---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 23:53:10 -0800 Subject: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- As I understand it, the whole canon debate began with a suggestion to change our current canon/official policy for Star Trek. Fine. Even Kynes was open to the discussion. Then Chris comes out with the tired argument; "Besides, the Council has got it wrong anyway, as st.com proves that the TMs are canon.." Then the semantics roller-coaster bullshit "proving" the TMs are canon, when all it does is invalidate pre-TNG books because Paramount no longer wants to pay royalties to authors who aren't in-house. Idiot. Anyway, more stuff from Ordover from the past. (P.S. My stance is that Gaskill isn't a pimple on Paramount's ass, while Ordover is at least an extremity belonging to the whole body.) Search Result 1 http://groups.google.com/groups?q=trek+canon+ordover&hl=en&rnum=1&selm=19970 908101401.GAA02668%40ladder02.news.aol.com From: ORDOVER (ordover@aol.com ) Subject: Re: What is canon in Trek. Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current View: Complete Thread (18 articles) | Original Format Date: 1997/09/08 There's really no argument possible as to what is and isn't Star Trek canon. All filmed material is canon, whether TOS, TNG, DS9, VGR, or the various movies. Everything else is not canon except when the producers decide otherwise. Oh, and per the technical definition of "spin off" all Trek shows past TOS are spin offs, in the same sense that the new soap "Port Charles" is a spin-off of "General Hospital." Whether or not something captures the spirit of the orginal, in anyone's opinion, isn't the point. That neither "Rhoda" or "Phyllis" were as funny as "the Mary Tyler Moore Show" doesn't change the fact that they were spinoffs. John Ordover Senior Editor Star Trek Fiction Pocket Books For more Trek Book Info: www.startrekbooks.com http://groups.google.com/groups?q=trek+canon+ordover&hl=en&rnum=11&selm=1997 0603172600.NAA24340%40ladder02.news.aol.com Search Result 11 From: ORDOVER (ordover@aol.com ) Subject: Re: The Star Trek Novels SHOULD BE Canon Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current View: Complete Thread (11 articles) | Original Format Date: 1997/06/03 >> So let the word go forth, from this time and-er, wait, I'm digressing. Shirley John--as an editor, as a SENIOR EDITOR--is aware of many of the story problems that have plagued TNG, DS9, and especially Voyager. I mean take something simple such as technobabble. I'm sure as editor John probably tries to squash this. While "jargon" is okay (e.g. "Captain, the Cardassiasn's phasers can damaged our shields and warp engines") because *it advances the story*, technobabble is not (e.g., "Captain, the Cardassians vertiron disruptors' frequency modulation has harmonized and synchronized with the shield frequency of the shields causeing a cascade failure in the shields's and warp engine's circuitry in jeffries tubes 23A to 38T"), because the *it does NOT advance the story*. As editor he would be able to kick out that crutch that the various series have often relied on and show how stories could and should be done. Moreover by making the novels canon, it would force the screenwriters to pay attention to the novels.>> Boy, are you living in a fantasy world! As the editor of the Star Trek novels, my place in the big picture is about the same as the guy at Playmates who decides which doll should be next in line -- I'm a liscencee guy, not in the power structure in any way, shape or form. What you're suggesting is something like asking the guy who sells war novels on an army base to make suggestions to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I certainly can't approach the powers that be with the idea that I could do their jobs better than they could. I would be breathing vacuum so fast it would make your head swim. John Ordover Senior Editor Star Trek Fiction Pocket Books Check out the Star Trek: The Novel Experience webradio show www.simonsays.com/startrek/pseudo http://groups.google.com/groups?q=trek+canon+ordover&hl=en&rnum=21&selm=38fd 7cc8.170568623%40news.mindspring.com Search Result 21 From: ordover@aol.com (ordover@aol.com ) Subject: Re: Since you mentioned John Ordover...(ex-Re: Star Wars Novels) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written View: Complete Thread (140 articles) | Original Format Date: 2000/04/19 > >John Ordover implied that I stopped reading TOS novels after #40. I >didn't. I continued to buy them up to today. My problem is that aside >from the declining quality, I prefer continuity in the novels. My apologies - I was replying to someone who said they had - sorry if I misapplied it. > >The most glaring continuity problem is the mirror universe. In the >current Shatner trilogy the Empire is dead which is consistent with >DS9. But in a previous novel, Dark Mirror?, set in the TNG series, we >have the Empire alive and well. This is very distracting. DARK MIRROR was written and published in hardcover -before the DS9 episode was concieved-, let alone written or aired. The shows are the only canon - we adjust to match what goes on on screen. In this case, though, when dealing with alternate universes, there can be more than one...:) > >As far as storylines are concerned, why doesn't Pocket get someone to >write the story behind Sarek's second marriage to Peri. I hope I got >her name write. TNG never really explained how they met, fell in love, >& gotten married. Because the majority of fans HATE Perin, just as much as they -hate- Sybok.:) It's not that we can't - we don't want to.:) > >We know that Spock, Bones, and Scotty made it into the 24th Century via >TNG. Have Pocket get Majel Rodenberry, Rick Berman, or someone tell us >what happened to Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov so that their fates will be >added to the ST canon. We know that Kirk died in ST6. But is he >really dead? In my cynical moment, P'mount would never really kill off >a major character like CPT Kirk. He was making too much money for them >to have him permanently killed off. We're inching that way - check out Vulcan's Forge and Vulcan's Heart. But it's more fun to move them slowly through time then to just jump ahead to the TNG era. We can't add to canon, and lines should not be forced into on-screen Trek just to establish fates of old characters.:) > >Some of my favorite ST authors are Diane Duane, Diane Carey, Ann >Crispin, and Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens. I read the first few of >Peter David's books and I don't like them. All of whom are, or are about to, start writing for us.:) > >Another reason I don't buy all the ST books is the expense. It's hard >to try to keep up with all the books. That's what second jobs are for.:) > >Last reason is that I love the original series. I got turned off by >TNG with their New Age, group therapy approach to boldly go where no >one has gone before which took them mostly to planets that have >diplomatic relations or are known to the Federation. Not much space >opera there. I watch the other series, but if you ask me what's my >favorite episode from each, I would draw a blank. Especially with >Voyager. > >Andrew Wong If you want TOS and Space Opera, check out Star Trek: New Earth, a six-book TOS series starting in June, created by me and Diane Carey. Go to www.psiphi.org for more details.:) http://groups.google.com/groups?q=trek+canon+ordover&hl=en&rnum=41&selm=4cjm 4q%24qis%40newsbf02.news.aol.com Search Result 41 From: ORDOVER (ordover@aol.com ) Subject: Re: Star Trek novel covers Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current View: Complete Thread (19 articles) | Original Format Date: 1996/01/05 Hikaru did not become Sulu's first name until the name was dropped in Trek five or six. "Nyota" is still not Uhura's name. Sorry, folks, Paramount owns Trek, and if the "canon" is defined as "the stuff they will be consistent with" then the only thing that counts is what's on TV and in the movies http://groups.google.com/groups?q=trek+canon+ordover&hl=en&rnum=53&selm=1997 1215112500.GAA02993%40ladder02.news.aol.com Search Result 53 From: ORDOVER (ordover@aol.com ) Subject: Re: Your Favorite Starship Class? Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current View: Complete Thread (371 articles) | Original Format Date: 1997/12/15 Okay, here goes: Nothing is canon in Star Trek except the movies and TV Shows. The books, comics, CD-ROMS, etc do -not- count. Will that do?:) John Ordover Senior Editor Star Trek Fiction Pocket Books ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 20:39:50 +1100 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3bff69b6$0$28491$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message news:tvukfge9sqnpb3@corp.supernews.com... > As I understand it, the whole canon debate began with a suggestion to change > our current canon/official policy for Star Trek. Fine. Even Kynes was open > to the discussion. Then Chris comes out with the tired argument; "Besides, > the Council has got it wrong anyway, as st.com proves that the TMs are > canon.." Then the semantics roller-coaster bullshit "proving" the TMs are > canon, when all it does is invalidate pre-TNG books because Paramount no > longer wants to pay royalties to authors who aren't in-house. > And you have once AGAIN got it wrong. All I was concerned about was the Technical Manuals. I did not at ANY point push for bloody ST novels to be accepted, only novelisations of Episodes and movies. The point about what the ST.com FAQ said was that the FAQ contrasted the SPECIFACLY stated non canon previous TM's with the ones from the TNG TM onwards and then when emailed to check, the person confirmed that the TM's are canon, From the TNG TM onwards as it was concluded from what it says on the site. The person in question is an employee of Paramount and is authorised to make responses and answer questions on the Canon policy. Ordover, to my knowledge, is not authorised by Paramount to make public statements on the canon policy of Star Trek, he can only offer what HIS opinion and HIS interpertation of it unless you have a statement or such from Paramount saying he DOES have the authority to decalre Canon policy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 02:16:36 -0800 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- "Chris O'Farrell" wrote > Wayne Poe wrote > > As I understand it, the whole canon debate began with a suggestion to > change > > our current canon/official policy for Star Trek. Fine. Even Kynes was open > > to the discussion. Then Chris comes out with the tired argument; "Besides, > > the Council has got it wrong anyway, as st.com proves that the TMs are > > canon.." Then the semantics roller-coaster bullshit "proving" the TMs are > > canon, when all it does is invalidate pre-TNG books because Paramount no > > longer wants to pay royalties to authors who aren't in-house. > > > > > And you have once AGAIN got it wrong. All I was concerned about was the > Technical Manuals. And you have ONCE AGAIN failed to read what I wrote above. I specifically pointed OUT your TM stance. That's what the ENTIRE FUCKING POST WAS ABOUT, Chris. > I did not at ANY point push for bloody ST novels to be > accepted, only novelisations of Episodes and movies. Nor did I say you did. Yet another argument from you that no one was participating in. > The point about what > the ST.com FAQ said was that the FAQ contrasted the SPECIFACLY stated non > canon previous TM's with the ones from the TNG TM onwards and then when > emailed to check, the person confirmed that the TM's are canon, From the TNG > TM onwards as it was concluded from what it says on the site. The person who you e-mailed is a peon using HIS OWN OPINION, which he stated. John Ordover, who has worked with those who were involved with WRITING and PRODUCING of actual Trek episodes, and is WELL VERSED in the accepted canon policy of Paramount Pictures, has FAR MORE substance than this web geek. And strangely enough, his version of canon reflects exactly with Mike Okuda's understanding of the canon policy. You know, the guy that wrote the TNG TM? The guy that wrote the ST:E, and expresses the canon policy in the introduction of that book? > The person in > question is an employee of Paramount and is authorised to make responses and > answer questions on the Canon policy. Ordover, to my knowledge, is not > authorised by Paramount to make public statements on the canon policy of > Star Trek, he can only offer what HIS opinion and HIS interpertation of it > unless you have a statement or such from Paramount saying he DOES have the > authority to decalre Canon policy. Stupid. You've got it completely backwards, willfully. Do YOU have a statement or such from Paramount saying Gaskill DOES have the authority to decalre Canon policy? No, you don't. You are using your semantics twisting of the st.com faq as evidence, and the word of someone in charge of a website to back you up. Sorry; Ordover has far more credence here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 01:00:04 +1100 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3bffa6b4$0$28420$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- > > And you have once AGAIN got it wrong. All I was concerned about was the > > Technical Manuals. > > And you have ONCE AGAIN failed to read what I wrote above. I specifically > pointed OUT your TM stance. That's what the ENTIRE FUCKING POST WAS ABOUT, > Chris. And thats why you posted a rather large series of quotes from Ordover, most of which are commenting ON the Trek novels, not the TM and are irrelevent to the discussion? > > I did not at ANY point push for bloody ST novels to be > > accepted, only novelisations of Episodes and movies. > > Nor did I say you did. Yet another argument from you that no one was > participating in. Thats their choice. > > The point about what > > the ST.com FAQ said was that the FAQ contrasted the SPECIFACLY stated non > > canon previous TM's with the ones from the TNG TM onwards and then when > > emailed to check, the person confirmed that the TM's are canon, From the > TNG > > TM onwards as it was concluded from what it says on the site. > > The person who you e-mailed is a peon using HIS OWN OPINION, which he > stated. He is offering a response to a direct question from people. *HE* is authorised to make comments on such matters considering he is responding to them AND wrote the website which is paramounts offical position on their canon policy. John Ordover, who has worked with those who were involved with > WRITING and PRODUCING of actual Trek episodes, and is WELL VERSED in the accepted canon policy of Paramount Pictures, has FAR MORE substance than > this web geek. Subjective opinion. He is not an employee of Paramount. The "Web Geek" is and he is in a position to know EXACTLY what their canon policy is given that he wrote the bloody page. If it was wrong, it would not be UP there. And strangely enough, his version of canon reflects exactly > with Mike Okuda's understanding of the canon policy. You know, the guy that > wrote the TNG TM? The guy that wrote the ST:E, and expresses the canon > policy in the introduction of that book? The start of the TNG TM states that the authors consider it accurate and offical but simply that if something on screen comes up that contradicts it then it overules the TM. That the TM was developed with stuff that the producers and writers use and agreed facts of these people about ST. That the TM also is not going 'to serve as a straight jacket, limiting the options of future writers'. Frag, it even makes the same point about the PREVIOUS TM's NOT being canon while the new ones are in the form of a Starfleet warning to the readers: "All Starfleet personal are hereby advised that any previous technical documentation in your possession my be suspect becase of an ongoing Starfleet program of disinformation intened to confound and confuse the intelligence assests of potential Threat forces. *Such documents should therefore be verifed with Federation archives and **this manual** for authenticity.* " Basicly exactly what one of the DS9 producers said (I'll check up on that point and get a name / quote / position). > > The person in > > question is an employee of Paramount and is authorised to make responses > and > > answer questions on the Canon policy. Ordover, to my knowledge, is not > > authorised by Paramount to make public statements on the canon policy of > > Star Trek, he can only offer what HIS opinion and HIS interpertation of it > > unless you have a statement or such from Paramount saying he DOES have the > > authority to decalre Canon policy. > > Stupid. You've got it completely backwards, willfully. Do YOU have a > statement or such from Paramount saying Gaskill DOES have the authority to > decalre Canon policy? He is the person who *wrote* their offical website which is Paramounts stance on all these issues. He is then making a clarification of something he wrote. He would need to know Paramounts Canon policy to write the Website and we have to know it to make replies to questions as the person Paramount empowered to answer questions. If he was not Authorised to make a statement on it, he would not have. No, you don't. You are using your semantics twisting > of the st.com faq as evidence, and the word of someone in charge of a > website to back you up. Sorry; Ordover has far more credence here. In your opinion he does. Ordover is not even a Paramount employee but a Pocket Books Employee. Until he starts working for Paramount and for Berman, I don't see him having any weight other then his opinion on the matter. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Aron Kerkhof Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:00:46 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 01:00:04 +1100, "Chris O'Farrell" wrote: >He is offering a response to a direct question from people. *HE* is >authorised to make comments on such matters considering he is responding to >them AND wrote the website which is paramounts offical position on their >canon policy. Let's take these assertations in order: 1) "He is offering a response to a direct question from people." Granted. 2) "*HE* is authorised to make comments on such matters considering he is responding to them." This is a meaningless statement. 3) "[*HE* is authorised to make comments on such matters considering he] wrote the website which is paramounts offical position on their canon policy." This is what is debatable. First, did he in fact 'write' the website? Or did he take copy provided to him from the Paramount legal department and producers of Star Trek and add it to the site? Even if he 'wrote' the website, all that means is that whatever is ON the website is true and marked as 'official' as far as Paramount is concerned. Finally, you say that the website is paramounts official position on their canon policy. So what does the web site say? From startrek.com: "How do the Star Trek novels and comic books fit into the Star Trek universe? "As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon. "There are a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters. (Note: There are a few details from an episode of the Animated Adventures that have entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, features some biographical background on Spock.) " This is silent on the issue of the canon status of TM's and Encycleopedia's. Therefore we need to decide who has more say in the canon status of Star Trek material that is published for public consumption. The Senior Editor of Startrek Fiction, and therefore directly responsible for said published material, or Senior Editor of the Star Trek Website, who has a published statement on the site that is not in contradiction of the Senior Editor of Startrek Fiction. >Subjective opinion. He is not an employee of Paramount. The "Web Geek" is >and he is in a position to know EXACTLY what their canon policy is given >that he wrote the bloody page. If it was wrong, it would not be UP there. Is he an employee of Paramount? How are you sure? Who pays his checks? Where are his offices? Why does the canon policy say what it does, instead of what he says, if he wrote the page? A person that maintains a website usually does not create the content of the site he maintains. >The start of the TNG TM states that the authors consider it accurate and >offical but simply that if something on screen comes up that contradicts it >then it overules the TM. That the TM was developed with stuff that the >producers and writers use and agreed facts of these people about ST. That >the TM also is not going 'to serve as a straight jacket, limiting the >options of future writers'. In otherwords, it is not canon. Canon things cannot be undone, although realistically, Paramount doesn't respect their canon very much, making it very fluid. >"All Starfleet personal are hereby advised that any previous technical >documentation in your possession my be suspect becase of an ongoing >Starfleet program of disinformation intened to confound and confuse the >intelligence assests of potential Threat forces. *Such documents should >therefore be verifed with Federation archives and **this manual** for >authenticity.* " Are you serious? This is not an official stance on canon. Good god, it's talking to starfleet personnel who do not exist. >> Stupid. You've got it completely backwards, willfully. Do YOU have a >> statement or such from Paramount saying Gaskill DOES have the authority to >> decalre Canon policy? > >He is the person who *wrote* their offical website which is Paramounts >stance on all these issues. He is then making a clarification of something >he wrote. He would need to know Paramounts Canon policy to write the Website >and we have to know it to make replies to questions as the person Paramount >empowered to answer questions. If he was not Authorised to make a statement >on it, he would not have. I dispute that he 'wrote' the website. I dispute that he is in fact an employee of Paramount. I dispute that he is authorized to modify the existing canon statement that is on the website and is official in an ad hoc manner - ie via an email to a fellow fan. If he wants to clarify his words, why doesn't he update the site to reflect these? Is it possibly because he doesn't have the authority to do that, and that he didn't in fact 'write' that statement all by himself and in a vacuum? When the site gets updated with a new canon statement, then it will become "Paramount's official stance on canon." Until then, it's just a guy talking to another guy about star trek. ---- Aron Kerkhof http://www.neolith.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 21:06:19 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:00:46 GMT, Aron Kerkhof wrote: >>"All Starfleet personal are hereby advised that any previous technical >>documentation in your possession my be suspect becase of an ongoing >>Starfleet program of disinformation intened to confound and confuse the >>intelligence assests of potential Threat forces. *Such documents should >>therefore be verifed with Federation archives and **this manual** for >>authenticity.* " > >Are you serious? This is not an official stance on canon. Good god, >it's talking to starfleet personnel who do not exist. This reminds me of something Tim would say. Seriously, can't you picture it? Willfully and happily diving in to the "You're a Starfleet commander if you buy the TM! Hee hee!" mentality, using multiple stars for emphasis as if we can't read, etc. Sad really. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "But I've never seen *anything* that's going to even have the clearly designed and hoped-for effect of running me out of these groups or debates." -- TOWNMNBS, Six Days Before The Final Solution ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 22:44:11 +1100 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3c00d865$0$28128$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- Aron Kerkhof wrote in message news:bOr=O8kPkaRbBlWJzJ7=rOSRhOgP@4ax.com... > On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 01:00:04 +1100, "Chris O'Farrell" > wrote: > > >He is offering a response to a direct question from people. *HE* is > >authorised to make comments on such matters considering he is responding to > >them AND wrote the website which is paramounts offical position on their > >canon policy. > > Let's take these assertations in order: > > 1) "He is offering a response to a direct question from people." > Granted. > 2) "*HE* is authorised to make comments on such matters considering he > is responding to them." This is a meaningless statement. What I was trying to say is that he is empowered by Paramount and Braga to answer questions of this nature clearly, otherwise he would not BE writing back. > 3) "[*HE* is authorised to make comments on such matters considering > he] wrote the website which is paramounts offical position on their > canon policy." This is what is debatable. > > First, did he in fact 'write' the website? To the best of my knowledge he did. He wrote it and maintains it. Or did he take copy > provided to him from the Paramount legal department and producers of > Star Trek and add it to the site? Even if he 'wrote' the website, all > that means is that whatever is ON the website is true and marked as > 'official' as far as Paramount is concerned. Finally, you say that > the website is paramounts official position on their canon policy. So > what does the web site say? > > From startrek.com: > > "How do the Star Trek novels and comic books fit into the Star Trek > universe? > > "As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action > episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story > lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the > fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines > are not canon. This does not mention the technical manual only the novels and comics which I also agree that are in no way part of hte Canon. The part I am talking about is the part which refers to the TM's which is another link. > "There are a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned > novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels > feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters. > (Note: There are a few details from an episode of the Animated > Adventures that have entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode > "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, features some biographical > background on Spock.) " > > This is silent on the issue of the canon status of TM's and > Encycleopedia's. Yes but hte FAQ has a link further down which says: "There have been earlier versions of technical manuals, including "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" (Shane Johnson) and the "Star Trek Starfleet Technical Manual" (Franz Joseph), but these books, although fun to read, were not written by production personnel and are not considered 'canon.'" This page is answering the question: "Where can I get blueprints and technical information on all the ships from the various Star Trek shows?" It is saying the TM's from the TNG TM onwards can be used. The older ones however are 'not canon'. This is where all the confusion comes from. And further, the question that was being asked there that you are refering to was explicitily asking about the Novels and Comics and how they fit into the ST canon, it was not asking about the TM's. There is a seperate bit that does. > Therefore we need to decide who has more say in the canon status of > Star Trek material that is published for public consumption. The > Senior Editor of Startrek Fiction, and therefore directly responsible > for said published material, or Senior Editor of the Star Trek > Website, who has a published statement on the site that is not in > contradiction of the Senior Editor of Startrek Fiction. And thus is the center of the problem. > >Subjective opinion. He is not an employee of Paramount. The "Web Geek" is > >and he is in a position to know EXACTLY what their canon policy is given > >that he wrote the bloody page. If it was wrong, it would not be UP there. > > Is he an employee of Paramount? How are you sure? Who pays his > checks? Where are his offices? Why does the canon policy say what it > does, instead of what he says, if he wrote the page? A person that > maintains a website usually does not create the content of the site he > maintains. The website is copyright Paramount pictures (it says so). The person in question is authorised to repond to questions about things on it and about Star Trek in general as an offical spokesman. Ordover to the best of my knowledge is not authorised to make statements on behalf of Paramount. > >The start of the TNG TM states that the authors consider it accurate and > >offical but simply that if something on screen comes up that contradicts it > >then it overules the TM. That the TM was developed with stuff that the > >producers and writers use and agreed facts of these people about ST. That > >the TM also is not going 'to serve as a straight jacket, limiting the > >options of future writers'. > > In otherwords, it is not canon. Canon things cannot be undone, > although realistically, Paramount doesn't respect their canon very > much, making it very fluid. Your confusing the word "Canon" here, its thrown around a lot and with different meanings. One of the meanings is talking about the highest level of authorised source like in SW how you have Canon - Offical - Authorised. Another meaning is a collective term meaning that something that is Canon is considered an authorised material, but there is still a difference between sources in how they are ranked, B5 uses this kind of all inclusive term so that everything authorised is CANON, but, there is still a heirachy in terms of how they are accepted. Trek appears to have a mixed up system and the word is thrown around a lot on their websites and some emails with different meanings. > >"All Starfleet personal are hereby advised that any previous technical > >documentation in your possession my be suspect becase of an ongoing > >Starfleet program of disinformation intened to confound and confuse the > >intelligence assests of potential Threat forces. *Such documents should > >therefore be verifed with Federation archives and **this manual** for > >authenticity.* " > > Are you serious? This is not an official stance on canon. Good god, > it's talking to starfleet personnel who do not exist. Its a decleration in the 'from the authors' section written by the writers of the TM discussing the status of the TM and answering the question of 'how offical is this stuff?'. The answer is that 'it can be considered preaty offical' but that 'we'd like to make it very clear that it is not out intention for this document to serve as a straitjacket, limiting the options of future writers'. Basicly that they are saying that they will overule it in episodes and such if it gets in the way, what happens on any show including SW. The rise of Palpatine in the Imperial Sourcebook has some glaring inconsistities with TPM for example. > >> Stupid. You've got it completely backwards, willfully. Do YOU have a > >> statement or such from Paramount saying Gaskill DOES have the authority to > >> decalre Canon policy? > > > >He is the person who *wrote* their offical website which is Paramounts > >stance on all these issues. He is then making a clarification of something > >he wrote. He would need to know Paramounts Canon policy to write the Website > >and we have to know it to make replies to questions as the person Paramount > >empowered to answer questions. If he was not Authorised to make a statement > >on it, he would not have. > > I dispute that he 'wrote' the website. He built it and made it. He of course was building it from plans/instructions/data given to him BY Berman/Braga and other parties yes. But having to write it up he would have to know the Canon policy to make hte statements he did. I dispute that he is in fact > an employee of Paramount. This was gone over in the email of Edams I reposted I am sure. I dispute that he is authorized to modify > the existing canon statement that is on the website and is official in > an ad hoc manner - ie via an email to a fellow fan. He didn't. All he did was answer a direct question put to him by someone who asked it about a very specific matter which is what he is paid to do. The canon policy says on the page of the TM's only what I previously posted, the question on novels and comics does not mention them. The TM's are also quite a different case from the above. Comics and Novels by their nature work on telling a story in the ST universe that would be a part of the timeline and have an effect on it, TM's just deal with the technology. If he wants to > clarify his words, why doesn't he update the site to reflect these? The site already says it. It says the newer TM's are considered canons while the old ones are not. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 23:43:16 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C018241.33ACB1F9@shaw.ca> -------- Chris O'Farrell wrote: > > Aron Kerkhof wrote: > > First, did he in fact 'write' the website? > > To the best of my knowledge he did. He wrote it and maintains it. To the best of your knowledge? Come on, you've been here long enough to know that means jack shit. Do the research or stop making that claim. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:34:04 +1100 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3c018ccc$0$5101$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- C.S.Strowbridge wrote in message news:3C018241.33ACB1F9@shaw.ca... > Chris O'Farrell wrote: > > > > Aron Kerkhof wrote: > > > > First, did he in fact 'write' the website? > > > > To the best of my knowledge he did. He wrote it and maintains it. > > To the best of your knowledge? Come on, you've been here long enough to > know that means jack shit. Do the research or stop making that claim. > I had done the research, I was just saying that to the best of my knowledge he did. I'll repost a section of Edams email you clearly missed: "So, who is Tim Gaskill? Well, Tim Gaskill was originally a friend and partner to Manny Pattel jnr. Together they ran many UK Trek/sci-fi conventions, and did a lot of promotional work for Simon&Schuster/CiC videos/Paramount around the UK. Tim was eventually hired by paramount to be senior editor of the www.startrek.com web site (if i read http://www.trekgalaxy.com/newsextra185.htm correctly), so we have an email from the senior editor of the official Star Trek website, contradicting an e-mail from the senior editor of Star Trek books." He is paid by Paramount and employed by them for the specific job of developing and maintaing the website. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 26 Nov 2001 00:31:30 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <20011125193130.24750.00003034@mb-mv.aol.com> -------- >C.S.Strowbridge wrote in message >news:3C018241.33ACB1F9@shaw.ca... >> Chris O'Farrell wrote: >> > >> > Aron Kerkhof wrote: >> >> > > First, did he in fact 'write' the website? >> > >> > To the best of my knowledge he did. He wrote it and maintains it. >> >> To the best of your knowledge? Come on, you've been here long enough to >> know that means jack shit. Do the research or stop making that claim. >> >I had done the research, I was just saying that to the best of my knowledge >he did. I'll repost a section of Edams email you clearly missed: > >"So, who is Tim Gaskill? > >Well, Tim Gaskill was originally a friend and partner to Manny Pattel jnr. >Together they ran many UK Trek/sci-fi conventions, and did a lot of >promotional work for Simon&Schuster/CiC videos/Paramount around the UK. > >Tim was eventually hired by paramount to be senior editor of the >www.startrek.com web site (if i read >http://www.trekgalaxy.com/newsextra185.htm correctly), so we have an email >from the senior editor of the official Star Trek website, contradicting an >e-mail from the senior editor of Star Trek books." > >He is paid by Paramount and employed by them for the specific job of >developing and maintaing the website. > > But the website states the Canon policy as stated by Ordover. In other words: DENIED. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:41:55 +1100 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3c018ea3$0$5099$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- Sir Nitram wrote in message news:20011125193130.24750.00003034@mb-mv.aol.com... > >C.S.Strowbridge wrote in message > >news:3C018241.33ACB1F9@shaw.ca... > >> Chris O'Farrell wrote: > >> > > >> > Aron Kerkhof wrote: > >> > >> > > First, did he in fact 'write' the website? > >> > > >> > To the best of my knowledge he did. He wrote it and maintains it. > >> > >> To the best of your knowledge? Come on, you've been here long enough to > >> know that means jack shit. Do the research or stop making that claim. > >> > >I had done the research, I was just saying that to the best of my knowledge > >he did. I'll repost a section of Edams email you clearly missed: > > > >"So, who is Tim Gaskill? > > > >Well, Tim Gaskill was originally a friend and partner to Manny Pattel jnr. > >Together they ran many UK Trek/sci-fi conventions, and did a lot of > >promotional work for Simon&Schuster/CiC videos/Paramount around the UK. > > > >Tim was eventually hired by paramount to be senior editor of the > >www.startrek.com web site (if i read > >http://www.trekgalaxy.com/newsextra185.htm correctly), so we have an email > >from the senior editor of the official Star Trek website, contradicting an > >e-mail from the senior editor of Star Trek books." > > > >He is paid by Paramount and employed by them for the specific job of > >developing and maintaing the website. > > > > > > But the website states the Canon policy as stated by Ordover. > > In other words: DENIED. Are you DELIBERATLY trying to be stupid? The Websites bit on what is canon says nothing on the TM's in the bit about Comics and Novels and how they fit in. There is a specific LINK that answers THAT question which implicitly says they are canon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 26 Nov 2001 00:54:38 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <20011125195438.24750.00003043@mb-mv.aol.com> -------- >Sir Nitram wrote in message >news:20011125193130.24750.00003034@mb-mv.aol.com... >> >C.S.Strowbridge wrote in message >> >news:3C018241.33ACB1F9@shaw.ca... >> >> Chris O'Farrell wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Aron Kerkhof wrote: >> >> >> >> > > First, did he in fact 'write' the website? >> >> > >> >> > To the best of my knowledge he did. He wrote it and maintains it. >> >> >> >> To the best of your knowledge? Come on, you've been here long enough to >> >> know that means jack shit. Do the research or stop making that claim. >> >> >> >I had done the research, I was just saying that to the best of my >knowledge >> >he did. I'll repost a section of Edams email you clearly missed: >> > >> >"So, who is Tim Gaskill? >> > >> >Well, Tim Gaskill was originally a friend and partner to Manny Pattel >jnr. >> >Together they ran many UK Trek/sci-fi conventions, and did a lot of >> >promotional work for Simon&Schuster/CiC videos/Paramount around the UK. >> > >> >Tim was eventually hired by paramount to be senior editor of the >> >www.startrek.com web site (if i read >> >http://www.trekgalaxy.com/newsextra185.htm correctly), so we have an >email >> >from the senior editor of the official Star Trek website, contradicting >an >> >e-mail from the senior editor of Star Trek books." >> > >> >He is paid by Paramount and employed by them for the specific job of >> >developing and maintaing the website. >> > >> > >> >> But the website states the Canon policy as stated by Ordover. >> >> In other words: DENIED. > >Are you DELIBERATLY trying to be stupid? The Websites bit on what is canon >says nothing on the TM's in the bit about Comics and Novels and how they fit >in. There is a specific LINK that answers THAT question which implicitly >says they are canon. > Are you deliberately ignoring that is says that only what's live action is Canon? You seem to be. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:12:51 +1100 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3c01a3f2$0$5100$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- > Are you deliberately ignoring that is says that only what's live action is > Canon? You seem to be. No I am not. That link is an answer to the question about Novels and Comics and how they fit in, not the TM's. The link to hte TM's implicitly states that they ARE Canon. The novels and comics question just says as 'a rule of thumb' and its refering to events in the ST universe I.E. the timeline. In that, only onscreen stuff counts as part of the timeline (excluding the stated exceptions). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:37:16 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <9tv8qe$4vflh$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Chris O'Farrell" wrote in message news:3c01a3f2$0$5100$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > > > Are you deliberately ignoring that is says that only what's live action is > > Canon? You seem to be. > > No I am not. That link is an answer to the question about Novels and Comics > and how they fit in, not the TM's. The link to hte TM's implicitly states > that they ARE Canon. The novels and comics question just says as 'a rule of > thumb' and its refering to events in the ST universe I.E. the timeline. In > that, only onscreen stuff counts as part of the timeline (excluding the > stated exceptions). Though I've not reviewed it lately, it is unfortunately true that there is no logical way to say that, "implicitly", the TMs have any sort of canonicity according to the website. There is plenty of wiggle room, to be sure (Edam's reply to Sir Nitram points out that there is no "only" in reference to the live-action stuff, explicitly meaning that they are not the end-all be-all exclusive canon), but there's simply no commentary one way or the other about the TMs. Guardian 2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alves Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 04:25:09 -0200 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- In article <9tv8qe$4vflh$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>, usmguy@yahoo.com says... > Though I've not reviewed it lately, it is unfortunately true that there is > no logical way to say that, "implicitly", the TMs have any sort of > canonicity according to the website. Not everything that is writen is a logical proposition, reasoning, argument or whatever. Infact, very little is. We are working with language. -- "I find myself guilty of hyperbole. Please excuse me while I ritually fall onto my newsreader." - DMZ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:42:17 -0000 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- Today's news is brought to you by the number 7, and the letter from Sir Nitram > Are you deliberately ignoring that is says that only what's live action is > Canon? You seem to be. As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon. Please point out the word "only" above(or in any other part of the startrek.com FAQ). I don't seem to be able to find it. Please point out where the sources Chris is referencing are denied. I don't seem to be able to find it. -- Lord Edam de Fromage aka Sorborus www.trek-wars.co.uk How nice it would be, just to push a bottom on a computer and be given the solution to our problems. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:14:42 -0800 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- "Lord Edam de Fromage" wrote: > Today's news is brought to you by the number 7, and the letter from Sir > Nitram > > > Are you deliberately ignoring that is says that only what's live action is > > Canon? You seem to be. > As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action > episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, > characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional > novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not > canon. > > Please point out the word "only" above(or in any other part of the > startrek.com FAQ). I don't seem to be able to find it. He wasn't quoting anything verbatim. The general consensus of what is shown above does not rule out Sir Nitram's comment. > Please point out where the sources Chris is referencing are denied. I > don't seem to be able to find it. They are denied by not being included in the above statement. It doesn't say: "As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Oh, and the tech manuals written by production staff too." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:06:15 -0000 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- In article , louis@h4h.com says... > > > Are you deliberately ignoring that is says that only what's live action > is > > > Canon? You seem to be. > > > As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action > > episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, > > characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional > > novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not > > canon. > > > > Please point out the word "only" above(or in any other part of the > > startrek.com FAQ). I don't seem to be able to find it. > > He wasn't quoting anything verbatim. The general consensus of what is shown > above does not rule out Sir > Nitram's comment. So it DOES NOT say that ONLY live action is canon. > > Please point out where the sources Chris is referencing are denied. I > > don't seem to be able to find it. > > They are denied by not being included in the above statement. The above statement does not restrict additional canon, beyond the fact that the novels animated adventures and various comic lines are NOT canon. You can use the above to determine three specific things which are NOT canon. A different example gives additional examples which are NOT canon. Nothing lists everything that IS canon. -- Lord Edam de Fromage www.trek-wars.co.uk "cl"- the sound on one hand clapping ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:46:16 -0800 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- "Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote > In article , louis@h4h.com says... > > > > Are you deliberately ignoring that is says that only what's live action > > is > > > > Canon? You seem to be. > > > > > As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action > > > episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, > > > characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional > > > novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not > > > canon. > > > > > > Please point out the word "only" above(or in any other part of the > > > startrek.com FAQ). I don't seem to be able to find it. > > > > He wasn't quoting anything verbatim. The general consensus of what is shown > > above does not rule out Sir > > Nitram's comment. > So it DOES NOT say that ONLY live action is canon. It doesn't need to specify this with "only"; the intent is quite clear itself. > > > Please point out where the sources Chris is referencing are denied. I > > > don't seem to be able to find it. > > > > They are denied by not being included in the above statement. > > The above statement does not restrict additional canon, The above statement does not automatically include additional canon either. > beyond the fact that the novels animated adventures and various comic lines are NOT > canon. Unless uttered or showcased in a canon TV show or movie. Which is exactly the same boat the TMs are in. > You can use the above to determine three specific things which are NOT > canon. A different example gives additional examples which are NOT > canon. Nothing lists everything that IS canon. Nothing above specifically lists the TMs as canon. Someone who should know the policy intimately, John Ordover, has outlined the TMs position in the Trek scheme of things before: APPROVALS: All material is subject to the approval of Paramount Pictures , which owns all copyright to STAR TREK in its various incarnations and is very concerned about maintaining the integrity of the characters and the Star Trek universe. To that end, we make a serious effort to see that the books line up with the episodes and films, though we recognize that absolute consistency is a practical impossibility. We now have some "official" reference guides that may be helpful. These titles should be available in all bookstores and many libraries. They include: THE STAR TREK COMPENDIUM, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION TECHNICAL MANUAL, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION COMPANION. Upcoming books will include a book called the STAR TREK CHRONOLOGY (available in mid-March, 1993), which is an illustrated timeline of the STAR TREK universe covering both the Original Series and the Next Generation. The best reference, of course, are the STAR TREK episodes and films. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:42:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- In article , louis@h4h.com says... > > > > As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action > > > > episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story > lines, > > > > characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the > fictional > > > > novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not > > > > canon. > > > > > > > > Please point out the word "only" above(or in any other part of the > > > > startrek.com FAQ). I don't seem to be able to find it. > > > > > > He wasn't quoting anything verbatim. The general consensus of what is > shown > > > above does not rule out Sir > > > Nitram's comment. > > > So it DOES NOT say that ONLY live action is canon. > > It doesn't need to specify this with "only"; the intent is quite clear > itself. Yes - the intent is clearly to describe the novels, cartoons and comics as non-canon. In other words, answer the question posed. It does not restrict canon to live action. Infact, there is nothing in the StarTrek.com FAQ that says canon is ONLY live action. > > > > Please point out where the sources Chris is referencing are denied. I > > > > don't seem to be able to find it. > > > > > > They are denied by not being included in the above statement. > > > > The above statement does not restrict additional canon, > > The above statement does not automatically include additional canon either. That comes from the other statements. > > You can use the above to determine three specific things which are NOT > > canon. A different example gives additional examples which are NOT > > canon. Nothing lists everything that IS canon. > > Nothing above specifically lists the TMs as canon. Because the intent of my contribution is not to prove the eligibility of hte TMs, only to demonstrate the SirNitram's claim only stand if we accept his misrepresentations. -- Lord Edam de Fromage www.trek-wars.co.uk "cl"- the sound on one hand clapping ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:52:28 -0800 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- "Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote > In article , louis@h4h.com says... > > > > > As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action > > > > > episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story > > lines, > > > > > characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the > > fictional > > > > > novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not > > > > > canon. > > > > > > > > > > Please point out the word "only" above(or in any other part of the > > > > > startrek.com FAQ). I don't seem to be able to find it. > > > > > > > > He wasn't quoting anything verbatim. The general consensus of what is > > shown > > > > above does not rule out Sir > > > > Nitram's comment. > > > > > So it DOES NOT say that ONLY live action is canon. > > > > It doesn't need to specify this with "only"; the intent is quite clear > > itself. > > Yes - the intent is clearly to describe the novels, cartoons and comics > as non-canon. In other words, answer the question posed. > > It does not restrict canon to live action. Yes it does. Its posted above. > Infact, there is nothing in > the StarTrek.com FAQ that says canon is ONLY live action. Yes it does. Its posted above. It doesn't need the word "ONLY" attatched to make this clear. > > > > > Please point out where the sources Chris is referencing are denied. I > > > > > don't seem to be able to find it. > > > > > > > > They are denied by not being included in the above statement. > > > > > > The above statement does not restrict additional canon, > > > > The above statement does not automatically include additional canon either. > > That comes from the other statements. The other statement neither supersede the first, nor does in shoe-horn in other references to canon simply by NOT referring to them in a statement about which blueprints are better to buy than others. > > > You can use the above to determine three specific things which are NOT > > > canon. A different example gives additional examples which are NOT > > > canon. Nothing lists everything that IS canon. > > > > Nothing above specifically lists the TMs as canon. > Because the intent of my contribution is not to prove the eligibility of > hte TMs, only to demonstrate the SirNitram's claim only stand if we > accept his misrepresentations. Oh! Then I'm working the opposite end. The intent of my contribution is not to prove the ineligibility of the TMs, but only to demonstrate the Chris O'Farrell claims only stand if we accept his misrepresentations. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:56:20 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C03FDF4.3387D79C@yahoo.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > It does not restrict canon to live action. > > Yes it does. Its posted above. > > > Infact, there is nothing in > > the StarTrek.com FAQ that says canon is ONLY live action. > > Yes it does. Its posted above. It doesn't need the word "ONLY" attatched to > make this clear. Wayne, you're not making a damned bit of sense. Try to rub a few neurons together and figure out how the following applies: If I say that guys named Dave are stupid assholes, I am not saying that ONLY guys named Dave are stupid assholes, as you would claim . . . especially since we all know damn good and well that there's a guy named Wayne who is a stupid asshole. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:43:49 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <4wgEPFB691loh+wX0plc6B6RPR3E@4ax.com> -------- On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:56:20 -0600, Guardian 2000 wrote: >> > Infact, there is nothing in >> > the StarTrek.com FAQ that says canon is ONLY live action. >> >> Yes it does. Its posted above. It doesn't need the word "ONLY" attatched to >> make this clear. > > >Wayne, you're not making a damned bit of sense. Try to rub a few >neurons together and figure out how the following applies: > >If I say that guys named Dave are stupid assholes, I am not saying that >ONLY guys named Dave are stupid assholes, as you would claim . . . >especially since we all know damn good and well that there's a guy named >Wayne who is a stupid asshole. Except that's not the situation. Trekkies are trying to INSERT something into the sentence that isn't there. If I say, "Hey, hand me that bowl of rice," you apparently would assume that I wanted rice and a copy of the Star Trek Technical Manual. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:20:28 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <9u1akd$5jipa$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:4wgEPFB691loh+wX0plc6B6RPR3E@4ax.com... > On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:56:20 -0600, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > >> > Infact, there is nothing in > >> > the StarTrek.com FAQ that says canon is ONLY live action. > >> > >> Yes it does. Its posted above. It doesn't need the word "ONLY" attatched to > >> make this clear. > > > > > >Wayne, you're not making a damned bit of sense. Try to rub a few > >neurons together and figure out how the following applies: > > > >If I say that guys named Dave are stupid assholes, I am not saying that > >ONLY guys named Dave are stupid assholes, as you would claim . . . > >especially since we all know damn good and well that there's a guy named > >Wayne who is a stupid asshole. > > Except that's not the situation. Trekkies are trying to INSERT something into > the sentence that isn't there. If I say, "Hey, hand me that bowl of rice," you > apparently would assume that I wanted rice and a copy of the Star Trek Technical > Manual. False analogy. If one really wanted a decent analogy, one would think of "that bowl of rice" as one of several bowls of rice available, where "bowl of rice" is analagous to "particular source of potentially canon information". We've been asked to hand over particular bowls of rice . . . X, Y, and Z are mentioned as good candidates, but bowls of rice A, B, and C are specifically not to be handed over. You're suggesting that R, S, and T are therefore also specifically not to be handed over, whereas the fact of the matter is that we are not sure whether R, S, and T are good to hand over or not. We know without doubt that X, Y, and Z are good to hand over, so we do so without question. But we do not accept your view that R, S, and T are automatically bad because they were not specifically mentioned as good. To do so would be foolish. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:06:21 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:20:28 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >False analogy. If one really wanted a decent analogy, one would think of >"that bowl of rice" as one of several bowls of rice available, where "bowl >of rice" is analagous to "particular source of potentially canon >information". > >We've been asked to hand over particular bowls of rice . . . X, Y, and Z >are mentioned as good candidates, but bowls of rice A, B, and C are >specifically not to be handed over. You're suggesting that R, S, and T are >therefore also specifically not to be handed over, whereas the fact of the >matter is that we are not sure whether R, S, and T are good to hand over or >not. Meanwhile, a rice cook, twelve Chinese peasant farmers, the inventor of rice, and the President of Rice-A-Roni stand by and say, "Don't eat bowls R, S, and T; they're poisonous." But on the other hand, the dude who mops the kitchen floor of said corporate President is like "Nah dude, R, S, and T are okay; they try to be like XYZ as much as possible." Hmmmm... -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:32:39 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <9u1lsn$5mta2$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:FEMEPHa+Pjs==N1AOjuxjfSzN0mi@4ax.com... > On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:20:28 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >False analogy. If one really wanted a decent analogy, one would think of > >"that bowl of rice" as one of several bowls of rice available, where "bowl > >of rice" is analagous to "particular source of potentially canon > >information". > > > >We've been asked to hand over particular bowls of rice . . . X, Y, and Z > >are mentioned as good candidates, but bowls of rice A, B, and C are > >specifically not to be handed over. You're suggesting that R, S, and T are > >therefore also specifically not to be handed over, whereas the fact of the > >matter is that we are not sure whether R, S, and T are good to hand over or > >not. > > Meanwhile, a rice cook, twelve Chinese peasant farmers, the inventor of rice, > and the President of Rice-A-Roni stand by and say, "Don't eat bowls R, S, and T; > they're poisonous." But on the other hand, the dude who mops the kitchen floor > of said corporate President is like "Nah dude, R, S, and T are okay; they try to > be like XYZ as much as possible." > > Hmmmm... > And where are these individuals of which you speak? We are unfortunately unable to talk to the creator of rice . . . and the "patent owner" of rice (pardon the forced analogy) hasn't said anything definite. What we mainly have to go on is what the patent owner's PR guy said to us (that R, S, and T weren't poisonous) and what some other jerk-off who makes ramen noodles (or butter, whichever is the better analogy) thinks about the rice situation, giving us a second- or third-hand report. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:55:21 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:32:39 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >And where are these individuals of which you speak? > >We are unfortunately unable to talk to the creator of rice . . . and the >"patent owner" of rice (pardon the forced analogy) hasn't said anything >definite. What we mainly have to go on is what the patent owner's PR guy >said to us (that R, S, and T weren't poisonous) and what some other jerk-off >who makes ramen noodles (or butter, whichever is the better analogy) thinks >about the rice situation, giving us a second- or third-hand report. More ignoring argumentation. For Ordover to edit the books, but more importantly, to WRITE A SCRIPT FOR PARAMOUNT (as he did), he must know canon. For Ron D. Moore to do as much as he does he must know canon intimately. Tim Gaskill defines canon in his e-mail: "The Encyclopedia, Chronology, TM's, etc, *strive* to be canon, i.e. match up what appears on screen..." Being Canon = Matching With What Appears On Screen. Which is the current policy. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:26:41 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C053AC0.65FDFE76@shaw.ca> -------- Kynes wrote: > Being Canon = Matching With What Appears On Screen. Which is the current > policy. God this is starting to get tiring. And it's sucking out a lot of time from my porn downloading schedule. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:40:16 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <9u5ds0$67b3c$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:gl8EPGgau1XQmd49qKKZ=DPt12dN@4ax.com... > On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:32:39 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >And where are these individuals of which you speak? > > > >We are unfortunately unable to talk to the creator of rice . . . and the > >"patent owner" of rice (pardon the forced analogy) hasn't said anything > >definite. What we mainly have to go on is what the patent owner's PR guy > >said to us (that R, S, and T weren't poisonous) and what some other jerk-off > >who makes ramen noodles (or butter, whichever is the better analogy) thinks > >about the rice situation, giving us a second- or third-hand report. > > More ignoring argumentation. > > For Ordover to edit the books, but more importantly, to WRITE A SCRIPT FOR > PARAMOUNT (as he did), he must know canon. > (Laughs hysterically) . . . to write a script for Star Trek requires jack-shit knowledge of canon. Ever watch Star Trek: Voyager? :-) > For Ron D. Moore to do as much as he does he must know canon intimately. Hence his inclusion of stuff found on computer games. > Tim Gaskill defines canon in his e-mail: > > "The Encyclopedia, Chronology, TM's, etc, *strive* to be canon, i.e. match up > what appears on screen..." > > Being Canon = Matching With What Appears On Screen. Which is the current policy. So the Enc., Chron., TMs, et cetera . . . since they match up with what appears on screen (unless what appears on screen after publication shows that the information is no longer correct . . . same as with what appeared on screen previously), must be canon, in your view. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:38:31 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <73EGPLAm3O4bfv9gW+mqvV8eQJcM@4ax.com> -------- On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:40:16 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >> More ignoring argumentation. >> >> For Ordover to edit the books, but more importantly, to WRITE A SCRIPT FOR >> PARAMOUNT (as he did), he must know canon. >> > >(Laughs hysterically) . . . to write a script for Star Trek requires >jack-shit knowledge of canon. Ever watch Star Trek: Voyager? :-) Your trolling is getting as desperate and stupid as most of your dates. >> For Ron D. Moore to do as much as he does he must know canon intimately. > >Hence his inclusion of stuff found on computer games. More willful misunderstanding. You can include whatever you want, but you can't exclude canon facts. >> Tim Gaskill defines canon in his e-mail: >> >> "The Encyclopedia, Chronology, TM's, etc, *strive* to be canon, i.e. match >up >> what appears on screen..." >> >> Being Canon = Matching With What Appears On Screen. Which is the current >policy. > >So the Enc., Chron., TMs, et cetera . . . since they match up with what >appears on screen (unless what appears on screen after publication shows >that the information is no longer correct . . . same as with what appeared >on screen previously), must be canon, in your view. Yes, they are, on the points they match up with what's on screen. Of course, so is a fanfic, on the points it matches up with what's on screen. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:52:20 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C06A004.7C1C3AB7@yahoo.com> -------- Kynes wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:40:16 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >> More ignoring argumentation. > >> > >> For Ordover to edit the books, but more importantly, to WRITE A SCRIPT FOR > >> PARAMOUNT (as he did), he must know canon. > >> > > > >(Laughs hysterically) . . . to write a script for Star Trek requires > >jack-shit knowledge of canon. Ever watch Star Trek: Voyager? :-) > > Your trolling is getting as desperate and stupid as most of your dates. It's called a counter-example, asswit. > > >> For Ron D. Moore to do as much as he does he must know canon intimately. > > > >Hence his inclusion of stuff found on computer games. > > More willful misunderstanding. You can include whatever you want, but you can't > exclude canon facts. You're willing to include exclusions not found on the website. *That* is willful misunderstanding. > > >> Tim Gaskill defines canon in his e-mail: > >> > >> "The Encyclopedia, Chronology, TM's, etc, *strive* to be canon, i.e. match > >up > >> what appears on screen..." > >> > >> Being Canon = Matching With What Appears On Screen. Which is the current > >policy. > > > >So the Enc., Chron., TMs, et cetera . . . since they match up with what > >appears on screen (unless what appears on screen after publication shows > >that the information is no longer correct . . . same as with what appeared > >on screen previously), must be canon, in your view. > > Yes, they are, on the points they match up with what's on screen. Of course, so > is a fanfic, on the points it matches up with what's on screen. Hey, you're the one swearing by "Anything-That-Is-Not-What-Is-Clearly-Stated-By-Paramount" . . . G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 23:10:24 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <2AsHPKhU7Gu+6L93NIihwmAhklEp@4ax.com> -------- On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:52:20 -0600, Guardian 2000 wrote: >> >> More ignoring argumentation. >> >> >> >> For Ordover to edit the books, but more importantly, to WRITE A SCRIPT FOR >> >> PARAMOUNT (as he did), he must know canon. >> >> >> > >> >(Laughs hysterically) . . . to write a script for Star Trek requires >> >jack-shit knowledge of canon. Ever watch Star Trek: Voyager? :-) >> >> Your trolling is getting as desperate and stupid as most of your dates. > >It's called a counter-example, asswit. Continuity errors is not the same thing as not knowing the canon policy. If the writers for the show don't know the canon policy, why does the canon policy even exist? And why do they keep claiming to know that policy and be articulating the official Paramount policy on the subject? Is Ron D. Moore a liar? >> >> For Ron D. Moore to do as much as he does he must know canon intimately. >> > >> >Hence his inclusion of stuff found on computer games. >> >> More willful misunderstanding. You can include whatever you want, but you can't >> exclude canon facts. > >You're willing to include exclusions not found on the website. *That* >is willful misunderstanding. Yes, I am willing to do that. It's an understanding that as long as there isn't a contradiction, which there isn't, further information from Paramount sources can help. >> >> Tim Gaskill defines canon in his e-mail: >> >> >> >> "The Encyclopedia, Chronology, TM's, etc, *strive* to be canon, i.e. match >> >up >> >> what appears on screen..." >> >> >> >> Being Canon = Matching With What Appears On Screen. Which is the current >> >policy. >> > >> >So the Enc., Chron., TMs, et cetera . . . since they match up with what >> >appears on screen (unless what appears on screen after publication shows >> >that the information is no longer correct . . . same as with what appeared >> >on screen previously), must be canon, in your view. >> >> Yes, they are, on the points they match up with what's on screen. Of course, so >> is a fanfic, on the points it matches up with what's on screen. > >Hey, you're the one swearing by >"Anything-That-Is-Not-What-Is-Clearly-Stated-By-Paramount" . . . I have no idea what that means; I also don't care. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 19:44:39 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <9uele3$82h0e$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:2AsHPKhU7Gu+6L93NIihwmAhklEp@4ax.com... > >You're willing to include exclusions not found on the website. *That* > >is willful misunderstanding. > > Yes, I am willing to do that. It's an understanding that as long as there isn't > a contradiction, which there isn't, further information from Paramount sources > can help. I would accept your reasoning, if you were to acknowledge the fact that such "help", though interesting, is not in itself conclusive. Furthermore, I would contest the notion that there is no contradiction . . . statements by Ron D. Moore have demonstrated contradiction with the official Paramount line, and the other sources are either contrary to or shades off of each other. Picking and choosing among them is the same as ASVS adopting its own policy. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 20:20:56 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 19:44:39 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >> >You're willing to include exclusions not found on the website. *That* >> >is willful misunderstanding. >> >> Yes, I am willing to do that. It's an understanding that as long as there >isn't >> a contradiction, which there isn't, further information from Paramount >sources >> can help. > > >I would accept your reasoning, if you were to acknowledge the fact that such >"help", though interesting, is not in itself conclusive. Yes, it is. You have ignored all of my arguments about why it is. You are nothing more than a boring troll who somehow deludes himself into believing that the passage of time will make his arguments more ripe; in reality, they spoiled long ago. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] There has been a control message sent out for a "alt.startrek.vs.starwars". Unfortunately, it was extremely badly done as it contains no newsgroup description or rationale at all (not even a tag)... What the above paragraph means is that, not only is the alt group dead in the water because of these misguided actions, but any attempt to create a group with the same name is probably dead in the water too. - From alt.config, 7/12/97 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 01:22:37 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <9uf97p$81140$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:UuEKPBhD=AANh4p51i9oDUjF7P5X@4ax.com... > On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 19:44:39 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >> >You're willing to include exclusions not found on the website. *That* > >> >is willful misunderstanding. > >> > >> Yes, I am willing to do that. It's an understanding that as long as there > >isn't > >> a contradiction, which there isn't, further information from Paramount > >sources > >> can help. > > > > > >I would accept your reasoning, if you were to acknowledge the fact that such > >"help", though interesting, is not in itself conclusive. > > Yes, it is. You have ignored all of my arguments about why it is. They have not been ignored. They have been considered and studied, their strengths and weaknesses have been assessed, and they have been found to be wanting. Counterpoints and reasoning have been provided in response, at times shedding light on what would be required to craft an improved argument. No adequate response has been forthcoming. Guardian 2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 01:57:01 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <9C8LPDRi+Ho3T86kGFGxp4N6fXJD@4ax.com> -------- On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 01:22:37 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >> >I would accept your reasoning, if you were to acknowledge the fact that >such >> >"help", though interesting, is not in itself conclusive. >> >> Yes, it is. You have ignored all of my arguments about why it is. > >They have not been ignored. They have been considered and studied, their >strengths and weaknesses have been assessed, and they have been found to be >wanting. Counterpoints and reasoning have been provided in response, at >times shedding light on what would be required to craft an improved >argument. No adequate response has been forthcoming. Ladies and gentlemen, I think we've found our new C-SPAN play-by-play announcer for those Joint Subcommittee on Parliamentary Procedure meetings. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] There has been a control message sent out for a "alt.startrek.vs.starwars". Unfortunately, it was extremely badly done as it contains no newsgroup description or rationale at all (not even a tag)... What the above paragraph means is that, not only is the alt group dead in the water because of these misguided actions, but any attempt to create a group with the same name is probably dead in the water too. - From alt.config, 7/12/97 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 20:06:17 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C0BDB71.49493EF6@shaw.ca> -------- Kynes wrote: > > "Guardian 2000" wrote: > >I would accept your reasoning, if you were to acknowledge the fact that > >such "help", though interesting, is not in itself conclusive. > > Yes, it is. You have ignored all of my arguments about why it is. You > are nothing more than a boring troll who somehow deludes himself into > believing that the passage of time will make his arguments more ripe; in > reality, they spoiled long ago. The funny thing is, he agrees with us. He just can't bring himself to admit it. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 15:29:56 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 20:06:17 GMT, "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >> >I would accept your reasoning, if you were to acknowledge the fact that >> >such "help", though interesting, is not in itself conclusive. >> >> Yes, it is. You have ignored all of my arguments about why it is. You >> are nothing more than a boring troll who somehow deludes himself into >> believing that the passage of time will make his arguments more ripe; in >> reality, they spoiled long ago. > >The funny thing is, he agrees with us. He just can't bring himself to >admit it. I know. It's like his beloved TMs have died and he's in the first stage: denial. Soon will come bargaining. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] There has been a control message sent out for a "alt.startrek.vs.starwars". Unfortunately, it was extremely badly done as it contains no newsgroup description or rationale at all (not even a tag)... What the above paragraph means is that, not only is the alt group dead in the water because of these misguided actions, but any attempt to create a group with the same name is probably dead in the water too. - From alt.config, 7/12/97 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 18:25:14 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C0D1549.2B1ABABF@shaw.ca> -------- Kynes wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > >> >I would accept your reasoning, if you were to acknowledge the fact > >> >that such "help", though interesting, is not in itself conclusive. > >> > >> Yes, it is. You have ignored all of my arguments about why it is. You > >> are nothing more than a boring troll who somehow deludes himself into > >> believing that the passage of time will make his arguments more ripe; > >> in reality, they spoiled long ago. > > > >The funny thing is, he agrees with us. He just can't bring himself to > >admit it. > > I know. It's like his beloved TMs have died and he's in the first stage: > denial. Soon will come bargaining. Already happened. His trying to introduce an 'Official' category. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 12:39:00 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 18:25:14 GMT, "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >> I know. It's like his beloved TMs have died and he's in the first stage: >> denial. Soon will come bargaining. > >Already happened. His trying to introduce an 'Official' category. Ah yes. He must be in "anger" now. That would explain his irrational lashings-out at the Tomb of the Unknown Warsie. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] There has been a control message sent out for a "alt.startrek.vs.starwars". Unfortunately, it was extremely badly done as it contains no newsgroup description or rationale at all (not even a tag)... What the above paragraph means is that, not only is the alt group dead in the water because of these misguided actions, but any attempt to create a group with the same name is probably dead in the water too. - From alt.config, 7/12/97 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 17:25:31 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <4CFBCB52.E45C4728@shaw.ca> -------- Kynes wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > >> I know. It's like his beloved TMs have died and he's in the first > >> stage: denial. Soon will come bargaining. > > > >Already happened. His trying to introduce an 'Official' category. > > Ah yes. He must be in "anger" now. That would explain his irrational > lashings-out at the Tomb of the Unknown Warsie. In what stage does the pathetic suicide attempt take place? C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 12:38:41 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- On Wed, 05 Dec 2001 17:25:31 GMT, "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >> >> I know. It's like his beloved TMs have died and he's in the first >> >> stage: denial. Soon will come bargaining. >> > >> >Already happened. His trying to introduce an 'Official' category. >> >> Ah yes. He must be in "anger" now. That would explain his irrational >> lashings-out at the Tomb of the Unknown Warsie. > >In what stage does the pathetic suicide attempt take place? The sooner the better. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] There has been a control message sent out for a "alt.startrek.vs.starwars". Unfortunately, it was extremely badly done as it contains no newsgroup description or rationale at all (not even a tag)... What the above paragraph means is that, not only is the alt group dead in the water because of these misguided actions, but any attempt to create a group with the same name is probably dead in the water too. - From alt.config, 7/12/97 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:55:55 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <9uk9cs$9656h$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C0D1549.2B1ABABF@shaw.ca... > Kynes wrote: > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > >> >I would accept your reasoning, if you were to acknowledge the fact > > >> >that such "help", though interesting, is not in itself conclusive. > > >> > > >> Yes, it is. You have ignored all of my arguments about why it is. You > > >> are nothing more than a boring troll who somehow deludes himself into > > >> believing that the passage of time will make his arguments more ripe; > > >> in reality, they spoiled long ago. > > > > > >The funny thing is, he agrees with us. He just can't bring himself to > > >admit it. > > > > I know. It's like his beloved TMs have died and he's in the first stage: > > denial. Soon will come bargaining. > > Already happened. His trying to introduce an 'Official' category. > > C.S.Strowbridge Would you mind telling me when the hell I did that . . . that'd be great, 'cause I'd really like to know. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 17:51:13 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <4CFBD158.780BDA11@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > Already happened. His trying to introduce an 'Official' category. > > Would you mind telling me when the hell I did that . . . that'd be > great, 'cause I'd really like to know. "Then, in the interests of consistency, do you accept the notion that there *is* an official category" C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 11:21:48 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C0FA92C.C9259230@yahoo.com> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > Already happened. His trying to introduce an 'Official' category. > > > > Would you mind telling me when the hell I did that . . . that'd be > > great, 'cause I'd really like to know. > > "Then, in the interests of consistency, do you accept the notion that > there *is* an official category" > > C.S.Strowbridge And, in context, you're of the belief that I was arguing for an official category? You're reading in to what I said, committing the same mistake you accuse Trekkers of. You read it wrong. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 18:11:55 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C0FB4F4.904D58CB@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > Already happened. His trying to introduce an 'Official' category. > > > > > > Would you mind telling me when the hell I did that . . . that'd be > > > great, 'cause I'd really like to know. > > > > "Then, in the interests of consistency, do you accept the notion that > > there *is* an official category" > > And, in context, Kynes: But Paramount NEVER alludes to any sort of "official" category. Ordover's e-mails, et cetera, indicate this. G2K: Then, in the interests of consistency, do you accept the notion that there *is* an official category, as per Ordover's statements? The context just makes you look stupid. > you're of the belief that I was arguing for an official category? That's what you wrote. But from previous debates I know you have difficult expressing yourself. You prefer inexact language that leaves wiggle room so you can back out of a claim when you are caught in a lie. > You're reading in to what I said, committing the same mistake you accuse > Trekkers of. > > You read it wrong. Or perhaps YOU wrote it wrong. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 11:21:18 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C10FA8E.C874A9BD@yahoo.com> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > > > Already happened. His trying to introduce an 'Official' category. > > > > > > > > Would you mind telling me when the hell I did that . . . that'd be > > > > great, 'cause I'd really like to know. > > > > > > "Then, in the interests of consistency, do you accept the notion that > > > there *is* an official category" > > > > And, in context, > > Kynes: But Paramount NEVER alludes to any sort of "official" category. > Ordover's e-mails, et cetera, indicate this. > G2K: Then, in the interests of consistency, do you accept the notion > that > there *is* an official category, as per Ordover's statements? > > The context just makes you look stupid. > If that were the context, I would agree. However, it was not. > > you're of the belief that I was arguing for an official category? > > That's what you wrote. But from previous debates I know you have > difficult expressing yourself. You prefer inexact language that leaves > wiggle room so you can back out of a claim when you are caught in a lie. > I write using exact language that, for most people in the universe, communicates the necessary shades of meaning I wish to convey. The fact that you and yours insist on misunderstanding that language is not my problem. The fact that your errors of thought and reason lead you to conclude that I am lying is also not my problem, for I do not lie. > > You're reading in to what I said, committing the same mistake you accuse > > Trekkers of. > > > > You read it wrong. > > Or perhaps YOU wrote it wrong. > > C.S.Strowbridge No, it was written clearly. You extracted concepts and phrases that were not present in the text . . . the fault lies with you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 20:08:04 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C1121BA.F85BEAA7@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > "Then, in the interests of consistency, do you accept the notion > > > > that there *is* an official category" > > > > > > And, in context, > > > > Kynes: But Paramount NEVER alludes to any sort of "official" category. > > Ordover's e-mails, et cetera, indicate this. > > G2K: Then, in the interests of consistency, do you accept the notion > > that there *is* an official category, as per Ordover's statements? > > > > The context just makes you look stupid. > > If that were the context, I would agree. And that's the entire message. > > > you're of the belief that I was arguing for an official category? > > > > That's what you wrote. But from previous debates I know you have > > difficult expressing yourself. You prefer inexact language that leaves > > wiggle room so you can back out of a claim when you are caught in a > > lie. > > I write using exact language Bullshit. We've had problems with your inexact language in the past (Voyager syndication and Black Holes just to name two.) > > > You're reading in to what I said, committing the same mistake you > > > accuse Trekkers of. > > > > > > You read it wrong. > > > > Or perhaps YOU wrote it wrong. > > No, it was written clearly. It's the audience, not the author that determines that. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:51:38 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <9urh5l$a2ao7$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C1121BA.F85BEAA7@shaw.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > > > "Then, in the interests of consistency, do you accept the notion > > > > > that there *is* an official category" > > > > > > > > And, in context, > > > > > > Kynes: But Paramount NEVER alludes to any sort of "official" category. > > > Ordover's e-mails, et cetera, indicate this. > > > G2K: Then, in the interests of consistency, do you accept the notion > > > that there *is* an official category, as per Ordover's statements? > > > > > > The context just makes you look stupid. > > > > If that were the context, I would agree. > > And that's the entire message. > > > > > > you're of the belief that I was arguing for an official category? > > > > > > That's what you wrote. But from previous debates I know you have > > > difficult expressing yourself. You prefer inexact language that leaves > > > wiggle room so you can back out of a claim when you are caught in a > > > lie. > > > > I write using exact language > > Bullshit. > > We've had problems with your inexact language in the past (Voyager > syndication and Black Holes just to name two.) You've had problems with my exact language . . . you did not understand the fact that Voyager was syndicated in some areas, and did not understand what Hawking radiation was. The fault lies not in my words but in your inability or unwillingness to read and comprehend them. > > > > > You're reading in to what I said, committing the same mistake you > > > > accuse Trekkers of. > > > > > > > > You read it wrong. > > > > > > Or perhaps YOU wrote it wrong. > > > > No, it was written clearly. > > It's the audience, not the author that determines that. I disagree. However, were I to accept that, I'd point out that the author chooses his audience . . . my preferred audience consists of those willing and able to listen to reason and comprehend the language. Sorry, but I guess that's not you. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 07 Dec 2001 22:56:57 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <20011207175657.18499.00001844@mb-cg.aol.com> -------- >I disagree. However, were I to accept that, I'd point out that the author >chooses his audience . . . my preferred audience consists of those willing >and able to listen to reason and comprehend the language. > >Sorry, but I guess that's not you. > >G2k If you post here, we are your audience. Don't want us as your audience? Go the fuck away. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 06:46:10 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <9ut22b$aukr6$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011207175657.18499.00001844@mb-cg.aol.com... > >I disagree. However, were I to accept that, I'd point out that the author > >chooses his audience . . . my preferred audience consists of those willing > >and able to listen to reason and comprehend the language. > > > >Sorry, but I guess that's not you. > > > >G2k > > If you post here, we are your audience. Don't want us as your audience? Go the > fuck away. > ------------------------------------ My preferred audience is open-minded people willing to listen to arguments that attempt to maintain a strict adherence to fact and reason, and who will correct me when such attempts do not succeed. My audience is not closed-minded people who will not listen to any argument that does not satisfy and maintain their preconceived notions or their beliefs based upon self-deception, be it extraordinary or subtle. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 20:15:44 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C127511.CD18E998@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote > > > > The context just makes you look stupid. > > > > > > If that were the context, I would agree. > > > > And that's the entire message. No response for this? > > > > > you're of the belief that I was arguing for an official > > > > > category? > > > > > > > > That's what you wrote. But from previous debates I know you have > > > > difficult expressing yourself. You prefer inexact language that > > > > leaves wiggle room so you can back out of a claim when you are > > > > caught in a lie. > > > > > > I write using exact language > > > > Bullshit. > > > > We've had problems with your inexact language in the past (Voyager > > syndication and Black Holes just to name two.) > > You've had problems with my exact language . . . you did not understand > the fact that Voyager was syndicated in some areas, Due to your poor use of the English language. There were two equally likely interpretations to what you wrote. BTW, it's still a Red Herring to that debate. > and did not understand what Hawking radiation was. No, you don't know hat Hawking Radiation is. If something enters into a black hole all complexity is lost, this would REDUCE entropy. Something that is physically impossible. HR was theorized to compensate for this loss in entropy, but only occurs when something is being sucked into the black hole. So, saying HR, 'Pops out of the vacuum' is incorrect no matter how you try and interpret it. > The fault lies not in my words but in your inability or unwillingness to > read and comprehend them. You're turning into TOWNMNBS more and more each day. > > > No, it was written clearly. > > > > It's the audience, not the author that determines that. > > I disagree. Well, let's ask Chuck who's a professional author. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 15:15:04 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C1282D8.40408@mac.com> -------- C.S.Strowbridge wrote: > No, you don't know hat Hawking Radiation is. If something enters into a > black hole all complexity is lost, this would REDUCE entropy. Something > that is physically impossible. HR was theorized to compensate for this > loss in entropy, but only occurs when something is being sucked into the > black hole. So, saying HR, 'Pops out of the vacuum' is incorrect no > matter how you try and interpret it. You're both wrong. Hawking Radiation is the mechanism of decay for black holes. To understand it, you first must understand that empty space really isn't so empty. The quantum vacuum spontaneously creates virtual particle pairs (particle and anti-particle). These particle pairs quickly annihilate and go back to nothing from where they came. This process takes place within Planck Time (10^-43s), so the universe doesn't "notice" the supposed violation of conservation of energy. When this process takes place just outside the event horizon of a black hole, one of the particles may be pulled into the black hole. Let's say the anti-particle gets pulled in. This leaves the normal particle with nothing to annihilate, so it exists outside of Planck Time and becomes real. The anti-particle must respect conservation of energy, so it becomes negative energy. This negative energy is pulled in by the black hole, and it loses mass/energy equivalent to the escaping particle's and becomes smaller as a consequence. The normal particle escaping appears to a distant observer as a particle radiating or escaping from the event horizon. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:51:43 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <9v0brk$bvqqq$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:3C1282D8.40408@mac.com... > C.S.Strowbridge wrote: > > > > No, you don't know hat Hawking Radiation is. If something enters into a > > black hole all complexity is lost, this would REDUCE entropy. Something > > that is physically impossible. HR was theorized to compensate for this > > loss in entropy, but only occurs when something is being sucked into the > > black hole. So, saying HR, 'Pops out of the vacuum' is incorrect no > > matter how you try and interpret it. > > You're both wrong. Hawking Radiation is the mechanism of decay for black > holes. To understand it, you first must understand that empty space > really isn't so empty. The quantum vacuum spontaneously creates virtual > particle pairs (particle and anti-particle). These particle pairs > quickly annihilate and go back to nothing from where they came. This > process takes place within Planck Time (10^-43s), so the universe > doesn't "notice" the supposed violation of conservation of energy. > When this process takes place just outside the event horizon of a black > hole, one of the particles may be pulled into the black hole. Let's say > the anti-particle gets pulled in. This leaves the normal particle with > nothing to annihilate, so it exists outside of Planck Time and becomes > real. The anti-particle must respect conservation of energy, so it > becomes negative energy. This negative energy is pulled in by the black > hole, and it loses mass/energy equivalent to the escaping particle's and > becomes smaller as a consequence. The normal particle escaping appears > to a distant observer as a particle radiating or escaping from the event > horizon. > Then we're not both wrong . . . I'm right, and he's wrong. Thanks for agreeing. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 09 Dec 2001 18:56:56 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <20011209135656.29164.00003103@mb-mq.aol.com> -------- >"Durandal" wrote in message >news:3C1282D8.40408@mac.com... >> C.S.Strowbridge wrote: >> >> >> > No, you don't know hat Hawking Radiation is. If something enters into a >> > black hole all complexity is lost, this would REDUCE entropy. Something >> > that is physically impossible. HR was theorized to compensate for this >> > loss in entropy, but only occurs when something is being sucked into the >> > black hole. So, saying HR, 'Pops out of the vacuum' is incorrect no >> > matter how you try and interpret it. >> >> You're both wrong. Hawking Radiation is the mechanism of decay for black >> holes. To understand it, you first must understand that empty space >> really isn't so empty. The quantum vacuum spontaneously creates virtual >> particle pairs (particle and anti-particle). These particle pairs >> quickly annihilate and go back to nothing from where they came. This >> process takes place within Planck Time (10^-43s), so the universe >> doesn't "notice" the supposed violation of conservation of energy. >> When this process takes place just outside the event horizon of a black >> hole, one of the particles may be pulled into the black hole. Let's say >> the anti-particle gets pulled in. This leaves the normal particle with >> nothing to annihilate, so it exists outside of Planck Time and becomes >> real. The anti-particle must respect conservation of energy, so it >> becomes negative energy. This negative energy is pulled in by the black >> hole, and it loses mass/energy equivalent to the escaping particle's and >> becomes smaller as a consequence. The normal particle escaping appears >> to a distant observer as a particle radiating or escaping from the event >> horizon. >> > >Then we're not both wrong . . . I'm right, and he's wrong. Thanks for >agreeing. > "A=B" "No, A!=B, A=C." "Then A=B, thank you for agreeing." ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:50:14 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <9v0boq$c1e4m$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C127511.CD18E998@shaw.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote > > > > > > > The context just makes you look stupid. > > > > > > > > If that were the context, I would agree. > > > > > > And that's the entire message. > > No response for this? Nope. Just left your lie up for all to see. > > > > > > > you're of the belief that I was arguing for an official > > > > > > category? > > > > > > > > > > That's what you wrote. But from previous debates I know you have > > > > > difficult expressing yourself. You prefer inexact language that > > > > > leaves wiggle room so you can back out of a claim when you are > > > > > caught in a lie. > > > > > > > > I write using exact language > > > > > > Bullshit. > > > > > > We've had problems with your inexact language in the past (Voyager > > > syndication and Black Holes just to name two.) > > > > You've had problems with my exact language . . . you did not understand > > the fact that Voyager was syndicated in some areas, > > Due to your poor use of the English language. There were two equally > likely interpretations to what you wrote. My language was clear. You were stupid. That's all there was to it. > > BTW, it's still a Red Herring to that debate. You brought it up. > > > and did not understand what Hawking radiation was. > > No, you don't know hat Hawking Radiation is. If something enters into a > black hole all complexity is lost, this would REDUCE entropy. Something > that is physically impossible. HR was theorized to compensate for this > loss in entropy, but only occurs when something is being sucked into the > black hole. So, saying HR, 'Pops out of the vacuum' is incorrect no > matter how you try and interpret it. No, Hawking Radiation is the result of something that occurs everywhere, that being particle and anti-particle pairs popping out of the vacuum. They usually meet one another and cease to exist, but when near black holes, one can get sucked in and the other runs free. Hawking theorized this to account for how black holes, as he puts it, "ain't so black" . . . they seemed to emit radiation. Hence, "Hawking Radiation". Your above concept of it is seriously flawed, as you have both the concept and the history incorrect. > > > The fault lies not in my words but in your inability or unwillingness to > > read and comprehend them. > > You're turning into TOWNMNBS more and more each day. What was that you spoke of in another post? Oh, yes . . . "projection". > > > > > No, it was written clearly. > > > > > > It's the audience, not the author that determines that. > > > > I disagree. > > Well, let's ask Chuck who's a professional author. > > C.S.Strowbridge Whoopteedo. Chuck must also write for a preferred audience . . . depending on genre, book sales, et cetera. He must also write with a certain intelligence level in mind, or else he'll be writing kiddie-style books. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:44:37 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C06821D.4755A4E0@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "Kynes" wrote: > > Being Canon = Matching With What Appears On Screen. Which is the > > current policy. > > So the Enc., Chron., TMs, et cetera . . . since they match up with what > appears on screen (unless what appears on screen after publication shows > that the information is no longer correct . . . same as with what > appeared on screen previously), must be canon, in your view. YES! But only if it matches what we see on screen. If they screwed the pouch on a topic then it's not canon. If a future writer ignores it then it's not canon. I've said it before, and obviously I'll have to say it again, ANY SOURCE THAT MATCHES WHAT WE SEE ON SCREEN IS CANON ON THAT POINT. This includes all TMs, Novels, Video Games, FANFICS, ASVS, Web sites, etc. As soon as it strays from what we see on screen it is no longer canon. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:53:15 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C06A03B.FAEC3459@yahoo.com> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "Kynes" wrote: > > > > Being Canon = Matching With What Appears On Screen. Which is the > > > current policy. > > > > So the Enc., Chron., TMs, et cetera . . . since they match up with what > > appears on screen (unless what appears on screen after publication shows > > that the information is no longer correct . . . same as with what > > appeared on screen previously), must be canon, in your view. > > YES! But only if it matches what we see on screen. If they screwed the > pouch on a topic then it's not canon. If a future writer ignores it then > it's not canon. > > I've said it before, and obviously I'll have to say it again, ANY SOURCE > THAT MATCHES WHAT WE SEE ON SCREEN IS CANON ON THAT POINT. This includes > all TMs, Novels, Video Games, FANFICS, ASVS, Web sites, etc. As soon as > it strays from what we see on screen it is no longer canon. > > C.S.Strowbridge That, roughly, is the rule of thumb, but is not definite. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 23:12:01 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:53:15 -0600, Guardian 2000 wrote: >> I've said it before, and obviously I'll have to say it again, ANY SOURCE >> THAT MATCHES WHAT WE SEE ON SCREEN IS CANON ON THAT POINT. This includes >> all TMs, Novels, Video Games, FANFICS, ASVS, Web sites, etc. As soon as >> it strays from what we see on screen it is no longer canon. >> >> C.S.Strowbridge > >That, roughly, is the rule of thumb, but is not definite. Hey, funnily enough, you don't make that determination. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:15:03 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C07DAB7.840CDFB1@yahoo.com> -------- Kynes wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:53:15 -0600, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > >> I've said it before, and obviously I'll have to say it again, ANY SOURCE > >> THAT MATCHES WHAT WE SEE ON SCREEN IS CANON ON THAT POINT. This includes > >> all TMs, Novels, Video Games, FANFICS, ASVS, Web sites, etc. As soon as > >> it strays from what we see on screen it is no longer canon. > >> > >> C.S.Strowbridge > > > >That, roughly, is the rule of thumb, but is not definite. > > Hey, funnily enough, you don't make that determination. Oh, so how do you intend to claim that a "rule of thumb" has clear delineations, when that is contrary to the very idea of "rule of thumb". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:46:00 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C072B36.A73FA991@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > That, roughly, is the rule of thumb, but is not definite. No, that's definite. As told to us by several sources, and contradicted no where. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 07:54:43 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:53:15 -0600, Guardian 2000 wrote: >That, roughly, is the rule of thumb, but is not definite. Checking www.asvs.org, I've discovered you're wrong. Since no one can contradict a webmaster, this should end discussion. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:15:56 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C07DAEC.7BC4B3F2@yahoo.com> -------- Kynes wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:53:15 -0600, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > >That, roughly, is the rule of thumb, but is not definite. > > Checking www.asvs.org, I've discovered you're wrong. Since no one can contradict > a webmaster, this should end discussion. Where the hell do you get that belief? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 30 Nov 2001 19:27:19 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <20011130142719.11238.00000101@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >Kynes wrote: >> >> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:53:15 -0600, Guardian 2000 wrote: >> >> >That, roughly, is the rule of thumb, but is not definite. >> >> Checking www.asvs.org, I've discovered you're wrong. Since no one can >contradict >> a webmaster, this should end discussion. > >Where the hell do you get that belief? > > > It's what you're arguing to be true. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 19:46:24 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <9uelhc$82t77$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011130142719.11238.00000101@mb-fi.aol.com... > >Kynes wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:53:15 -0600, Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> > >> >That, roughly, is the rule of thumb, but is not definite. > >> > >> Checking www.asvs.org, I've discovered you're wrong. Since no one can > >contradict > >> a webmaster, this should end discussion. > > > >Where the hell do you get that belief? > > It's what you're arguing to be true. That might be how it would appear . . . to a moron. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 20:21:10 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 19:46:24 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >> >> >That, roughly, is the rule of thumb, but is not definite. >> >> >> >> Checking www.asvs.org, I've discovered you're wrong. Since no one can >> >contradict >> >> a webmaster, this should end discussion. >> > >> >Where the hell do you get that belief? >> >> It's what you're arguing to be true. > > >That might be how it would appear . . . to a moron. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA ALOLOLOLLOL U R FUNY -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] There has been a control message sent out for a "alt.startrek.vs.starwars". Unfortunately, it was extremely badly done as it contains no newsgroup description or rationale at all (not even a tag)... What the above paragraph means is that, not only is the alt group dead in the water because of these misguided actions, but any attempt to create a group with the same name is probably dead in the water too. - From alt.config, 7/12/97 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:23:46 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C053A11.288F540F@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > And where are these individuals of which you speak? > > We are unfortunately unable to talk to the creator of rice He talked about it before he died. > . . . and the "patent owner" of rice (pardon the forced analogy) hasn't > said anything definite. ... > What we mainly have to go on is what the patent owner's PR guy > said to us (that R, S, and T weren't poisonous) A PR guy who agrees with the 'Jerk-off' below. > and what some other jerk-off who makes ramen noodles (or butter, > whichever is the better analogy) thinks about the rice situation, giving > us a second- or third-hand report. Poisoning the Well. It's a logical fallacy, look it up. Also, we have Ron Moore a direct employee of of the Patent owner of 'Rice 'R Us' who agrees with Ordover. But before we continue debating I'd like to bring you .... ---===--- Taking the Rice Analogy Further ---===--- You have two Ingredient: 1.) Rice. (Canon) 2.) Cyanide. (Non-Canon) You also have three Products. 1.) Pure Rice (Live Action Star Trek) 2.) Rice 'n' Cyanide (TMs, Encyclopedias, Chronology) 3.) Sweet 'n' Cyanide (Novels) Unfortunately, the Pure Rice is not available for sale (just like most episodes) So you have two choices RnC or SnC. RnC is 90% Rice and 10% Cyanide for flavour. SnC, OTOH, is 90% Cyanide and 10% Rice. Now, you have several people telling you, 'Only rice is good for you. Don't eat cyanide.' You also have someone saying, 'RnC is best source for Rice. But I wouldn't eat the cyanide bits if I were you.' And that's the situation we are at. ---===--- And thus ends the Rice Analogy Theater. Return tomorrow when G2K still doesn't get it. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:46:06 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <9u5e6u$68f86$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C053A11.288F540F@shaw.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > And where are these individuals of which you speak? > > > > We are unfortunately unable to talk to the creator of rice > > He talked about it before he died. He created the "rule of thumb" (i.e. not a firm rule) that Paramount seems to agree with, for the most part. > > > . . . and the "patent owner" of rice (pardon the forced analogy) hasn't > > said anything definite. > > ... > > > What we mainly have to go on is what the patent owner's PR guy > > said to us (that R, S, and T weren't poisonous) > > A PR guy who agrees with the 'Jerk-off' below. > When did that happen? The Jerk-off is adding to the PR guy, but he's in no position to do so. > > and what some other jerk-off who makes ramen noodles (or butter, > > whichever is the better analogy) thinks about the rice situation, giving > > us a second- or third-hand report. > > Poisoning the Well. It's a logical fallacy, look it up. How does that poison the well? > > Also, we have Ron Moore a direct employee of of the Patent owner of > 'Rice 'R Us' who agrees with Ordover. But who, not being a spokesman for the owner (a la the PR guy), is not in a position to dictate canon to the masses. > > But before we continue debating I'd like to bring you .... > > ---===--- > > Taking the Rice Analogy Further > > ---===--- > > You have two Ingredient: > > 1.) Rice. (Canon) > 2.) Cyanide. (Non-Canon) > > You also have three Products. > > 1.) Pure Rice (Live Action Star Trek) > 2.) Rice 'n' Cyanide (TMs, Encyclopedias, Chronology) > 3.) Sweet 'n' Cyanide (Novels) > > Unfortunately, the Pure Rice is not available for sale (just like most > episodes) So you have two choices RnC or SnC. RnC is 90% Rice and 10% > Cyanide for flavour. SnC, OTOH, is 90% Cyanide and 10% Rice. > > Now, you have several people telling you, 'Only rice is good for you. > Don't eat cyanide.' You also have someone saying, 'RnC is best source > for Rice. But I wouldn't eat the cyanide bits if I were you.' > > And that's the situation we are at. > > ---===--- > > And thus ends the Rice Analogy Theater. Return tomorrow when G2K still > doesn't get it. > > C.S.Strowbridge The problem is that your "cyanide" in the RnC is not falsehood or error, but what was controverted later on screen. Since live-action Trek has also had elements controverted on later live-action Trek, it, too, is laced with cyanide. Furthermore, Ron Moore and whoever added elements from Yesteryear and whatnot have also intentionally infused pure rice with so-called cyanide. The ones saying "don't eat cyanide" ask the impossible. You'll be throwing out a lot of good rice that way. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:40:36 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: -------- On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:46:06 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >> Also, we have Ron Moore a direct employee of of the Patent owner of >> 'Rice 'R Us' who agrees with Ordover. > >But who, not being a spokesman for the owner (a la the PR guy), is not in a >position to dictate canon to the masses. Right, I'm sure the Ask Ron D. Moore message board on AOL -- which predated the website -- wasn't intended to have RDM in a spokesman position at all. You are frighteningly retarded. Your position requires you to ignore the creators of modern-day Trek and the original creator of the franchise in order to make a website FAQ say something it doesn't. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:07:05 GMT Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C068761.7D4E9BA2@shaw.ca> -------- Kynes wrote: > > "Guardian 2000" wrote: > >> Also, we have Ron Moore a direct employee of of the Patent owner of > >> 'Rice 'R Us' who agrees with Ordover. > > > >But who, not being a spokesman for the owner (a la the PR guy), is not > >in a position to dictate canon to the masses. > > Right, I'm sure the Ask Ron D. Moore message board on AOL -- which > predated the website -- wasn't intended to have RDM in a spokesman > position at all. Is it just me or does G2K not trust someone who must work with the Canon Policy over the word of someone who 'officially sanctioned' to talk about the Canon Policy. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:54:25 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANON] Thanks, Chris... Message-ID: <3C06A081.DC079BE0@yahoo.com> -------- Kynes wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:46:06 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >> Also, we have Ron Moore a direct employee of of the Patent owner of > >> 'Rice 'R Us' who agrees with Ordover. > > > >But who, not being a spokesman for the owner (a la the PR guy), is not in a > >position to dictate canon to the masses. > > Right, I'm sure the Ask Ron D. Moore message board on AOL -- which predated the > website -- wasn't intended to have RDM in a spokesman position at all. > > You are frighteningly retarded. Your position requires you to ig