---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:49:45 -0400 Subject: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <3D8287A9.9060201@stardestroyer.net> -------- OK, here's the opening round. I disagree with Darkstar on so many subjects that I could fill a book, but I don't have the kind of free time that he has, so I'll restrict myself to a couple of topics. The following post is also on my website at http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Round1a.html with full screenshots. Since this is a binary newsgroup, I can't post those screenshots here, but I can post all of the text, as follows: RSA Debate Round 1, Part 1 Darkstar, we have many disagreements on many, many, many subjects, but for this debate, I will focus on your so-called "Death Star chain-reaction theory". However, as a matter of basic principle, it is impossible to hold a rational discussion based on the evidence without first determining what the evidence is, ie- what is admissible. Therefore, we must deal with the issue of Star Wars continuity first. STAR WARS CONTINUITY: EU INCLUSION When we try to rationalize a fictional universe, any fan can arguably use any rules of admissibility that he likes, and as long as he is CONSISTENT in the use of that definition, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. I have even dealt with fans who refuse to recognize the Star Wars prequel trilogy! However, objective discussion and analysis is impossible without a widely accepted standard, so we generally defer to the copyright holder. There are TWO kinds of legal copyright: property rights and so-called "moral rights", which go to the legal owner and original creator respectively. In the case of Star Wars, the intellectual property rights are held by Lucasfilm, and moral rights reside with George Lucas. This is a trivial distinction since Mr. Lucas owns Lucasfilm, but it's a much bigger issue with some other sci-fi series. In any case, you have the following to say on your Canon page: "Recently, Lucas cleared up the messy issue by explaining that the books, games, and comic books are part of a parallel universe, another world created separately from his own (Lucas in Cinescape). By design, the settings in time of the parallel universe do not intrude on his movie time period, since LucasBooks disallows authors from playing with events and periods of time that Lucas intends to use. LucasBooks tries to use the events in the Canon universe in the parallel universe, but the fact that it is a parallel universe explains why Lucas isn't bound by it (as stated by Sansweet)." You conclude (in your preface) that "the Expanded Universe is NOT part of the official story of Star Wars". Unfortunately for you, this is a non sequitur. Yes, official material is not canon, but the overall continuity includes more than just the canon! It also includes most of the official materials, as stated clearly by the Lucasfilm continuity editors: "Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology." Therefore, if you want to dismiss the EU, you must do more than merely show that it is non-canon; you must show that it is NOT part of the larger OVERALL CONTINUITY, whose existence you seem to deny. Of course, you feel that you can appeal to a higher power than Lucasfilm's continuity editors: George Lucas himself. To this end, you chose to reference "Lucas in Cinescape" with phrases taken out of context rather than the full quote. Luckily, I happen to have the full quote here. Mr. Lucas said: "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe - the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] THEY DO INTRUDE IN BETWEEN THE MOVIES. I don't get too involved in the parallel universe." (emphasis added) It's pretty obvious why you chose to take the phrase "parallel universe" out of context rather than providing the full quote, isn't it? Once we look at the full quote, we can see that he's actually saying that the official material is valid for all points in the Star Wars timeline other than the movies themselves! Your entire argument is based on a quote which, when viewed in its entirety, directly CONTRADICTS you! Let us review. You said: "the Expanded Universe is NOT part of the official story of Star Wars". George Lucas said: "They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they DO intrude in between the movies." Sorry, but George's opinion counts for more than yours. Of course, EU material isn't 100% reliable, but the same could be said of ANY historical source, which is why they must be evaluated as such. The canon films can be thought of as footage of "real" events, while the EU is relegated to the status of historical source (equivalent to books, government records, etc. in real life), but it cannot be discarded out of hand the way you would like, because George made it quite clear that the world of the books DOES "intrude" into his continuity. DEATH STAR FIREPOWER I will refrain from going over old arguments. You have whined for days that it would be unfair to use your own history against you, and many observers will be unfamiliar with them anyway, so I will make a fresh start. Your basic claim is that the Death Star induces an exothermal chain reaction of unknown properties in Alderaan, rather than simply transferring a huge amount of power into it and destroying it. This strikes most people as absurd; after all, the opening crawl of ANH states quite clearly that the Death Star is "an armored space station with enough POWER to destroy an entire planet" (perhaps you've never watched the film). In any case, you claim to have conclusive evidence that the opening crawl of the canon movie is wrong. According to you, the superlaser strikes Alderaan (and you deny the existence of its shield) but damages very little of the planet (you picked an arbitrary 20-30% figure out of thin air, as I recall). Instead of heating the planet or directly causing it to expand, you claim that the superlaser creates an "anti-Genesis effect" which moves over the surface of the planet, spreading outward from the point of contact until it eventually covers the entire surface (I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish by introducing Trek-based red herrings, but there it is). As evidence for your bizarre sci-fi technological cross-pollination theory, you cite the fact that the explosion of the far side of the planet lags behind that of the near side, thus implying that the heating/expansion effect of the superlaser's energy transfer is not instantaneously uniform throughout the entire planet's mass and proving the existence of your mysterious exothermal chain reaction (there are some monstrous logical and scientific problems with this "reasoning", but this post will be long enough as it is, so I will restrict myself to discussion of the evidence itself for now). Note: all frames are digitized from my CLV laserdiscs and then inverse-telecined to the original 24fps theatrical framerate for timebase correction. The screenshots are taken from my best-quality Divx-encoded version of the film, not the lower-resolution low-bandwidth version which I made available for download from the Alderaan page (that one was transcoded from the master copy). If it should turn out that you have misrepresented the evidence, then any conclusions you have drawn from your analyses would be judged accordingly. You only made comments on a handful of frames, but I will include a large number of them for the sake of comprehensiveness, and to demonstrate some phenomena which apparently slipped under your radar: Frame 0 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-0.jpg Frame 1 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-1.jpg According to you: "The white flash of the superlaser strike." Yes, there's a white flash, but you neglect to mention the "halo effect" outside the atmosphere on the right-hand side, and the unaffected oceans and clouds underneath. Perhaps you weren't paying close attention? Frame 2 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-2.jpg Rapid propagation of halo effect, which now covers nearly the entire hemisphere despite visibly unaffected oceans underneath. Note rapid propagation of halo effect (perhaps one quarter of the planet's circumference in 1/24 second, which is roughly 0.8c). The halo effect is probably a visible manifestation of the planetary shield's reradiation mechanism. According to you: "The firey explosion begins, mostly near the beam." Again, I must ask: were you paying attention? There is no fiery explosion; there is luminescence but nothing is being thrown away from the planet, and we can clearly see unaffected oceans underneath. Moreover, your contention that it is "mostly near the beam" is simply absurd; the planetary shield is now visibly glowing over nearly a full hemisphere. Frame 3 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-3.jpg Dramatic intensification of halo effect, which is now so bright that it saturates the video medium. Note that the effect intensifies but does not travel much farther around the planet, which is typical of shield absorption/re-radiation characteristics as seen in TPM; they can only dissipate the energy over a limited surface area around the point of contact. The enormous rate of energy dissipation is obviously going to overload the shield's energy handling limits shortly. Without a planetary shield, it would be extremely difficult to explain why the propagation rate starts off so quickly and then slows down so dramatically. Frame 4 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-4.jpg Slight change in the halo effect's physical appearance, although the coverage area has not dramatically changed (note that the far side is still blue). However, the sudden unevenness and colour changes may indicate that the shield has failed. This would imply that the superlaser is drilling into the planet's mass already, although the sheer scale means that there will be a measurable time lag before the surface expands (even at 5% of c, it would take 1 frame for a lower mantle expansion to breach the surface and 5 frames for a core expansion to breach the surface). Intensification without forward progress is consistent with a shield, but not with your mysterious surface-level chain reaction. Frame 5 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-5.jpg Planetary explosion begins outright. The fire rings must have appeared somewhere between frames 4 and 5, and they are already 1500 km away from surface. Note that they are centred around the planet's core and aligned with the camera angle, not the superlaser. According to you: "The rings and a band of brightness around the center of the beam appear. The band will encircle the globe". What is this band, Darkstar? I don't see any "band"; at best, there are irregularities in the brightness, which are hardly inexplicable in a chaotic explosion. You also say: "the first ring has appeared all the way around the planet, even though that left side (with atmosphere, even) still seems to be stable. (That's the last frame of the superlaser.) Assuming anyone was still alive at this point on the other side of the planet, they must've wondered what the hell was going on." In short, there is a blue tinge at the far side which you use as proof that the far side is completely unaffected. However, one should not read too much into a blue tinge, as we can see in the screenshot below: Frame 5 with frame 0 inverted and superimposed http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-5a.jpg We can see that the planet has already been heated up to such an extent that glowing material has been hurled at least 100-200 km away from the surface at all points around the planet, INCLUDING the far side. I doubt anyone would be lazily "wondering what the hell was going on" when the ground beneath his feet has been heated up to such an extent that it has shot up into the sky and out of the atmosphere! Frame 6 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-6.jpg Continued expansion. Rings expand another 4600 km, thus indicating average velocity of more than 1/3c. Planetary mass continues to expand and heat dramatically, which would be consistent with a blast that expands its mass from within. According to you: "The next frame shows the superlaser target point much darker, with a band of greater brightness around it that reminds me of the Genesis Effect." I must ask: are you watching a different version of the film than the rest of us? Where is this "band of greater brightness" around the superlaser contact point? Are you referring to the fact that the entire planet is glowing and expanding, with two thirds of it expanding at a slightly greater rate? And did you notice that the reddish, or "darkened" region is centred around the MIDDLE of the planet, and not the superlaser contact point as you claim, which was well to the right? Your analysis is certainly starting off on the wrong foot when you seem to develop a case of hysterical blindness while examining the evidence! And what is this "Anti-Genesis Effect"? I don't see any "Anti-Genesis Effect!" All I see is a planet which is rapidly expanding, albeit with a slight asymmetry that is easily explained by energy propagation delay through the planet's mass. Frame 7 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-7.jpg Frame 8 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-8.jpg According to you: "A couple of frames later, the band of brightness has expanded, as have the rings, and the dark patch where the superlaser hit is darker." Again, you seem to be inventing observations out of thin air. The dark patch is now well to the left, while the superlaser was well to the right. And the "band" is white-hot matter shooting into space around the entire planet. Frame 9 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-9.jpg Frame 10 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-10.jpg Frame 11 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-11.jpg According to you: "It is only when the leftmost section of the ring almost leaves the frame that the band of brightness seems to reach the leftmost horizon of the planet." You go on to conclude that the far side of the planet was basically untouched until this point! However, when we superimpose the colour-inverted planet on the frame, we get: Frame 11, with frame 0 inverted and superimposed http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-11a.jpg In this view, it is clear that while there is SOME asymmetry in the explosion, it is easily explained through propagation delays, which are measurable on a planetary scale even at significant fractions of c. Perhaps you have a modified version of the film in your imagination? That is not a "band of brightness"; it is countless billions upon billions of tons of superheated debris flying away from the planet in all directions! The debris field is already 500 km away from the surface at the closest point, and thousands of km away at the farthest point. Again, I must ask if you have some kind of vision problem. This expansion continues for a while, so we skip ahead a few frames to: Frame 27 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-27.jpg Secondary burst begins (you can see that the initial burst is slightly up and to the left, although it is difficult to discern what's going on through the light and debris). Note that the fire ring has slowed down dramatically. After expanding at a rate of more than 1/3 c between frames 5 and 6, it has covered only 22,000 km in the 21 frames since then, for an average velocity of only 25,000 km/s. This indicates that it is SLOWING DOWN despite the lack of a natural braking mechanism in space! It would be a gross understatement to say that the fire rings are a curious phenomenon. Of course, you didn't notice that, but you DID have enough time to say "This secondary explosion is apparently much larger than the first, though it doesn't appear as bright in the first moments (it may have on the opposite side of the planet). It appears to be centered somewhere behind the core of the planet. The second ring is also larger and much faster than the first. The secondary explosion also gives us our first observation of large debris material, appearing to come from the former location of the center of the planet, headed in the general direction the superlaser had come from." Again, I must ask: are you inventing observations in your imagination now? If the second explosion is off-centre, why does its fire ring line up with the first one? And where is this debris heading TOWARD the Death Star that you describe? The next few frames clearly show an explosion that is skewed to the LEFT, not the right: Frame 28 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-28.jpg Frame 29 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-29.jpg Second "fire ring" appears. Note that it matches the first one in both location and alignment, thus indicating that despite the irregular appearance of the "secondary burst", it is still roughly centred on the planet's original core location. Frame 30 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-30.jpg The second fire ring continues to expand, rapidly catching up to the first one which is mysteriously continuing to lose velocity. Frame 31 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-31.jpg Frame 32 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-32.jpg The second fire ring has nearly caught up to the first fire ring. Frame 33 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-33.jpg The second fire ring meets the first ring. Frame 34 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-34.jpg The second fire ring has merged with the first fire ring and both are continuing outward. Note the lack of violent interactions between the two fire rings. After apparently mutilating the evidence in your mind, you conclude: "This suggests that the superlaser only directly destroyed the part of the planet facing it in those first few milliseconds, since there would be no particular reason for a higher concentration of bulk material (from the core or otherwise) to head toward the original location of the beam. It would have to be either because that area of the planet no longer existed (providing no resistance), and/or because something (the secondary explosion, produced somehow by the bands) was giving it a good shove from behind. This also serves to explain why so much of the material of the secondary explosion seemed to fly away and behind the planet, while larger pieces flew forward." However, since the explosion does NOT hurl any more material back toward the Death Star than it does in any other direction, your "observation" turns out to be a fabrication, along with any conclusions reliant upon it. Of course, I recognize that you hang your hat mostly upon the "fire rings" rather than these grossly mistaken observations of yours, but we must deal with one point at a time, in a linear progression. Your analysis of the Alderaan blast appears to be based on either serious vision problems, dishonesty, or perhaps a seriously corrupted version of the film (perhaps you watched it on VHS and were unable to distinguish the well-known colour-bleed problems of the format from the underlying movie). Are you willing to concede that you have either misrepresented the evidence or seen an extremely poor-quality copy of it? I have presented clear evidence that the entire planet is ALREADY expanding in frame 5, its asymmetry is actually skewed AWAY from the superlaser and not toward it as you say, there is NOT an unusual concentration of debris heading back toward the Death Star, the "dark spot" is NOT located at the superlaser contact point, and the two explosions are NOT significantly off-centre from one another. To contest these points would be nearly absurd, since the evidence is in plain view, from the highest-quality available source. If you are willing to concede that your observations are faulty, we can move onto your "fire ring" fallacies in our next exchange (assuming that you pick up this challenge and continue this debate). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 22:00:21 +1000 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <3d8324d8$0$16695$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- Just a question, WHY are you bothering to debate with this guy? I've only followed the whole thing from a distance, but you could throw him into a deep hole and fill it with copies of dozens of sources showing (for example) that the DS operates in DET....and he would still ignore it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:29:52 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <4%Mg9.29462$gf6.916905@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- Game on. "Michael Wong" wrote in message news:3D8287A9.9060201@stardestroyer.net... > OK, here's the opening round. In spite of the pre-debate concession, term violations, and tardiness, your post is relatively on-topic, though there are several slips. As such, I shall reply to the pertinent and/or contested elements of our respective arguments, in keeping with the precepts of rational discussion. > I will focus on your so-called "Death Star chain-reaction theory". "Superlaser Effect" is the accepted term. > STAR WARS CONTINUITY: EU INCLUSION (Note: I refer to statements defining the Canon, Continuity, and relationships between them as being part of the Canon Policy. In other words, "Canon Policy" is a blanket term for official dictates of what is and is not fact. You disagree with this definition here (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html), but such terminology is accepted, and I shall continue to use it.) > However, objective discussion and analysis is > impossible without a widely accepted standard Correct. > In any case, you have the following to say on your Canon page: > > "Recently, Lucas cleared up the messy issue by explaining that the > books, games, and comic books are part of a parallel universe, another > world created separately from his own (Lucas in Cinescape). By design, > the settings in time of the parallel universe do not intrude on his > movie time period, since LucasBooks disallows authors from playing with > events and periods of time that Lucas intends to use. LucasBooks tries > to use the events in the Canon universe in the parallel universe, but > the fact that it is a parallel universe explains why Lucas isn't bound > by it (as stated by Sansweet)." > > You conclude (in your preface) that "the Expanded Universe is NOT part > of the official story of Star Wars". Emphasis yours. Please be more careful. > Unfortunately for you, this is a > non sequitur. Yes, official material is not canon, but the overall > continuity includes more than just the canon! It also includes most of > the official materials, as stated clearly by the Lucasfilm continuity > editors: > > "Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the > films, the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin out of > George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. > However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into > account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works > comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and > tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology." > > Therefore, if you want to dismiss the EU, you must do more than merely > show that it is non-canon; you must show that it is NOT part of the > larger OVERALL CONTINUITY, whose existence you seem to deny. Unfortunately, your Insider #23 quote from unnamed "continuity editors" and the interpretation thereof are contrary to the view espoused by George Lucas (dealt with below) and Steve Sansweet, who quotes the following from Chris Cerasi: "There's been some confusion of late regarding the 'Infinities' symbol, and Star Wars Expanded Universe continuity in general. Terms like "canon" and "continuity" tend to get thrown around casually, which doesn't help at all. When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves - and *only* the films." (Original emphasis his, in italics) August 17, 2001 http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html He goes on to say that the novelisations of the films, despite the minor differences, "should be regarded as very accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies". I assign the 2001 Sansweet-Cerasi quote, as stated on the official Star Wars website, greater weight than the 1994 Insider #23 quote, the speaker(s) of which have never been named or identified to my knowledge. However, I accept the historical significance of the Insider #23 quote, which for seven years constituted the only semi-definitive statement of Canon Policy available. With Cerasi's comment that the novels should be regarded as very accurate, I see no problem in placing them and their Insider-stated-brethren in a sub-film Canon status, lesser than the Absolute Canon. *** However, I see no way for the non-canon Expanded Universe to squeeze in under the gun. Cerasi makes the following comments regarding the EU: "The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation." "The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them." Some have argued that Cerasi's analogy allows for the acceptance of non-canon material in a manner consistent with the current accepted doctrine, a "logical extrapolation by us" (*), wherein the data from the Expanded Universe is considered 'canon unless contradicted'. (* Source: Dalton, ASVS - (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D38B610.C1BC60E4%40daltonator.net&out put=gplain)) I consider such an argument improper, on the following grounds: First, "the real story of Star Wars" is the Absolute Canon of the films, and *only* the films. Second, acceptance of the non-canon EU must lead to error. A foggy or abstract window will, like a fun-house mirror, produce distortions. If we wish to look at any particular EU data point and ask "is this true or false . . . right or wrong?", there is no answer. The maneuver commonly performed under the logical extrapolation rule-set is to determine whether or not there are other EU examples and attempt to rationalize them if possible, or discard the peculiar data point if necessary. The highest EU example is generally considered a minimum upper limit, and all data points which suggest themselves as the maximum but fail to meet this minimum upper limit are rationalized or discarded. The problems with that maneuver are manifold. First, rationalization efforts can lead to absurdities. Second, it includes as an assumption the notion that the majority of the non-canon (or simply the EU with the uppermost limits) will be more correct than some specific example. Further, the fact that the non-canon is self-referential (and therefore that the distorting windows stack as EU data continues to expand in new EU works) is ignored. Nowhere is the concept of EU "majority rule" stated or implied in the Canon Policy. The vast majority of the non-canon could mislead, and we would be none the wiser. Similarly, nowhere is the concept of EU "biggest is best" stated or implied in the Canon Policy. EU materials with the largest tech figures could mislead, and we would be none the wiser. All we are told is that there are "windows", some foggy, some abstract, but each containing a nugget of truth. With the films constituting the "real story of Star Wars", I argue that the nuggets of truth contained in the EU can only be what is borrowed straight from the Canon. Why? We're trying to arrive at a method to determine the accuracy of data points in a data set where inaccuracies, some grotesque, are known to exist and have been stated as existing. Unlike uncertainties in science, where, for example, a carbon-14 dating effort might have an uncertainty (+/- X-thousand years) attached, there is absolutely no way to determine the level of possible error of a non-canon statement, except by referencing the Canon. Meanwhile, we have a separate data set, the Canon, which is, by definition, virtually free from error. Thus, to include the EU according to current common doctrine is not only to flagrantly ignore Cerasi's caveat that *only* the films are the real story of Star Wars, but it is also to allow "interpretation and speculation" and distortions of the Canon to enter into one's thinking. To allow such distortions to guide one's efforts unless those distortions are contradicted by Canon is of questionable intellectual honesty. (Rather like those who maintain that everything is legal, so long as you don't get caught.) Though playing fast and loose with data in such a manner may be be acceptable in some circles, I do not consider it appropriate. I certainly find it highly inappropriate for our purposes, where ostensibly we wish to choose the safest, most reasonable course to determine fact. *** Further (now returning to the Insider quote), I do not consider a statement prefaced with the phrase "between us" and including the term "much" to constitute sufficient evidence for the claim that the entire EU is formally considered official Star Wars fact according to the Canon Policy. This is especially the case when it contradicts the fact that the real story of Star Wars is the films, and only the films. *** Finally, there is definite uncertainty in regards to the single-use term upon which your argument is based. "Overall continuity" appears in no other statement of Canon Policy, nor in any statement relating to it that I am aware of. Cerasi, via Sansweet, makes several references to "continuity", but his use makes it apparent that he refers to a judgement or dictate of LucasBooks personnel: (from http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html) "Fans of the old monthly Marvel Star Wars comic will be heartened to know that LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity. Decades of retrospect haven't been kind to all the elements of the comic series, but the characters and events still hold weight and are referenced in newer material whenever possible." "In order to allow unlimited freedom of storytelling, the Infinities label has been placed on the anthology series, Star Wars Tales. This means that not only can the stories occur anywhere in the Star Wars timeline, but stories can happen outside continuity. Basically, if an event happens in Tales, it may not have necessarily happened in the rest of the expanded universe." "LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation." "Returning to the question at hand. Yes, Star Wars Gamer is part of continuity, though as game material, there is room for interpretation. Only specific articles marked with the 'Infinities' logo within the magazine should be considered out of continuity." This "in-house" LucasBooks continuity (which I refer to in other places as Continuity, to avoid confusion) is further supported by the following, wherein book-to-book contradictions are discussed: "In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked closely with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing editor of the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the editorial projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would be crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision became one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest successes." Star Wars Insider - quoted by Graeme Dice, and referred to as coming from more recent editions than #23. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2975799602d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe =UTF8&selm=3D162313.22ECE20F%40sk.sympatico.ca The aforementioned Sue Rostoni also refers to the in-house continuity of books and material therefrom in a couple of quotes, though she has an annoying habit of referring to this as "the canon", in a manner contradictory to all other usage (thereby proving Cerasi's comment that such terms get thrown around casually): "Canon refers to an authoritative list of books that the Lucas Licensing editors consider an authentic part of the official Star Wars history. Our goal is to present a continuous and unified history of the Star Wars galaxy, insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays. Things that Lucas Licensing does not consider official parts of the continuous Star Wars history show an Infinities logo or are contained in Star Wars Tales. Everything else is considered canon." -Sue Rostoni (Gamer #6 - Oct/Nov. 2001) (N.B. In the following, Rostoni refers to LucasFilms. She had no choice in doing so, since her division, LucasBooks, was not created until 1998.) "To keep it all straight there is 'the Canon,' a time line of major events and the life span of characters prepared by the continuity editors at Lucasfilm and considered the in-house bible of the Star Wars universe. When further reference is needed, there are also stacks of binders listing everything from starship blueprints to the biographies of characters..." -Sue Rostoni, preface to Secrets of Shadows of the Empire, 1996. So, while we have no idea what the "overall continuity" referred to by the unspecified Insider #23 personnel refers to, it would seem to bear a striking resemblance to the in-house continuity of LucasBooks, insofar as non-canon EU material is taken into account. *** And now, to Lucas: > Of course, > you feel that you can appeal to a higher power than Lucasfilm's > continuity editors: George Lucas himself. To this end, you chose to > reference "Lucas in Cinescape" with phrases taken out of context rather > than the full quote. Luckily, I happen to have the full quote here. Luck should have had nothing to do with it, and the implication that I attempted to hide the full quote is incorrect. On my site, the full quote from Lucas was first offerred via link to the SpaceBattles thread where the quote was first reported by WatchDog. This was the state of affairs from the inception of the page until shortly thereafter, when I chose to put the full quote on my own site for ease of reference. In both cases, the full quote was accessible via link in the "References" section for all to see. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWEU.html links to: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWLuc.html The only thing missing at present is the slightly-modified version of the Cinescape magazine article which appears on Cinescape's website. Lucas's quote remains the same, but the introductory paragraph is modified. I recently reported this to Cromag in the "A Debate" thread at bbs.stardestroyer.net's Star Wars vs. Star Trek forum, where I offerred the following link: http://www.cinescape.com/0/Editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=pag e&obj_id=34918 At no point have I done anything less than offer full disclosure on the matter, your insinuations notwithstanding. Lucas is quoted as follows in the July, 2002 Cinescape: ""There are two worlds here," explains Lucas. "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe-the licensing world of books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don't get too involved in the parallel universe."" Lucas here refers to the EU as being another world, a parallel universe separate from his own Absolute Canon of the films. Some have argued that Lucas was not referring to the EU's *content* as being part of another world and a parallel universe, but was instead only referring to the various departments and divisions in his company operating outside his movie-making universe. In other words, some say Lucas was using very flowerly language to refer to real-world issues. However, that makes little sense, given that his "world", a.k.a. "select period of time", a.k.a. "the movies" would therefore have to be a space of time back in the late 70's/early 80's and a space of time in the modern era. To argue that the licensing companies go inactive or stop consulting him when he's making a movie is peculiar to say the least. The first is definitely contrary to the knowledge of anyone who goes to a toystore, bookstore, and so on around the time a movie comes out. The second is contrary to statements of people such as Saxton, recent writer of some EU materials. Others argue that the "intrude on my world" comment overrides his reference to other worlds and parallel universes. In other words, the fact that they intrude is supposed to make us think that they are part of the same universe. However, this argument also makes no sense, especially in light of such recent licensing efforts as the Episode I "Battle for Naboo" game, prior efforts such as the Marvel comic adaptations of ANH, et cetera, et cetera. Those most assuredly "intrude" on his world, his select period of time of the movies, and the Marvel monthly comics are most assuredly considered part of the EU continuity, as per Cerasi. (A listing of Marvel comics appears here (http://www.theforce.net/comics/marvel/mvlMonthly.shtml). Cerasi's confirmation appears within the oft-referenced Sansweet quoting.) The only concept which does make sense is that Lucas is referring to the content of the licensing world, and the Expanded Universe which is a part of it. Further, this is not the first time Lucas has referred to the EU in such a manner: "TVGuide: Yet novelists have written "Star Wars" sequels using the same characters and extending their stories. George Lucas: Oh, sure. They're done outside my little universe. "Star Wars" has had a lot of different lives that have been worked on by a lot of different people. It works without me." -TV Guide Interview with George Lucas, week of 11/19/01 Again, we have Lucas placing EU content outside his "little universe", which in spite of his modest phrasing is, in fact, the Absolute Canon . . . the real story of Star Wars, which is *only* the films. > Once we > look at the full quote, we can see that he's actually saying that the > official material is valid for all points in the Star Wars timeline > other than the movies themselves! No, I'm afraid that cannot be seen at all. According to LucasBooks' EU continuity, even that which intrudes on his select period of time is acceptable as reference. That, in concert with the fact that Lucas is not at all bound by the "continuous and unified" "official Star Wars history", demonstrates rather clearly that Lucas's EU parallel universe comments are the law of the land, and rightly so. > DEATH STAR FIREPOWER > > Your basic claim is that the Death Star induces an exothermal > chain reaction of unknown properties in Alderaan, rather than simply > transferring a huge amount of power into it and destroying it. This > strikes most people as absurd; after all, the opening crawl of ANH > states quite clearly that the Death Star is "an armored space station > with enough POWER to destroy an entire planet" If the quote had stated "firepower", there might be a worthwhile argument to make based on the opening crawl. As it stands, however, there is not. The Superlaser Effect also grants the Death Star the power to destroy an entire planet . . . merely in a different way. The word "power" is used not only to refer to raw firepower, but also to capability. For instance, one man has the power to kill another. Does this imply that he has some weapon hidden away near the appendix which can direct raw energy toward another person? No. It implies ability. Vader also uses the term in this way: "The power to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." I trust you realize that Vader was not claiming that the Force would allow him to destroy entire solar systems, or entire galaxies, merely by thinking about it. He referred to the capabilities it offerred . . . precognition and so on . . . which could allow control in a way that fear of the Death Star could not. > In any case, you claim to have conclusive evidence that the opening > crawl of the canon movie is wrong. According to you, the superlaser > strikes Alderaan (and you deny the existence of its shield) but damages > very little of the planet Substantially accurate, so far. > Instead of heating the planet or directly > causing it to expand, you claim that the superlaser creates an > "anti-Genesis effect" which moves over the surface of the planet, > spreading outward from the point of contact until it eventually covers > the entire surface Still substantially accurate. The "anti-Genesis" effect you refer to is evident by the band which encircles the globe, meeting itself on the far side at a moment coinciding with the secondary blast, which occurs after the superlaser beam has ceased. > Frame 0 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-0.jpg > Just before the superlaser makes contact. Note well the white (or, more correctly, brighter blue) cloud pattern which the superlaser beam is about to make contact with. > Frame 1 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-1.jpg > > According to you: "The white flash of the superlaser strike." Yes, > there's a white flash, but you neglect to mention the "halo effect" > outside the atmosphere on the right-hand side, I neglect to mention a halo effect outside the atmosphere because there is no evidence for it being outside the atmosphere. If one assumes that all planets are approximately spherical, one might notice that Alderaan does not appear to be spherical in your Cap 0. That is because we are seeing part of Alderaan's night side on the right side of the planet, past the terminator. To illuminate this point, I have drawn a circle over Alderaan, using part of your AlderaanBlast-1.jpg screen capture. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/AlderaanBlast-1rsa1.JPG The circle is 103 pixels tall, and 103 pixels wide. You'll note that the entire planet, plus your halo effect, are contained within the circle, with room to spare. Contrary to your interpretation, I see no reason to assume that the halo is extra-atmospheric. It would appear to be caused by atmospheric scattering from a bright light source (i.e. the superlaser point of impact). > and the unaffected oceans and clouds underneath Indeed, this constitutes a severe problem for your Direct Energy Transfer (DET) theory. Without any evidence for a planetary shield, one must assume that the planet was laid bare for the superlaser hit. If that is so, then an energy beam with your calculated energy of 1e38J should have produced severe atmospheric disruption, including but not limited to cloud burn-off, profound ionization effects, and so on. In a prior calculation, I have estimated the energy density per unit volume of a 5 kilometer diameter superlaser beam traveling through the troposphere. The troposphere is the lower 12 kilometers of atmosphere (the rough limit of cloud-tops on Earth, because the stratosphere above is far drier). Assuming that a mere 3.5e24J of energy (about 1/28,570,000,000,000th, or 1/28-trillionth, of your 1e38J figure) would be absorbed evenly throughout that volume of atmosphere (235.6km^3), we have an energy density per volume of 14.6e12J/m^3. That's almost 3.5 kilotons of TNT per cubic meter of Earth-like tropospheric atmosphere. Given that the density at sea level is about four times what it is at the top of the troposphere, it would be a "mere" .9 kilotons or so per cubic meter at the likely height of the thick Alderaan cloud-tops. Some . . . and now, evidently, yourself included . . . have argued that a planetary shield is the explanation. In a way, you are correct . . . it is the only explanation that can possibly explain the situation. However, the attempted explanation does not work in light of the canon facts. When the Death Star II fired on and destroyed Rebel starships, the hulls of those vessels did not show the sort of bright-white illumination Alderaan shows until actual impact of the superlaser against the ships' hulls occurred. (The following screencaps were created from a vidcap, DSCalamari.mpg, graciously provided by Phil Skayhan.) Rebel Starship #1: The Liberty http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari105.jpg http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari111.jpg In the second image, the superlaser is one frame away from hitting the hull. There is an unusual delay of the superlaser beam . . . half of what can be seen here appears in one frame (106), takes several additional frames to travel a short distance, then it finally impacts at Frame 112. If the Liberty was shielded, this slowing of the superlaser beam is the only observable effect, with the possible exception of a small green streamer in front of the superlaser beam in frame 107. But, I digress. As you can see (by comparison to 105, if needed) there is no apparent extra light illuminating the hull in frame 111. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari112.jpg In frame 112, impact has occurred. The hull is beginning the explosion which will continue from the exact same point in frame 113, and which will result in the total destruction of the ship. As you can see, a flare of light is finally appearing over the hull, now that destruction is beginning. Rebel Starship #2: Unknown Wingless http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari227.jpg Again, the superlaser one frame before impact. There is no peculiar slowing of the beam on this occasion. The Rebel starship is apparently illuminated only by the sun in frame 227. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari228.jpg Impact. The underbelly of the vessel is now brighter than the planetary clouds beneath, suggesting a hit in the aft ventral region. By the next frame, the ship's outline is still visible, but the vessel is engulfed . . . but we'll come back to that one later. If we are to assume that the Death Star was firing lower-energy shots (which presumably follows from the beams' similar intensity to the Alderaan shot, but with a much smaller beam diameter), it may have been possible for the starship shields to resist for an instant. In any case, this is not seen . . . what is seen is that there is no flash or other evidence of superlaser-shield interaction. Translate back to Alderaan, and the extreme brightness at the targeted area can only be explained as a direct hit to the solid surface. Since no atmospheric effects are observed, we must assume that the atmospherically-absorbed DET was far, far, far less than 3.5e24J, 1/28-trillionth of the 1e38J figure. How much less? Well, even if we assumed that the atmosphere was pure liquid water near the freeze point and at normal sea-level conditions, simply to avoid raising the entire 235.6km^3 volume (a mass of 235,600,000,000,000,000g) 100 degrees Celsius would require that the DET superlaser deposit no more than 98,575,040 TJ into the atmosphere. That is simply to avoid vaporization of the near-freezing water. Converting from terajoules, that is no more than 23.5 gigatons. Naturally, clouds contain much less than that amount of water. A rough estimate from perusing online suggests that the droplets of clouds are in the micron range, and that these have a density of around 100 per cm^3. Ice crystals in clouds would be of similar proportions. "Bulk" water will require far more energy to vaporize than this vapor. In short, DET requires the planetary shield, and badly. However, without canon evidence for a planetary shield, and canon evidence against one working and looking the way it is required by DET for it to look, DET fails. > Frame 2 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-2.jpg > > The halo effect is > probably a visible manifestation of the planetary shield's reradiation > mechanism. Or simple atmospheric refraction of such incredible brightness occurring at a point on or near the surface where the superlaser hits. Note that we can now see a continuation of the cloud pattern where the superlaser hits, extending past the terminator to the lower right. However, note also that the ground below is still semi-shaded, in keeping with the terminator. This also suggests a simple atmospheric effect, since a point-source of extreme brightness at or very near the surface would directly light up the distant clouds, but could not be expected to directly light the planet's surface over the horizon from the point-source. > According to you: "The firey explosion begins, mostly near the beam." Incorrect. I do not make that comment in reference to the frame (Frame 2) you have provided. Instead, your quote applies to the fourth frame. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWdeathstar2.html > Frame 3 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-3.jpg > > Dramatic intensification of halo effect, which is now so bright that it > saturates the video medium. Unfortunately, there is no shield halo effect in play. However, the video medium is saturated . . . to the point that even the space around the planet exhibits an increase in brightness of several planetary diameters. The "Superlaser Effect"-proper has now begun in earnest. In the next frame, we will see a more orange color, a characteristic of fire. Hence my comment about a firey explosion. The saturation of the medium will also reduce somewhat, manifesting as a temporarily-lessened 'glow' of the empty space around Alderaan. > > Frame 4 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-4.jpg > > Slight change in the halo effect's physical appearance, although the > coverage area has not dramatically changed (note that the far side is > still blue). Quite correct. Not only does the left side of the planet remain visibly unaffected (besides a possible brightness increase in the area) as I have made reference to previously, but the polar regions also do not appear to have disassembled at all. > This would imply that the > superlaser is drilling into the planet's mass already, although the > sheer scale means that there will be a measurable time lag before the > surface expands (even at 5% of c, it would take 1 frame for a lower > mantle expansion to breach the surface and 5 frames for a core expansion > to breach the surface). Intensification without forward progress is > consistent with a shield, but not with your mysterious surface-level > chain reaction. I disagree. Besides the fact that there is no evidence for a shield, there is also the problem for DET wherein shield failure should not provide for the exact same area to be affected as observed. If a shield had failed, and if the superlaser is indeed "drilling into the planet's mass already" using DET, the expansion perils you mention can only apply to DET, alone. Why? Because the beam must be depositing its energy into a relatively small patch of planet, drilling its way down. Disastrous surface and atmospheric effects would be expected, of course, but the expansion you speak of is only necessary at this time with DET. Meanwhile, the Superlaser Effect theory does not require core or inner/lower mantle effects or visible ejecta from those regions at this point. The crust, upper mantle, and mantle (a.k.a. transition region, down to 650km) are sufficient. Even if one were to argue that we needed to see parts of the mantle as visible ejecta, then at your suggested 5% lightspeed, this would be just barely over a frame at 24fps. Note also that the approximate point of superlaser impact is now a much darker region. I believe this represents the coalescence of the band which will shortly begin to encircle the globe. > Frame 5 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-5.jpg > > Planetary explosion begins outright. More or less. The left side of the planet definitely remains unaffected, but it looks like the poles are not as cozy as they once were. However, it is hard to tell exactly. > The fire rings must have appeared > somewhere between frames 4 and 5, and they are already 1500 km away from > surface. Note that they are centred around the planet's core and aligned > with the camera angle, not the superlaser. Correct. > According to you: "The rings and a band of brightness around the center > of the beam appear. The band will encircle the globe". What is this > band, Darkstar? I don't see any "band"; at best, there are > irregularities in the brightness, which are hardly inexplicable in a > chaotic explosion. Blank: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/RSAband.jpg Marked: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/RSAband1.jpg In the above two links, I have attempted, in spite of my utter lack of artistry, to roughly illustrate what I refer to as the globe-encircling band. It is easier to see if you advance the video at about one frame per second, but the bright band is there in any case. As you continue to look at the frames, pay attention to the fact that the surface remains substantially intact until the band passes. > You also say: "the first ring has appeared all the > way around the planet, even though that left side (with atmosphere, > even) still seems to be stable. (That's the last frame of the > superlaser.) Assuming anyone was still alive at this point on the other > side of the planet, they must've wondered what the hell was going on." > > In short, there is a blue tinge at the far side which you use as proof > that the far side is completely unaffected. No, not "completely unaffected" . . . just "stable". In other words, it isn't currently in the process of blowing to smithereens (though I can't imagine the stable surface areas were having a field day at this point). In any case, the surface appears to be holding. However, the area is significantly brighter than it previously was. > However, one should not read > too much into a blue tinge, as we can see in the screenshot below: Actually, one should not read too much into "stable". > Frame 5 with frame 0 inverted and superimposed > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-5a.jpg > > We can see that the planet has already been heated up to such an extent > that glowing material has been hurled at least 100-200 km away from the > surface at all points around the planet, INCLUDING the far side. I doubt > anyone would be lazily "wondering what the hell was going on" when the > ground beneath his feet has been heated up to such an extent that it has > shot up into the sky and out of the atmosphere! I have attempted, with questionable success, to replicate your inversion and superimposition technique. However, my abilities at copy-cat image inversion and superimposing are irrelevant. What is relevant is that I have applied the technique to AlderaanBlast-0.jpg and AlderaanBlast-2.jpg. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/AlderaanBlast-0&2invert.jpg As you can see, the same atmospheric brightening on the left is in play here, as is in play in your superimposing of Frame Five. Understandably, it is not to the same extent, but the white sliver of the effect is there. You'll note that according to your argument, Frame Two represents a frame in which a shield is up. However, applying your Frame Five argument to Frame Two must also suggest that "the planet has already been heated to such an extent" that material, mysteriously glowing blue, is being hurled away from the left side of the planet, in spite of the shield, and in spite of the fact that all ejecta observed thus far is orange. I submit that what we are seeing is atmosphere in both cases, especially given that the surface appears stable (i.e. blowing to smithereens not in progress). > Frame 6 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-6.jpg The superlaser beam is no longer visible. > And did you notice that the > reddish, or "darkened" region is centred around the MIDDLE of the > planet, and not the superlaser contact point as you claim, which was > well to the right? First, it should be noted that the reddish-orange region is closer to superlaser-center in Frame Five. Second, A two-dimensional analysis might lead one to come to the conclusion that the reddish-orange area is horribly off-center. However: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/AlderaanBlast-6&1rsa.jpg The above is a partial superimposing of Frame Six, the frame in question, and Frame One, the first frame to show the superlaser hitting the planet. You'll note that the cloud formation which the superlaser struck the central lower half of is positioned at the lower right of the reddish-orange area. Given the location and the curvature on the planetary sphere, some of the reddish-orange area further toward the right may be brightened by the band beyond (i.e. further to the right), as compared to the material we get to see dead-on. In any case, what little deviation there may be does not significantly affect the findings. Now to the DET attempt to explain the same: > All I see is a planet which is rapidly > expanding, albeit with a slight asymmetry that is easily explained by > energy propagation delay through the planet's mass. Why should there be an asymmetry of this type? I do not see how propagation delay would explain an explosion/expansion which, by your own statements, is leaning a little to the left of the superlaser impact point. > Frame 7 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-7.jpg Note that the surface is still just visible on the lower left of the planet. > Frame 8 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-8.jpg > > According to you: "A couple of frames later, the band of brightness has > expanded, as have the rings, and the dark patch where the superlaser hit > is darker." "...as has the ring..." Thank you for pointing out the grammar error, if even inadvertently. As I mention on the page, it is a cut-and-paste from ASVS with pics attached, and I've mentioned the severe need of an update. > Again, you seem to be inventing observations out of thin > air. The dark patch is now well to the left, Which, given that it is the material we are seeing dead-on, makes sense. > Frame 9 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-9.jpg > > Frame 10 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-10.jpg > > Frame 11 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-11.jpg > > According to you: "It is only when the leftmost section of the ring > almost leaves the frame that the band of brightness seems to reach the > leftmost horizon of the planet." This is not accurate. The comments you quote above associate with Frame Nine. By Frame Eleven, the leftmost section of the ring has *already* left the frame, not "almost". > You go on to conclude that the far side > of the planet was basically untouched until this point! I draw no such conclusion on my page. Instead, immediately after the sentence you quote above, I state: "Our view of whatever might remain of the planet is obscured by the mysterious ring and the expanding debris." However, I do not consider the conclusion that the far side of the planet had a relatively stable surface to be improper, given that we do not see surface destruction on a grand scale occurring until the band passes over/through. Prior to the passing of the band, the surface appears stable. Hence my use of the term "destructive band" in prior discussions. > However, when we > superimpose the colour-inverted planet on the frame, we get: ... something irrelevant, since the association of text and frame is in error. > Again, I must ask if you have some kind of vision problem. (Sigh) Concession accepted, again. Carrying on . . . > Frame 27 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-27.jpg > > Secondary burst begins (you can see that the initial burst is slightly > up and to the left, although it is difficult to discern what's going on > through the light and debris). Note: I disagree with the placement of Frame 27 as the beginning of the secondary explosion. The first visible sign should occur at Frame 23, assuming your present version and the DeathStar-SE.avi from your page are paced the same. Further, in the process of watching DeathStar-SE.avi frame-by-frame in that section to determine the proper start point, I have noticed something very unexpected and very unusual which no one else seems to have noticed before. In fact, it is so unexpected and unusual that I may need to revise the admittedly-limited theoretical background of the Superlaser Effect theory to account for it. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DeathStar-SE-Polar.jpg The above is a series of cropped screencaps of the northern polar region of Alderaan. The frames are numbered in the pic according to the frame numbering in DeathStar-SE.avi, but on the version you've been using, DS-SE frame 68 should equal Frame Two. Make note, if you will, that "Santa survives", at least temporarily. There is a planetary surface remaining in the polar region at least until shortly before the secondary explosion. The last frame, 93, is a frame or two before your screencap Frame 27 above. In the frame marked 68, we see the northern polar region just as the superlaser is striking near the equator. In 72, we see the pole partially obscured by the band which is approaching it. In 77, the band is over the polar region, the surface of which is partially obscured by the dark funk over on the left, and quite obscured by the bright band. In 82 you get to see how the band finally becomes obscured by the polar surface as it rounds the pole. The polar surface is still visible in 87, albeit even more obscured by funk. In 91, a firey cloud begins to obscure the polar surface on the right, just as the funk obscures it on th eleft, but it is still visible even into the frame marked 93. I confess to being excited. I thought I'd seen everything there was to see in the clip, but here's new information all of the sudden, yet another piece of data about Alderaan's destruction that no one else has noticed. "Vision problem", my butt. In regards to DET arguments, several revisions would seem to be in order. Most notably, the claim that the band is merely the entire planet glowing and expanding, "white-hot matter shooting into space", makes no sense. I think all DET theorists are left with as an option to explain the bands is total atmosphere burn-off, but since the superlaser couldn't have deposited more than 23.5 gigatons of energy into the atmosphere as mentioned previously, it sounds like you need an energy increase to begin at the surface upon superlaser impact. Sort of a "superlaser effect", if you will. Also, with the left side and now the polar surfaces remaining visibly intact for so long after the termination of the beam, I think it very difficult for DET theorists to maintain their argument. After all, the superlaser beam actually did very little when it struck the planet . . . but it is readily apparent that something else happened afterward. Of course, any DET theory at this point, as before, is an exercise in ad hoc rationalizations. For the Superlaser Effect theory, the new facts will require some sort of revision of some of my earlier hypotheses, which were based on the previously available data. I'm not quite sure what to make of things . . . there may be a similarity with DSCalamari.mpg frames 228 and 229: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari228.jpg http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari229.jpg ...where the superlaser hits the Wingless and, though the ship's outline is still visible in the frame, it is absolutely engulfed with a quick, gassy-looking puff that expands and dissipates rapidly, while the ship's actual exploding process occurs in a much smaller area. (Also, I had already planned to point out the possible connection between the secondary blast of Alderaan and the secondary blast which finally wiped out the Liberty after her long, slow primary explosion. Frames 127 and 128 of the DSCalamari clip show the immediately before and immediately after the secondary blast: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari127.jpg http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari128.jpg ) In short, the main problem would seem to be that the bands are not as destructive as I thought. With the surface obscured and the debris flying every-which-way, it wasn't too much to conclude that the surface of the planet was so much debris, with that matter being converted into the energy source for the bands. But, this may be contrary to that. Alternately, they're just as destructive as I thought, the "surface" that is still visible is merely mantle of some sort, with the upper layers having been consumed. I'll have to go back and look at some of the alternatives I had previously considered but discarded due to insufficient data. Anyway, there's still enough to go on at the moment to deal with the rest of your claims, so . . . > Note that the fire ring has slowed down > dramatically. After expanding at a rate of more than 1/3 c between > frames 5 and 6, it has covered only 22,000 km in the 21 frames since > then, for an average velocity of only 25,000 km/s. This indicates that > it is SLOWING DOWN despite the lack of a natural braking mechanism in > space! Which suggests that they are not vaporized ejecta, unless gravity took steroids that day. But, I'll come back to that. > It would be a gross understatement to say that the fire rings are > a curious phenomenon. Yes, and they are impossible phenomena for DET to explain. Several theories . . . indeed, several main theories and perhaps two dozen variations . . . have been put forward to explain the rings. The frontrunners (from what I have been able to tell . . . feel free to add more) are: 1. Alderaan shield failure. 1a. Alderaan shield generator overload and destruct. 2. Alderaan hypermatter reactors overloading. 3. A blast wave of vaporized material, ordered into a planar ring by magnetic fields or the planet's rotational energies. Now, two approaches to counterarguments, regarding each particular theory about the rings: A. Alderaan-specific counterarguments: 1. No shield has been observed. Further, the starship examples provide further evidence that not only is their no evidence for a shield, but there is evidence against a shield. Finally, your own argument suggests that shield failure occurred one frame prior to ring formation. 1a. See above. 2. This may explain the origin of Ring One, but not the position . . . the ring's center is the center of the planet. Further, it does not explain Ring Two. Finally, hypermatter is not canon. 3. Does not explain the position of Ring One, nor its origin, since this would require vaporized material to magically encircle the globe, and then depart the surface at significant fractions of lightspeed, carrying (assuming it is a millionth of the mass of Alderaan) no less than 11% of the rotational KE from the planet, instantaneous acceleration to .3c notwithstanding. Further, they apparently aren't vaporized material, judging by the slow-down you mentioned. B. All-Ring-specific counterarguments: 1. The DS2 had no shield upon its destruction, and yet still produced a ring. 1a. see above 2. Hypermatter is not canon, but even if we allow for it the DS2 explosion and ring-formation would seem to disprove it, given that the explosion was not centered at the center of the Death Star II, where the reactor was, but was instead centered on the DS2's center of mass. 3. It is unlikely the DS1 was engaging in rotation . . . they were prepared to fire. DS2 may or may not have been rotating, depending on your opinion of the Jerjerrod story from the novel fitting into the movie. Also, just as a general concept, note the fact that the DET-Alderaan theory has absolutely nothing to offer in regards to the Death Star rings. It is yet another weakness of the DET theory. > Of course, you didn't notice that, but you DID have enough time to say > "This secondary explosion is apparently much larger than the first, > though it doesn't appear as bright in the first moments (it may have on > the opposite side of the planet). It appears to be centered somewhere > behind the core of the planet. The second ring is also larger and much > faster than the first. The secondary explosion also gives us our first > observation of large debris material, appearing to come from the former > location of the center of the planet, headed in the general direction > the superlaser had come from." > > If the second explosion is off-centre, why does its fire ring line > up with the first one? Probably the same reason the first one lined up the way it did, even though the superlaser did not strike the center of the world, but the surface. > And where is this debris heading TOWARD the Death > Star that you describe? They . . . or, more properly, the first one . . . appears in frame 103 of DeathStar-SE.avi, which should translate into frame 35 of your variant. I'm referring to those bigger dark masses of material. Several are visible both above and below the ring seven frames later, hence my use of the term "general direction". Example: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/blind.jpg > The next few frames clearly show an explosion > that is skewed to the LEFT, not the right: I didn't say it skewed to the right, now did I . . . so, why the emphasis? > Frame 28 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-28.jpg > > Frame 29 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-29.jpg > > Second "fire ring" appears. Note that it matches the first one in both > location and alignment, thus indicating that despite the irregular > appearance of the "secondary burst", it is still roughly centred on the > planet's original core location. And in the region of the center of mass, as with the DS2. But, then, it is rather difficult to precisely determine the position of odd, irregular, luminescent, 500km-deep ring sections. > "This suggests that the superlaser only directly destroyed the part of > the planet facing it in those first few milliseconds, since there would > be no particular reason for a higher concentration of bulk material > (from the core or otherwise) to head toward the original location of the > beam. And, as can be observed by the continued existence of the left side and the pole, I was correct. > It would have to be either because that area of the planet no > longer existed (providing no resistance), and/or because something (the > secondary explosion, produced somehow by the bands) was giving it a good > shove from behind. This also serves to explain why so much of the > material of the secondary explosion seemed to fly away and behind the > planet, while larger pieces flew forward." > > However, since the explosion does NOT hurl any more material back toward > the Death Star than it does in any other direction, Did you see bulk material flying every which way? Didn't think so. All we see is that which heads in the general direction of the Death Star. Sure, there's probably *more* material flying backward (as I said), but the larger pieces flew forward (as I said). > your "observation" > turns out to be a fabrication, along with any conclusions reliant upon it. It is taking a bit of effort to maintain self-restraint against such petty attacks, but not a great amount. Self-control: use it. > Are you willing to concede that you have either misrepresented the > evidence or seen an extremely poor-quality copy of it? I have not misrepresented the evidence, and the only "extremely poor-quality copy" of it that I have is the one I downloaded from your site, and which you earlier admitted to creating. > I have presented > clear evidence that the entire planet is ALREADY expanding in frame 5, Where "entire" does not equal "left side, north pole, etc." > its asymmetry is actually skewed AWAY from the superlaser and not toward > it as you say, Clear evidence, clearly observed from "two-dimensional thinking". > there is NOT an unusual concentration of debris heading > back toward the Death Star, Except for all that dark bulk material I was referring to . . . > the "dark spot" is NOT located at the > superlaser contact point, Not dead-center, but not so far away as to present a problem. > and the two explosions are NOT significantly > off-centre from one another. What? > If you are willing to concede that your observations are faulty, we can > move onto your "fire ring" fallacies in our next exchange My observations *were* faulty . . . I failed to notice the polar region. Besides that little bawble, however, my observations are spot-on. I'll be looking into the surviving-surface evidence, and will be revising my theory accordingly, if required. You and your associates can go gang up on trying to keep the DET theory, and revising the claims about the evidence accordingly. You may also wish to prepare yourself for the attack on DET from the Principle of Parsimony. I do not know what valid defense can be employed by DET theorists, but I'll be curious to see what is attempted. DarkStar ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:32:35 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:4%Mg9.29462$gf6.916905@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > (Note: I refer to statements defining the Canon, Continuity, and > relationships > between them as being part of the Canon Policy. In other words, "Canon > Policy" > is a blanket term for official dictates of what is and is not fact. You > disagree with this definition here > (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html), > but such terminology is accepted, and I shall continue to use it.) Oops: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Canon.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 19:20:37 -0500 Subject: DorkStar, you retard (was Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre!) Message-ID: -------- On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:29:52 GMT, "DarkStar" wrote: >The word "power" is used not only to refer to raw firepower, but also to >capability. For instance, one man has the power to kill another. Does >this >imply that he has some weapon hidden away near the appendix which can direct >raw energy toward another person? No. It implies ability. If you're reasonably trained in hand to hand combat, you have the power to take another person's life. As in, your muscles can generate enough force to damage somebody else's body to the point where it dies. Your point is therefore mooted. >Vader also uses >the term in this way: "The power to destroy a planet is insignificant next >to >the power of the Force." The line is, "The *ability* to destroy a planet," not "The *power* to destroy a planet." Fuckwad. -- Ice "How should I know? I'M A FUCKING CATFISH!" - Standard Mon Cal response to any crisis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 08:16:30 +0800 Subject: Re: DorkStar, you retard (was Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre!) Message-ID: -------- "Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage" wrote in message news:pek7oug54n1p89o4d6mj98ao7c4gr7km07@4ax.com... > On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:29:52 GMT, "DarkStar" > wrote: > > >The word "power" is used not only to refer to raw firepower, but also to > >capability. For instance, one man has the power to kill another. Does > >this > >imply that he has some weapon hidden away near the appendix which can direct > >raw energy toward another person? No. It implies ability. > > If you're reasonably trained in hand to hand combat, you have the > power to take another person's life. As in, your muscles can generate > enough force to damage somebody else's body to the point where it > dies. Your point is therefore mooted. > > >Vader also uses > >the term in this way: "The power to destroy a planet is insignificant next > >to > >the power of the Force." > > The line is, "The *ability* to destroy a planet," not "The *power* to > destroy a planet." Fuckwad. 1) You really shouldn't interfere, no matter how much you're tempted. You've just blocked off something Wong can use. Now Wong can't use this without looking like he copied it (even though it is a good rebuttal.) 2) I've got him KFed completely, but THOSE are the nits he's picking? Sigh... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 19:31:53 -0500 Subject: Re: DorkStar, you retard (was Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre!) Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 08:16:30 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote: >"Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage" wrote in message >news:pek7oug54n1p89o4d6mj98ao7c4gr7km07@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:29:52 GMT, "DarkStar" >> wrote: >> >> >The word "power" is used not only to refer to raw firepower, but also to >> >capability. For instance, one man has the power to kill another. Does >> >this >> >imply that he has some weapon hidden away near the appendix which can >direct >> >raw energy toward another person? No. It implies ability. >> >> If you're reasonably trained in hand to hand combat, you have the >> power to take another person's life. As in, your muscles can generate >> enough force to damage somebody else's body to the point where it >> dies. Your point is therefore mooted. >> >> >Vader also uses >> >the term in this way: "The power to destroy a planet is insignificant >next >> >to >> >the power of the Force." >> >> The line is, "The *ability* to destroy a planet," not "The *power* to >> destroy a planet." Fuckwad. > >1) You really shouldn't interfere, no matter how much you're tempted. You've >just blocked off something Wong can use. Now Wong can't use this without >looking like he copied it (even though it is a good rebuttal.) >2) I've got him KFed completely, but THOSE are the nits he's picking? >Sigh... That's just a tiny sample. He posted over 1300 lines, and I only grabbed about 10 that particularly offended me near the beginning. -- Ice "How should I know? I'M A FUCKING CATFISH!" - Standard Mon Cal response to any crisis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 08:29:19 +0800 Subject: Re: DorkStar, you retard (was Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre!) Message-ID: -------- "Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage" wrote in message news:i6l7ouo3e68dcgf6auv0i2af3eg7bebb04@4ax.com... > That's just a tiny sample. He posted over 1300 lines, and I only > grabbed about 10 that particularly offended me near the beginning. Too bad Wong won't have that option. I really feel sorry for anyone that has to wade through 1300 lines of RSA Essay. Does 1300+ lines include quoted parts of Wong's arguments, or is it just DarkStar's Addition, or did DarkStar not quote Wong at all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:14:00 -0500 Subject: Re: DorkStar, you retard (was Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre!) Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 08:29:19 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote: >Too bad Wong won't have that option. I really feel sorry for anyone that has >to wade through 1300 lines of RSA Essay. Does 1300+ lines include quoted >parts of Wong's arguments, or is it just DarkStar's Addition, or did >DarkStar not quote Wong at all? It includes quoted parts - his post is roughly 900 lines or so without the Wong parts. -- Ice "How should I know? I'M A FUCKING CATFISH!" - Standard Mon Cal response to any crisis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 06:58:46 GMT Subject: Re: DorkStar, you retard (was Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre!) Message-ID: <3D842F56.8090103@shaw.ca> -------- Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote: > "Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage" wrote: >>That's just a tiny sample. He posted over 1300 lines, and I only >>grabbed about 10 that particularly offended me near the beginning. > > Too bad Wong won't have that option. I really feel sorry for anyone that has > to wade through 1300 lines of RSA Essay. Does 1300+ lines include quoted > parts of Wong's arguments, or is it just DarkStar's Addition, or did > DarkStar not quote Wong at all? Some of it is quoted material. But even if all of Mike's message is there it still means Darkstar's original material is more than twice as long. What was that quote about brevity and wit? C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mikewongisgod@hotmail.com (RayCav) Date: 14 Sep 2002 22:03:11 -0700 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: -------- I know this isn't my fight, but.... I just wanna make it clear that I really wanna beat the living shit out of DorkStar now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 23:22:10 -0700 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: -------- "RayCav" wrote in message news:aa319b42.0209142103.2ff7ceab@posting.google.com... > I know this isn't my fight, but.... > > I just wanna make it clear that I really wanna beat the living shit > out of DorkStar now. *Begins calculating if I have enough frequent flyer miles to send a ticket from Arizona to Mississippi* DAMN! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 02:53:04 -0400 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <3D842E50.7268DA71@daltonator.net> -------- Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz wrote: > > "RayCav" wrote in message > news:aa319b42.0209142103.2ff7ceab@posting.google.com... > > I know this isn't my fight, but.... > > > > I just wanna make it clear that I really wanna beat the living shit > > out of DorkStar now. > > *Begins calculating if I have enough frequent flyer miles to send a ticket from > Arizona to Mississippi* > > DAMN! *psst* Take it to the commentary thread. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "All tribal myths are true, for a given value of 'true'." --"The Last Continent", Terry Pratchett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:16:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <3D893376.5010301@stardestroyer.net> -------- Preface: once again, the following post is also on my website at http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Round2a-1.html, with in-line screenshots. I have been forced to break it up into two pieces because of the rapidly expanding length. DARKSTAR DEBATE ROUND 2, PART 1A: EU INCLUSION ---------------------------------------------- > In spite of the pre-debate concession, term violations, and tardiness > Ad hominem fallacy: attacking my personal behaviour before even mentioning any of my arguments. I thought you said you wanted this debate to focus on the argument, not the man. Concession accepted. > > [Quoted] I will focus on your so-called "Death Star chain-reaction > > theory". > "Superlaser Effect" is the accepted term. Accepted by whom? By the way, that's a red-herring nitpick. I thought you said you wanted a rational debate, rather than the usual free-for-all. Did you realize what you were asking for? STAR WARS CONTINUITY: EU INCLUSION > (Note: I refer to statements defining the Canon, Continuity, and > relationships between them as being part of the Canon Policy. In other > words, "Canon Policy" is a blanket term for official dictates of what > is and is not fact. You disagree with this definition here > (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html), but such terminology > is accepted, and I shall continue to use it.) Accepted by whom? > > [Quoted] You conclude (in your preface) that "the Expanded Universe > > is NOT part of the official story of Star Wars". > Emphasis yours. Please be more careful. Red-herring nitpick. I thought you said you wanted a rational debate. > with the novels coming in second> > With Cerasi's comment that the novels should be regarded as very > accurate, I see no problem in placing them and their > Insider-stated-brethren in a sub-film Canon status, lesser than the > Absolute Canon. Red herring fallacy. Of COURSE the movie novelizations are secondary canon. How does this address my point that something NEED NOT BE CANON in order to be included in the "overall continuity," which is larger than the canon? > However, I see no way for the non-canon Expanded Universe to squeeze > in under the gun. Cerasi makes the following comments regarding the > EU: > "The further one branches away from the movies, the more > interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works > diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive > and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation." > "The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a > window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit > foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a > nugget of truth to them." > Some have argued that Cerasi's analogy allows for the acceptance of > non-canon material in a manner consistent with the current accepted > doctrine, a "logical extrapolation by us" (*), wherein the data from > the Expanded Universe is considered 'canon unless contradicted'. (* > Source: Dalton, ASVS - >(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D38B610.C1BC60E4%40daltonator.net&output=gplain)) Red herring fallacy. We are currently debating the question of whether the EU material is valid, not how you think it should be analyzed. Moreover, I am not responsible for arguments made by OTHER persons. While it is tempting to defend my colleagues from your gratuitous red-herring attacks, it is not relevant to this debate. All you've accomplished with this Cerasi quote is to provide yet more evidence that the EU material is valid, albeit "foggy". And since the same could be said of all historical documents in real life, you have helped support my website's longstanding position that the EU material should be treated as "historical literature and narrative" (as written on my Canon page) rather than observation. Thank you for supporting my longstanding conclusion so clearly, albeit inadvertently. > I consider such an argument improper, on the following grounds: > First, "the real story of Star Wars" is the Absolute Canon of the > films, and *only* the films. Circular logic fallacy. Stating your conclusion as a premise, and then using it to justify your conclusion. > Second, acceptance of the non-canon EU must lead to error. A foggy or > abstract window will, like a fun-house mirror, produce distortions. If > we wish to look at any particular EU data point and ask "is this true > or false . . . right or wrong?", there is no answer. Black and white fallacy. Forcing us to choose between "gospel truth" and "totally useless". By this "reasoning", all of real-life science and history are ALSO useless, since you can't look at any particular data point in science and have guaranteed assurance that it is absolutely accurate and correct; there could be measurement errors, researcher error, outright incompetence, dishonesty, etc. It is only through looking at larger patterns, consistency, independent repeatability, etc. that we gain some measure of reliability. The situation is similar with historical documents, albeit with even greater potential inaccuracies. Moreover, on a fundamental philosophical level, the lack of absolute certainty does NOT preclude investigation or analysis. > The maneuver commonly performed under the logical extrapolation > rule-set is to determine whether or not there are other EU examples > and attempt to rationalize them if possible, or discard the peculiar > data point if necessary. The highest EU example is generally > considered a minimum upper limit, and all data points which suggest > themselves as the maximum but fail to meet this minimum upper limit > are rationalized or discarded. Red herring fallacy. Not only have you tried to drag the issue of preferred EU analysis methods into this debate about whether the EU material is part of the overall continuity, but you are also attempting to introduce the issue of how upper and lower limits are addressed, in OTHER debates, regarding OTHER subjects, by OTHER debaters. > The problems with that maneuver are manifold. First, rationalization > efforts can lead to absurdities. Second, it includes as an assumption > the notion that the majority of the non-canon (or simply the EU with > the uppermost limits) will be more correct than some specific example. > Further, the fact that the non-canon is self-referential (and > therefore that the distorting windows stack as EU data continues to > expand in new EU works) is ignored. > Nowhere is the concept of EU "majority rule" stated or implied in the > Canon Policy. The vast majority of the non-canon could mislead, and we > would be none the wiser. Similarly, nowhere is the concept of EU > "biggest is best" stated or implied in the Canon Policy. EU materials > with the largest tech figures could mislead, and we would be none the > wiser. All we are told is that there are "windows", some foggy, some > abstract, but each containing a nugget of truth. Once again, this "reasoning" could be equally applied to real-life scientific and historical documents, many of which are "self-referential", to use your term. Once again, you have used your bizarre "reasoning" to show that in your opinion, all of real-life science and history should be ignored. > With the films constituting the "real story of Star Wars", I argue > that the nuggets of truth contained in the EU can only be what is > borrowed straight from the Canon. Why? We're trying to arrive at a > method to determine the accuracy of data points in a data set where > inaccuracies, some grotesque, are known to exist and have been stated > as existing. Unlike uncertainties in science, where, for example, a > carbon-14 dating effort might have an uncertainty (+/- X-thousand > years) attached, there is absolutely no way to determine the level of > possible error of a non-canon statement, except by referencing the > Canon. Non sequitur. If one determines the accuracy of an EU statement by "referencing" the canon, it does NOT follow that everything in the EU is invalid except for that which is "borrowed straight from the canon". If canon is "observation" and EU is "history" as I have long maintained, then any EU material which is in direct contradiction with canon is obviously wrong, just as any historical document which describes events that are scientifically impossible is obviously wrong. However, it does NOT follow that everything in every historical document which is not drawn directly from scientific observation is useless. > Meanwhile, we have a separate data set, the Canon, which is, by > definition, virtually free from error. Thus, to include the EU > according to current common doctrine is not only to flagrantly ignore > Cerasi's caveat that *only* the films are the real story of Star Wars, > but it is also to allow "interpretation and speculation" and > distortions of the Canon to enter into one's thinking. To allow such > distortions to guide one's efforts unless those distortions are > contradicted by Canon is of questionable intellectual honesty. Quasi-religious mentality. You seem to think it is possible to analyze something without "interpretation and speculation", hence their use invalidates any analysis. This is simply absurd; it is IMPOSSIBLE to analyze ANYTHING without a certain amount of "interpretation and speculation". Did it occur to you that ALL of science is an interpretive and speculative exercise? We take observations, interpret them into numbers and units, construct hypotheses (ie- speculate), etc. We can then verify those hypotheses via more interpretation of new observations. For the THIRD time, I must point out that you have effectively denied the validity of all science and history. > (Rather like those who maintain that everything is legal, so long as > you don't get caught.) Though playing fast and loose with data in such > a manner may be be acceptable in some circles, I do not consider it > appropriate. I certainly find it highly inappropriate for our > purposes, where ostensibly we wish to choose the safest, most > reasonable course to determine fact. "Appeal to prejudice" fallacy. You are attempting to link those who would analyze the EU to shifty lawbreakers, in an obvious attempt to generate prejudicial feeling against them. This might be somewhat excusable if you could actually show that A leads to B, but you don't even TRY; how on Earth does "interpretation and speculation" lead to "everything is legal, so long as you don't get caught?" Instead of explaining this HIGHLY dubious connection, you merely present some grandstanding. > Further (now returning to the Insider quote), I do not consider a > statement prefaced with the phrase "between us" and including the term > "much" to constitute sufficient evidence for the claim that the entire > EU is formally considered official Star Wars fact according to the > Canon Policy. This is especially the case when it contradicts the fact > that the real story of Star Wars is the films, and only the films. Circular-logic fallacy. Yet again, you cite your conclusion as a premise (the "fact" that the story of Star Wars is limited to the films), which is then used to support the conclusion. > Finally, there is definite uncertainty in regards to the single-use > term upon which your argument is based. "Overall continuity" appears > in no other statement of Canon Policy, nor in any statement relating > to it that I am aware of. Cerasi, via Sansweet, makes several > references to "continuity", but his use makes it apparent that he > refers to a judgement or dictate of LucasBooks personnel: > (from > http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html) > "Fans of the old monthly Marvel Star Wars comic will be heartened to > know that LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity. > Decades of retrospect haven't been kind to all the elements of the > comic series, but the characters and events still hold weight and are > referenced in newer material whenever possible." > "In order to allow unlimited freedom of storytelling, the Infinities > label has been placed on the anthology series, Star Wars Tales. This > means that not only can the stories occur anywhere in the Star Wars > timeline, but stories can happen outside continuity ... You are projecting your own behaviour onto me. Unlike you, I do NOT base my argument upon sentence fragments, the way you have analyzed Lucas' choice of the words "parallel universe". The term "overall continuity" is not important for my argument; a continuity of some sort must exist, and it would still exist by any other name; we are debating the question of what is included in that continuity, and you have failed to present a shred of evidence that the EU is NOT included. Indeed, you have provided several more pieces of evidence that go directly AGAINST your case, such as the Cerasi "foggy window" quote and now this: "LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity". Case closed. The fact that the "Infinities" label specifically marks a particular anthology outside continuity HARDLY implies or proves that the ENTIRE EU is outside continuity (in fact, the existence of a special label for non-continuity material implies the opposite; that everything not specifically marked as non-continuity is probably in the continuity). > continuity which includes the EU with the exception of material with > the "Infinities logo" and "Star Wars Tales", which they sometimes > erroneously refer to as the "canon" but which is obviously the > "overall continuity" mentioned in SWI> > So, while we have no idea what the "overall continuity" referred to by > the unspecified Insider #23 personnel refers to, it would seem to bear > a striking resemblance to the in-house continuity of LucasBooks, > insofar as non-canon EU material is taken into account. Red herring fallacy. The fact that the "overall continuity" is the "in-house continuity of LucasBooks" has nothing to do with the fact that this continuity DOES exist, and that EU material (with a few clearly marked exceptions) is included in that continuity. > pointing out that you have the full quote on a separate, unrelated > page> > At no point have I done anything less than offer full disclosure on > the matter, your insinuations notwithstanding. I am not insinuating; I am stating fact. You chose to analyze a SENTENCE FRAGMENT on your canon page rather than the full quote. The fact that the full quote is buried somewhere else on your website does not excuse this fallacious method. You employed the "quote taken out of context" fallacy and ignored Lucas' statement that the EU intrudes on his continuity despite its obvious relevance. > > Lucas here refers to the EU as being another world, a parallel > universe separate from his own Absolute Canon of the films. You are ignoring the point. I already explained that the EU can be separate without necessarily being excluded from the continuity. It does you no good to repeat an argument which proves nothing. > Some have argued that Lucas was not referring to the EU's *content* as > being part of another world and a parallel universe, but was instead > only referring to the various departments and divisions in his company > operating outside his movie-making universe. In other words, some say > Lucas was using very flowerly language to refer to real-world issues. > However, that makes little sense, given that his "world", a.k.a. > "select period of time", a.k.a. "the movies" would therefore have to > be a space of time back in the late 70's/early 80's and a space of > time in the modern era. To argue that the licensing companies go > inactive or stop consulting him when he's making a movie is peculiar > to say the least. The first is definitely contrary to the knowledge of > anyone who goes to a toystore, bookstore, and so on around the time a > movie comes out. The second is contrary to statements of people such > as Saxton, recent writer of some EU materials. Red herring fallacy (or possibly strawman fallacy, depending on how one wishes to interpret your intent). I don't know who these anonymous people are whose arguments you wish to refute in our debate, but they are not ME, so drop it. If you had bothered reading my original post instead of ignoring it and attacking these mysterious, anonymous people, you would have seen that I obviously think when Lucas says his movies occupy a "select period of time", he's referring to the fictional timeline of the Star Wars universe, not the real-life 1970's and 1980's in which he made the original trilogy. > Others argue that the "intrude on my world" comment overrides his > reference to other worlds and parallel universes. In other words, the > fact that they intrude is supposed to make us think that they are part > of the same universe. However, this argument also makes no sense, > especially in light of such recent licensing efforts as the Episode I > "Battle for Naboo" game, prior efforts such as the Marvel comic > adaptations of ANH, et cetera, et cetera. Those most assuredly > "intrude" on his world, his select period of time of the movies, and > the Marvel monthly comics are most assuredly considered part of the EU > continuity, as per Cerasi. Strawman. No one is saying that one comment "overrides" another. George Lucas is a human being, not a set of legal documents with varying precedence. The act of analyzing any SENTENCE FRAGMENT is inherently fallacious, to say nothing of a sentence fragment from a verbal interview, in which he could not have chosen his words so carefully as to permit such semantic analysis. One can only derive very general statements from such interviews, such as his clear statement that the EU and canon are separate, and that they cover different points in the same timeline. Rather than trying to analyze PRECISELY what he means by "parallel universe" or "intrude", you should recognize that in a general sense, he obviously made it clear that the EU definitely has SOME validity, which is more than enough to disprove your assertion that it should be completely ignored. If you are going to wrangle over its precise boundaries, then you are already implicitly accepting that it does have validity. Concession accepted. > Further, this is not the first time Lucas has referred to the > EU in such a manner: > "TVGuide: Yet novelists have written "Star Wars" sequels using the > same characters and extending their stories. > George Lucas: Oh, sure. They're done outside my little universe. "Star > Wars" has had a lot of different lives that have been worked on by a > lot of different people. It works without me."- TV Guide Interview > with George Lucas, week of 11/19/01 > Again, we have Lucas placing EU content outside his "little universe", > which in spite of his modest phrasing is, in fact, the Absolute Canon > . . . the real story of Star Wars, which is *only* the films. Again, you analyze a SENTENCE FRAGMENT rather than the full quote. Again, you make a daring leap in logic from "EU is outside canon" to "there is no continuity outside canon". George does NOT say that his "little universe" (ie- canon) is the TOTALITY of Star Wars continuity; that is an inference which you derive by analyzing the semantics of SENTENCE FRAGMENTS. When any one of his quotes is viewed in full, it is obvious that he's saying precisely the OPPOSITE of what you're saying; he's saying that Star Wars is larger than his "little universe" of the canon. > No, I'm afraid that cannot be seen at all. According to LucasBooks' EU > continuity, even that which intrudes on his select period of time is > acceptable as reference. That, in concert with the fact that Lucas is > not at all bound by the "continuous and unified" "official Star Wars > history", demonstrates rather clearly that Lucas's EU parallel > universe comments are the law of the land, and rightly so. Non sequitur. So Lucas is not "bound" by the EU; how does it follow that the EU is worthless? Star Trek's writers routinely ignored precedent set by previous episodes or series; does that make previous series worthless? He and his licensing firm have publicly stated that the EU is included in the continuity. How we analyze it is a separate question, but its inclusion is indisputable. Summary You argue on your website that the EU and canon are separate. I agree that they are separate, but I argue that they are BOTH included in the overall continuity, which is larger than the canon, and I point out that you are relying upon a Lucas sentence fragment rather than the full quote. You retort that they are separate, and provide many quotes to support this claim, totally ignoring the fact that I've already agreed that they are separate. Then, you attempt to analyze another Lucas sentence FRAGMENT in order to support your standing non sequitur. Are you capable of recognizing how you utterly failed to address the point? Worse yet, you contradict yourself by inadvertently providing quotes such as Cerasi's "foggy windows" quote which show that the EU is valid, albeit imperfect, and then you pile logical fallacies on top of that mistake by employing "black and white" fallacies to argue that "valid but imperfect" is the same as being totally excluded! By admitting that the EU represents a window onto the Star Wars universe according to LucasBooks (and failing to provide anything more subtantive than a Lucas sentence FRAGMENT to contradict them), you have admitted that you were wrong about the EU not being a part of the story at all. You are attempting to cover for this concession by making the utterly outlandish argument that imperfection makes useful analysis impossible, but that does not change the fact that you quietly conceded the point. Are you capable of admitting this? ------------------------ Part 2 to follow shortly ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 22:35:50 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: -------- "Michael Wong" wrote in message news:3D893376.5010301@stardestroyer.net... > Preface: once again, the following post is also on my website at > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Round2a-1.html, with > in-line screenshots. I have been forced to break it up into two pieces > because of the rapidly expanding length. > > > > DARKSTAR DEBATE ROUND 2, PART 1A: EU INCLUSION > ---------------------------------------------- > > > In spite of the pre-debate concession, term violations, and tardiness > > > > Ad hominem fallacy: attacking my personal behaviour before even > mentioning any of my arguments. 1. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/index.html 2. I said: "In spite of the pre-debate concession, term violations, and tardiness, your post is relatively on-topic, though there are several slips. As such, I shall reply to the pertinent and/or contested elements of our respective arguments, in keeping with the precepts of rational discussion." That means that I did not attempt to claim that your behavior had a bearing on the truth value of your arguments (the definition of ad hominem) . . . indeed, I indicated that I was about to reply to the arguments, in answer to your statement "assuming that you pick up this challenge and continue this debate" which appeared at the end of your first post. Once again, I intend to reply to the on-topic matters. All else is irrelevant. ************** Advance summary (for any who feel my length and verbosity are overwhelming): re: Canon Policy - Lucas overrides LucasFilm. Lucasfilm overrides LucasBooks, Lucas Licensing, etc. 1. Lucas says the EU is a parallel universe and outside his little universe. 2. Sansweet of LucasFilm correctly points out that nothing else but the canon exists for Lucas. 3. Sansweet of LucasFilm directly quotes Chris Cerasi of LucasBooks in regards to the fact that the only source for the real story of Star Wars is Lucas's canon. 4. Rostoni of LucasBooks and Kausch of Lucas Licensing correctly identified the canon, but commented that between them, much of the EU material is part of a continuity. 5. Rostoni and Cerasi both speak of the in-house continuity of LucasBooks. *************** And now, the reply: > > > [Quoted] I will focus on your so-called "Death Star chain-reaction > > > theory". > > "Superlaser Effect" is the accepted term. > > Accepted by whom? The creator of the theory, certain members of your message board, and those I have corresponded with via e-mail and website feedback on the subject. > By the way, that's a red-herring nitpick. It is a correction of your terminology. It does not imply or suggest a claim about the truth-value of your argument, nor is it an effort to draw attention away from the topic. > > STAR WARS CONTINUITY: EU INCLUSION > > > (Note: I refer to statements defining the Canon, Continuity, and > > relationships between them as being part of the Canon Policy. In other > > words, "Canon Policy" is a blanket term for official dictates of what > > is and is not fact. You disagree with this definition here > > (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html), but such terminology > > is accepted, and I shall continue to use it.) > > Accepted by whom? Myself, along with members of various message boards, ASVS, and so on. > > > [Quoted] You conclude (in your preface) that "the Expanded Universe > > > is NOT part of the official story of Star Wars". > > Emphasis yours. Please be more careful. > > Red-herring nitpick. I thought you said you wanted a rational debate. > Misquotations have no place in rational debate. As before, it was a correction, and not a claim as to the truth or falsehood of your arguments, nor was it an attempt to divert attention from the topic at hand. > > > with the novels coming in second> No, I think it is important to have that quote readily available and in one's mind, lest misunderstanding occur: "There's been some confusion of late regarding the 'Infinities' symbol, and Star Wars Expanded Universe continuity in general. Terms like "canon" and "continuity" tend to get thrown around casually, which doesn't help at all. When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves - and *only* the films." (Original emphasis his, in italics) - Chris Cerasi, of LucasBooks, as quoted by Steve Sansweet, Fan Relations, LFL. > > With Cerasi's comment that the novels should be regarded as very > > accurate, I see no problem in placing them and their > > Insider-stated-brethren in a sub-film Canon status, lesser than the > > Absolute Canon. > > Red herring fallacy. This third accusation of a red herring is also inaccurate. In this case, I was explaining my position on intra-canonical relationships for the sake of clarity, lest my position be misunderstood or open to misrepresentation. Stating my position on the Canon Policy issue is not a red herring. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html > Of COURSE the movie novelizations are secondary > canon. Actually, this is not readily apparent from the Cerasi quote, hence my brief exposition. Remember, he said that "the real story of Star Wars" is the Absolute Canon films, "and *only* the films". Sansweet may have cleared this issue up a bit for Australian fans during a convention there: "Steven Sansweet said this at a convention in Australia: "In the canon debate, it is important to notice that LucasFilm and Lucas are different entities. The only canon source of Star Wars are the radio plays, the movie novels and the movies themselves - in Lucas' mind, nothing else exists, and no authorized LucasFilm novel will restrict his creativity in any way."" http://www.peak.org/peak_info/mlists/info/prequels.html > > However, I see no way for the non-canon Expanded Universe to squeeze > > in under the gun. Cerasi makes the following comments regarding the > > EU: > > > "The further one branches away from the movies, the more > > interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works > > diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive > > and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation." > > > "The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a > > window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit > > foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a > > nugget of truth to them." > > > Some have argued that Cerasi's analogy allows for the acceptance of > > non-canon material in a manner consistent with the current accepted > > doctrine, a "logical extrapolation by us" (*), wherein the data from > > the Expanded Universe is considered 'canon unless contradicted'. (* > > Source: Dalton, ASVS - > >(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D38B610.C1BC60E4%40daltonator.net&ou tput=gplain)) > > Red herring fallacy. Incorrect, for the fourth time (see below): > We are currently debating the question of whether > the EU material is valid, not how you think it should be analyzed. We are not debating in a vacuum. The present beliefs on the EU are valid segues toward understanding the Canon Policy as it should be understood, if only as negative examples. It is not an argument on the manner of analysis, but on the treatment of the data in regards to its perceived truth-value. > Moreover, I am not responsible for arguments made by OTHER persons. Nor was such a thing suggested in the quote of me provided above. > While it is tempting to defend my colleagues from your gratuitous > red-herring attacks, it is not relevant to this debate. Similarly, claims against your opponent, such as "gratuitous red-herring attacks", are also irrelevant, and have no place in what is ostensibly a rational discussion. > All you've accomplished with this Cerasi quote is to provide yet more > evidence that the EU material is valid, albeit "foggy". Incorrect: I have provided the quote and the analysis as to why it cannot be used to suggest that the EU is valid, on the grounds that it cannot accurately represent the real story of Star Wars, owing to the fact that it is (a) not the real story of Star Wars and (b) capable of grave errors. > And since the > same could be said of all historical documents in real life, you have > helped support my website's longstanding position that the EU material > should be treated as "historical literature and narrative" (as written > on my Canon page) rather than observation. A. "Historical literature and narrative" is not generally considered a valid primary source for such things as firepower estimates, materials strength, and so on. B. You may consider the following an ad hominem, and it is your right to do so . . . I am about to point out that what is preached is not practiced. You just mentioned your website . . . it contains the claim that the EU materials are historical literature and are to be treated as such (including considering them "highly suspect" works "written from the point of view of the New Republic", possibly capable of being "coloured by the author's bias, competence, and data-gathering limitations"(as stated here), and that it cannot be analyzed as scientific data). http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Misc/Canon.html#Analyze However, it cannot be left unsaid that this is not the observed approach on your pages, or in Vs. Debates in general. For instance, in spite of canon ANH novel quotes of the Empire having a million systems, you give them twelve million inhabited systems, as per Dark Empire's non-canon figures (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Industry/Industry2.html). According to Dark Horse Comics (http://www.darkhorse.com/products/zones/z_starwars/zp_timeline/index.html), Dark Empire was only 10 years after ANH, in which case you're suggesting that a million-system society suddenly decided to colonize 1.1 million systems per year on average, during a time of civil war and the aftermath thereof. Your page also includes the argument that the Empire is galaxy-wide, as per "Behind the Magic" maps, whereas Kamino, canonically stated to be "beyond the outer rim" in Episode II, is shown to be well within the galaxy, very near or possibly within the core (http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWkamino.html). > > I consider such an argument improper, on the following grounds: > > First, "the real story of Star Wars" is the Absolute Canon of the > > films, and *only* the films. > > Circular logic fallacy. Stating your conclusion as a premise, and then > using it to justify your conclusion. Incorrect: what you believe to be my conclusion is in fact the statement by Cerasi and Sansweet, which I quoted again at the start of this post for just this reason. > > Second, acceptance of the non-canon EU must lead to error. A foggy or > > abstract window will, like a fun-house mirror, produce distortions. If > > we wish to look at any particular EU data point and ask "is this true > > or false . . . right or wrong?", there is no answer. > > Black and white fallacy. Forcing us to choose between "gospel truth" and > "totally useless". I presume you refer to the fallacy of the false dilemma. Again, this is yet another incorrect accusation of fallacy, for two reasons: 1. Cerasi uses the term "only", which is logically exclusive. If A is only A, then it cannot also be not-A, nor can B, C, or D be allowed to try to masquerade as A. 2. The practice of using the rule "canon unless contradicted" (or, in some cases, "canon even if contradicted") is not a middle-ground position. EU data is perceived and used as either true or false . . . the 'provisional' truth-value does not affect the fact that it is considered true, and that EU data points are offerred as canon statements of fact when not contradicted. > By this "reasoning", all of real-life science and > history are ALSO useless, Incorrect anyway, but even if it were it would be irrelevant: "slippery slope fallacy". > since you can't look at any particular data > point in science and have guaranteed assurance that it is absolutely > accurate and correct; there could be measurement errors, researcher > error, outright incompetence, dishonesty, etc. It is only through > looking at larger patterns, consistency, independent repeatability, etc. > that we gain some measure of reliability. False analogy: Science involves gathering the best, most reliable data possible and formulating or testing hypotheses from that evidence. There is no such thing as canon evidence to work with . . . there are no numbers, figures, or formulas dropped into a scientist's lap from on high, except those discovered by an objective, empirical analysis of nature. In the case of the EU, we are told that there is error. "Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract." In other words, over and above measurement errors, researcher error, incompetence, or dishonesty in reference to the facts contained in the EU, because some of *the facts themselves* are errors and lies. We are also told where to find the only "real story of Star Wars" . . . the absolute canon of the films. That is the best, most reliable data possible. So, to allow EU speculation into one's evidence set wholesale invites error in one's conclusions. > The situation is similar with > historical documents, albeit with even greater potential inaccuracies. And, in keeping with your statements that the EU should be treated as historical documents, the EU is rendered a worse data set for use in determining fact. > Moreover, on a fundamental philosophical level, the lack of absolute > certainty does NOT preclude investigation or analysis. > True. However, evidence which is known to be certain by definition is a superior source than a historical document known to be riddled with error. > > The maneuver commonly performed under the logical extrapolation > > rule-set is to determine whether or not there are other EU examples > > and attempt to rationalize them if possible, or discard the peculiar > > data point if necessary. The highest EU example is generally > > considered a minimum upper limit, and all data points which suggest > > themselves as the maximum but fail to meet this minimum upper limit > > are rationalized or discarded. > > Red herring fallacy. Not only have you tried to drag the issue of > preferred EU analysis methods into this debate about whether the EU > material is part of the overall continuity, but you are also attempting > to introduce the issue of how upper and lower limits are addressed, in > OTHER debates, regarding OTHER subjects, by OTHER debaters. Incorrect, for the fifth time, on multiple counts. First, your own web pages are an example, meaning I do not refer solely to any "OTHER"s. Second, the way in which EU data is treated under current Canon Policy misconceptions is a valid segue toward understanding how it should be treated. > > The problems with that maneuver are manifold. First, rationalization > > efforts can lead to absurdities. Second, it includes as an assumption > > the notion that the majority of the non-canon (or simply the EU with > > the uppermost limits) will be more correct than some specific example. > > Further, the fact that the non-canon is self-referential (and > > therefore that the distorting windows stack as EU data continues to > > expand in new EU works) is ignored. > > > Nowhere is the concept of EU "majority rule" stated or implied in the > > Canon Policy. The vast majority of the non-canon could mislead, and we > > would be none the wiser. Similarly, nowhere is the concept of EU > > "biggest is best" stated or implied in the Canon Policy. EU materials > > with the largest tech figures could mislead, and we would be none the > > wiser. All we are told is that there are "windows", some foggy, some > > abstract, but each containing a nugget of truth. > > Once again, this "reasoning" could be equally applied to real-life > scientific and historical documents, many of which are > "self-referential", to use your term. Once again, you have used your > bizarre "reasoning" to show that in your opinion, all of real-life > science and history should be ignored. Incorrect: your statement is based on a continuing false analogy, mixed with a slippery slope fallacy. Further, science is not self-referential in the way the EU is. The only real story of Star Wars is the films . . . it is the best, most reliable data from which to draw conclusions. The "historical literature" of the EU does not limit itself to these facts, but instead creates its own and references them frequently. > > With the films constituting the "real story of Star Wars", I argue > > that the nuggets of truth contained in the EU can only be what is > > borrowed straight from the Canon. Why? We're trying to arrive at a > > method to determine the accuracy of data points in a data set where > > inaccuracies, some grotesque, are known to exist and have been stated > > as existing. Unlike uncertainties in science, where, for example, a > > carbon-14 dating effort might have an uncertainty (+/- X-thousand > > years) attached, there is absolutely no way to determine the level of > > possible error of a non-canon statement, except by referencing the > > Canon. > > Non sequitur. Incorrect: your claim of a non sequitur is based on misunderstanding, caused by slicing through the argument in the middle of it. > > Meanwhile, we have a separate data set, the Canon, which is, by > > definition, virtually free from error. Thus, to include the EU > > according to current common doctrine is not only to flagrantly ignore > > Cerasi's caveat that *only* the films are the real story of Star Wars, > > but it is also to allow "interpretation and speculation" and > > distortions of the Canon to enter into one's thinking. To allow such > > distortions to guide one's efforts unless those distortions are > > contradicted by Canon is of questionable intellectual honesty. > > Quasi-religious mentality. Prejudicial language is irrelevant, and given our opinions on religious mentality, that's a thinly-veiled ad hominem. Joke -> Of course, we *are* sitting here talking about canon-this and canon-that. Let's just randomly pick 66 books of EU material, call it divine, and be done with it. :) > You seem to think it is possible to analyze > something without "interpretation and speculation", hence their use > invalidates any analysis. Misrepresentation: I stated that "it is to allow 'interpretation and speculation' and distortions of the Canon to enter into one's thinking." Nowhere does that statement imply or require what you claim it does. What the statement does imply and require is the fact that the interpretation and speculation -- Cerasi's foggy windows -- place an additional layer of potential error between the one doing analysis and the Canon data to be analyzed. The EU distorts the Canon . . . nowhere is this more evident than your own use of non-canon distance and time figures in reference to Canon journeys. > > (Rather like those who maintain that everything is legal, so long as > > you don't get caught.) Though playing fast and loose with data in such > > a manner may be be acceptable in some circles, I do not consider it > > appropriate. I certainly find it highly inappropriate for our > > purposes, where ostensibly we wish to choose the safest, most > > reasonable course to determine fact. > > "Appeal to prejudice" fallacy. You are attempting to link those who > would analyze the EU to shifty lawbreakers, No, I used an analogy in reference to the "questionable intellectual honesty" sentence, where I discussed the practice of allowing the EU to guide one's thinking. I expected the reader to have comprehended the previous point that allowing the EU was to engage in the practice of considering EU materials canon unless contradicted. > > Further (now returning to the Insider quote), I do not consider a > > statement prefaced with the phrase "between us" and including the term > > "much" to constitute sufficient evidence for the claim that the entire > > EU is formally considered official Star Wars fact according to the > > Canon Policy. This is especially the case when it contradicts the fact > > that the real story of Star Wars is the films, and only the films. > > Circular-logic fallacy. Yet again, you cite your conclusion as a premise > (the "fact" that the story of Star Wars is limited to the films), which > is then used to support the conclusion. Incorrect: my statement is based on the Cerasi quote. Further, I note that there is no response in regards to the insufficient evidence for formal inclusion of the EU materials based on the Insider #23 quote. Also, it is quite interesting that the previously unnamed individuals phrased the Insider #23 quote that way. The two individuals were none other than Sue Rostoni of the book department, and Allan Kausch of Lucas Licensing. This adds an additional measure of certainty to the fact that they referred to the in-house continuity that is an acknowledge part of the EU. > > Finally, there is definite uncertainty in regards to the single-use > > term upon which your argument is based. "Overall continuity" appears > > in no other statement of Canon Policy, nor in any statement relating > > to it that I am aware of. Cerasi, via Sansweet, makes several > > references to "continuity", but his use makes it apparent that he > > refers to a judgement or dictate of LucasBooks personnel: > > > (from > > http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc