle. Black. > Damn you beat me to it. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 19:27:46 GMT Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: <3D162146.7030302@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not canon > is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for an > "official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified. Nowhere is it > declared part of the official record of Star Wars. There's canon, and then > there's the internal "continuity" used by the Expanded Universe (which is > not canon), and then there's apocrypha. For the Insider: "The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology."" For the website: "...every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them" Just cause the term, 'Official' is not used doesn't mean a category between Canon and Apocrypha doesn't exist. It's clear to anyone who reads what's been said on the manner (and doesn't desperately want to exclude the ICS) that there is such a category. And it contains _all_ published Star Wars fiction. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 17:27:32 -0400 Subject: Re: official? Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3D162146.7030302@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > > You're missing the point. The fact that official materials are not canon > > is obvious. The problem is that Lucas makes no allowances for an > > "official" status. Nowhere is it described and identified. Nowhere is it > > declared part of the official record of Star Wars. There's canon, and then > > there's the internal "continuity" used by the Expanded Universe (which is > > not canon), and then there's apocrypha. > > For the Insider: > > "The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with > many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other > well-developed mythology."" > Now DarkStar before you jump on this let me clarify...this means that they EU wokrs are part of the history of SW, if they are part of the history then they ust be a true and accurate represenation of that history in as much as any modern non-fiction work. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Phil Skayhan" Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 00:34:44 GMT Subject: Re: