---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pupeteer_adv@yahoo.com (PuPPeTeer) Date: 21 Oct 2002 08:06:50 -0700 Subject: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <96bebc1f.0210210706.6aa7b21c@posting.google.com> -------- Can you belive some of the replies I'm getting?! There's some really scary shit going down!!! They'll never conceed. It would mean changing the way they think and re-evaluating years of calculations and conclusions. And as you know, fat and lazy hates change and effort! Or maybe some of them are as fucking STUPID as they seem to be and actually believe in there argument, and if THATS the case then......HAHAHAHAH!!!!!!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hansen Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:28:37 -0700 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- pupeteer_adv@yahoo.com (PuPPeTeer) opened Pandora's Box (cleverly disguised as <96bebc1f.0210210706.6aa7b21c@posting.google.com>) on 21 Oct 2002 08:06:50 -0700... >Can you belive some of the replies I'm getting?! There's some really >scary shit going down!!! They'll never conceed. It would mean changing >the way they think and re-evaluating years of calculations and >conclusions. And as you know, fat and lazy hates change and effort! > >Or maybe some of them are as fucking STUPID as they seem to be and >actually believe in there argument, and if THATS the case >then......HAHAHAHAH!!!!!!! Where can I get some of that stuff you're smoking? Whatever it is, it sure looks good. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:11:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "PuPPeTeer" wrote in message news:96bebc1f.0210210706.6aa7b21c@posting.google.com... > Can you belive some of the replies I'm getting?! There's some really > scary shit going down!!! They'll never conceed. It would mean changing > the way they think and re-evaluating years of calculations and > conclusions. And as you know, fat and lazy hates change and effort! > > Or maybe some of them are as fucking STUPID as they seem to be and > actually believe in there argument, and if THATS the case > then......HAHAHAHAH!!!!!!! While, somewhere, I imagine there are some decently rational pro-Wars debaters, I don't think any are here . . . or if so, then their paths have never crossed mine. The Warsies I usually encounter have never ceased to amaze me with their illogic, self-deception, lies, and any other improper thing. The recent arguments are no exception. When I start to check messages, I simply wonder what new impossible beliefs I'll find espoused as the One True Way, and Up Yours If You Don't Agree. Even the lowliest primordial scum-sucker should be able to understand what it all boils down to: PU = Parallel Universe EU = Expanded Universe (aka quasi-canon, QC) AC = Absolute Canon RS = Real Story of Star Wars OF = Only the Films GL = the movies GL = OF, logically. Lucas said: EU = PU GL = ~PU Therefore, OF = ~EU Cerasi (via Sansweet) said: AC = RS AC = OF Logic requires that RS = OF. If A=B and A=C, then B=C. If RS = OF, and IF OF = ~EU, Then RS = ~EU Or, in something closer to English phrasing (and still equivalent): EU /= RS (The EU does not equal the Real Story of Star Wars.) *************************************** Of course, you can get to the same point with the same ideas in a hundred different ways, any of them being valid . . . or you can simply acknowledge that the real universe is the only one of consequence, or that nothing unreal exists in reality (for if it did, it would be real), and so on. That should be the end of the story, but it isn't. They're trying to claim absurdities appearing nowhere in the policy such as EU = AC, RS = OF + EU, EU /= PU, state insanities like "real /= only", insert hazy terms like "Acceptable Fact" (that, mysteriously, need not equal Real Story), et cetera. And all they have in support is a quote from the Specialty Marketing guy of Lucas Licensing, in a LucasBooks publication. This, they believe, overrides Lucas himself, and LucasFilm, his flagship. It's so hysterically absurd, it's almost sad. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:38:50 -0400 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DB465DA.1E91D4F8@daltonator.net> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "PuPPeTeer" wrote in message > news:96bebc1f.0210210706.6aa7b21c@posting.google.com... LOOK! LOOK! THE TROLLS ARE MATING! -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:08:34 +1300 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3DB465DA.1E91D4F8@daltonator.net... > DarkStar wrote: > > > > "PuPPeTeer" wrote in message > > news:96bebc1f.0210210706.6aa7b21c@posting.google.com... > > LOOK! LOOK! THE TROLLS ARE MATING! > Quick paw! get youse gun! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 03:04:10 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3db4c00b.23912654@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:38:50 -0400, Dalton wrote: >DarkStar wrote: >> >> "PuPPeTeer" wrote in message >> news:96bebc1f.0210210706.6aa7b21c@posting.google.com... > >LOOK! LOOK! THE TROLLS ARE MATING! > Their child shall be the reincarnation of... yes, him. -- As you read this sig I waste your worthless life. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 01:16:55 -0400 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DB4DF47.99DD251D@daltonator.net> -------- The Baron wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:38:50 -0400, Dalton wrote: > > >DarkStar wrote: > >> > >> "PuPPeTeer" wrote in message > >> news:96bebc1f.0210210706.6aa7b21c@posting.google.com... > > > >LOOK! LOOK! THE TROLLS ARE MATING! > > > Their child shall be the reincarnation of... yes, him. *hiss* -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "Pretty," Donos said. "What do we blow up first?" --"Solo Command", Aaron Allston ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:37:50 -0700 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3DB4DF47.99DD251D@daltonator.net... > The Baron wrote: > > > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:38:50 -0400, Dalton wrote: > > > > >DarkStar wrote: > > >> > > >> "PuPPeTeer" wrote in message > > >> news:96bebc1f.0210210706.6aa7b21c@posting.google.com... > > > > > >LOOK! LOOK! THE TROLLS ARE MATING! > > > > > Their child shall be the reincarnation of... yes, him. > > *hiss* > > -- > Rob "Roby" Dalton > http://daltonator.net > > "Pretty," Donos said. "What do we blow up first?" > --"Solo Command", Aaron Allston Oh god, just in time for LT Hitman's fanfic challenge, Legend of the Overtroll. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:51:43 -0400 Subject: [Canon] Parallel Universes [was: Re: Hey Darkstar] Message-ID: <3DB468DF.93D0FEB1@daltonator.net> -------- Debate over, we win, Lucas supports us and here's why: Lucas calls the EU a parallel universe and that only canon is the "real" story of Star Wars. Is the interpretation unclear? No. We have ample evidence of what he meant. The same events occur in both canon and EU, so events that happen in the EU can be considered as evidence. This is the "parallel universe" Lucas talks about, and it is proved conclusively by these two facts: 1. Lucas borrowed some elements from the EU (Coruscant, Outrider) 2. Lucas overrode some elements from the EU (Boba Fett) Therefore: what Lucas created is the "real" story of Star Wars. What the EU is is a "parallel universe". And since canon and EU intersect at several points, it logically follows that our canon policy is correct. End of story. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "Always in motion is the future." --Yoda ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 21 Oct 2002 21:55:51 GMT Subject: Re: [Canon] Parallel Universes [was: Re: Hey Darkstar] Message-ID: <20021021165558655-0500@id-sorresso.user.dfncis.de> -------- The voice in my head named Dalton told me: > Debate over, we win, Lucas supports us and here's why: > > Lucas calls the EU a parallel universe and that only canon is the > "real" story of Star Wars. Is the interpretation unclear? No. We have > ample evidence of what he meant. > > The same events occur in both canon and EU, so events that happen in > the EU can be considered as evidence. This is the "parallel universe" > Lucas talks about, and it is proved conclusively by these two facts: > > 1. Lucas borrowed some elements from the EU (Coruscant, Outrider) > 2. Lucas overrode some elements from the EU (Boba Fett) > > Therefore: what Lucas created is the "real" story of Star Wars. What > the EU is is a "parallel universe". And since canon and EU intersect > at several points, it logically follows that our canon policy is > correct. > > End of story. The word "parallel" comes from geometry. Two vectors with the same coordinates are considered parallel. Similarly, two vectors with the same length and direction but different placements on the coordinate plane are considered to be the same vector, and can be moved around arbitrarily while retaining that status. Thus, being parallel does not force two things to be exclusive. -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] | [E-mail: dsorres@ilstu.edu] http://daltonator.net/durandal "The Biblical God is more evil than any Nazi who ever lived, and Satan is arguably the hero of the Bible." -Michael Wong ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:13:01 +1300 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:keWdneHLG57U3imgXTWc3w@comcast.com... > > "PuPPeTeer" wrote in message > news:96bebc1f.0210210706.6aa7b21c@posting.google.com... > > Can you belive some of the replies I'm getting?! There's some really > > scary shit going down!!! They'll never conceed. It would mean changing > > the way they think and re-evaluating years of calculations and > > conclusions. And as you know, fat and lazy hates change and effort! > > > > Or maybe some of them are as fucking STUPID as they seem to be and > > actually believe in there argument, and if THATS the case > > then......HAHAHAHAH!!!!!!! > > While, somewhere, I imagine there are some decently rational pro-Wars > debaters, I don't think any are here . . . or if so, then their paths have > never crossed mine. > > The Warsies I usually encounter have never ceased to amaze me with their > illogic, self-deception, lies, and any other improper thing. The recent > arguments are no exception. When I start to check messages, I simply wonder > what new impossible beliefs I'll find espoused as the One True Way, and Up > Yours If You Don't Agree. snip Robert, I know that if you left America, the average IQ would rise at least 5 points, but that is no excuse for allowing yourself to be used as part of a trollish thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: porcupine_head@hotmail.com (Alan Bolte) Date: 22 Oct 2002 19:13:15 -0700 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3fa6e7c1.0210221813.25420318@posting.google.com> -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:... > "PuPPeTeer" wrote in message > news:96bebc1f.0210210706.6aa7b21c@posting.google.com... > > Can you belive some of the replies I'm getting?! There's some really > > scary shit going down!!! They'll never conceed. It would mean changing > > the way they think and re-evaluating years of calculations and > > conclusions. And as you know, fat and lazy hates change and effort! > > > > Or maybe some of them are as fucking STUPID as they seem to be and > > actually believe in there argument, and if THATS the case > > then......HAHAHAHAH!!!!!!! > > While, somewhere, I imagine there are some decently rational pro-Wars > debaters, I don't think any are here . . . or if so, then their paths have > never crossed mine. > > The Warsies I usually encounter have never ceased to amaze me with their > illogic, self-deception, lies, and any other improper thing. The recent > arguments are no exception. When I start to check messages, I simply wonder > what new impossible beliefs I'll find espoused as the One True Way, and Up > Yours If You Don't Agree. > > Even the lowliest primordial scum-sucker should be able to understand what > it all boils down to: > > PU = Parallel Universe > EU = Expanded Universe (aka quasi-canon, QC) > AC = Absolute Canon > RS = Real Story of Star Wars > OF = Only the Films > GL = the movies > > GL = OF, logically. > > Lucas said: > EU = PU > GL = ~PU > > Therefore, OF = ~EU > > Cerasi (via Sansweet) said: > AC = RS > AC = OF > > Logic requires that RS = OF. If A=B and A=C, then B=C. > > If RS = OF, and > IF OF = ~EU, > > Then RS = ~EU > > Or, in something closer to English phrasing (and still equivalent): > > EU /= RS > (The EU does not equal the Real Story of Star Wars.) > *************************************** > > Of course, you can get to the same point with the same ideas in a hundred > different ways, any of them being valid . . . or you can simply acknowledge > that the real universe is the only one of consequence, or that nothing > unreal exists in reality (for if it did, it would be real), and so on. > > That should be the end of the story, but it isn't. They're trying to claim > absurdities appearing nowhere in the policy such as EU = AC, RS = OF + EU, > EU /= PU, state insanities like "real /= only", insert hazy terms like > "Acceptable Fact" (that, mysteriously, need not equal Real Story), et > cetera. > > And all they have in support is a quote from the Specialty Marketing guy of > Lucas Licensing, in a LucasBooks publication. This, they believe, > overrides Lucas himself, and LucasFilm, his flagship. > > It's so hysterically absurd, it's almost sad. Frankly, I can't blame the rest of them for not giving you a civil answer. You're either dense as a brick or simply deluded. Even so, I suppose I should take a whack at this before I quit reading your posts. EU = PU More or less true, although quite a few people including myself are of the opinion that your concept of the value of PU is inaccurate, and in particular too literal, something like saying f(x) = sinx g(x) = 0 g(x) = f(x) Similar in some respects, but it isn't so literal as a straight line. Pardon the wierd symbolism and poor example. GL = ~PU I assume this is how you interpret the concept of PU intruding on GL. Odd way of saying it but we'll go with it. OF = ~EU Yes, yes, this is what 98% of anyone relevant to the conversation thinks. Perfectly logical. AC = RS AC = OF RS = OF No one is arguing with you on this. Honestly. I have yet to understand why you think anyone is saying otherwise. I wouldn't mind seeing whatever pieces of text led you to think the way you do. Now here is where the disagreement is. RS = ~EU This is the positon generally taken, myself included. As you have concluded, it logically follows from the previous statements. Naturally, the next statement is also technically true. RS /= EU However, because RS = ~EU, EU is useful for determining the limits and general path of RS. Thus, EU is admissable, but not equal to RS, *where RS is undefined*. In other words, let us assume arbitrarily that The Real Story of _Star Wars_ is equal to x, keeping in mind that we don't actually know the Real Story, but that it is an intangible thing which we have some data on. However, because GL is only defined at 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, and GL = RS, we only have data on RS for those points. Therefore RS = x, x = 1,2,4,5,6 That really isn't a lot of data, although it is enough to give a good look into the equation for RS. Although it looks here like RS = x, we have no way of knowing if the equation is more complicated than that but stays near RS = x, or even if there is a sharp turn downwards after x = 6 or somesuch thing, however unlikely that may be. Because we lack data, we turn to EU. Because RS = ~EU, if we combine RS and EU to get C, or (to take a term from Mike Wong) continuity, we will have a set of data not unlike RS. To be perfectly accurate, one must realise that we are not dealing with true functions here, it's more like a collection of points, some of which share the same domain. However, for the sake of clarity, I'm going to simplify the situation so that we have a single line segment which represents GL and three EU sources. {x, x = [0, 6] C = {8x/9+3/4, x = (6, 9] {-x^2, x = (-1, 0) {xsinx, x = (-6, -4] As you can see, what few definitions we have in C generally point to a path along RS = x, which we know as omnipotent observers to be the true path. In summary, the real story, only the films, and the absolute cannon are exactly the same thing, but we lack definitions of any of it outside of a small group of five points, simplified in the previous example as a line segment. Now consider that when GL altered the positions of the points at x = 4,5,6, they more closely matched regressions made with EU points in that area. This lends credence to the idea that although RS /= EU, because RS = ~EU the EU can be used to determine limits for RS where RS is undefined. ********** In conclusion, it all comes down to this part of your previous post. > That should be the end of the story, but it isn't. They're trying to claim > absurdities appearing nowhere in the policy such as EU = AC, RS = OF + EU, > EU /= PU, state insanities like "real /= only", insert hazy terms like > "Acceptable Fact" (that, mysteriously, need not equal Real Story), et > cetera. You have misunderstood the common position as being RS /= OF, and RS = OF + EU. You have yet to grasp the concept that RS is only equal to OF where OF is defined, elsewhere it is completely and utterly undefined. It is an absolute must that OF be defined at a point to determine RS at that point. However, we know that EU is similar to and dependent upon RS. Where OF is undefined, our only clue is the EU, and that is why the EU is "Acceptable Fact" where Real Story is undefined. Where we have consistent and useful data for determining the path of RS without being certain of RS itself, it is preposterous to ignore the EU data in favor of perfect clarity about five points and no clue about the rest of the domain. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 03:58:29 -0500 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "Alan Bolte" wrote in message news:3fa6e7c1.0210221813.25420318@posting.google.com... > Frankly, I can't blame the rest of them for not giving you a civil > answer. You're either dense as a brick or simply deluded. No, I'm neither dense nor deluded about this . . . I'm right, and I will never agree with the unsupported claims, hare-brained assertions, or ridiculous notions supported by those who are not. Though you've opened up with an attack, I do not think I have spoken to you before, and will therefore treat you courteously anyway. > EU = PU > More or less true, although quite a few people including myself are of > the opinion that your concept of the value of PU is inaccurate, and in > particular too literal Lucas refers to the EU as an "other world" from the movies, "outside my little universe", and as a "parallel universe". I have taken this to mean that the EU is an other world, a parallel universe outside his own. Arguments which have been fielded against that notion are either based on similarly "literal" assertions regarding the term parallel (which, alas, do not work, either based on the self-contradictory nature of the assertion, or a contradiction with Lucas's observed use), attempted use of the "override" principle by invoking the last half of the quote as a means of ignoring the first, or the illogical claim that a different universe must be the same in every respect, unless seen otherwise. > GL = ~PU > I assume this is how you interpret the concept of PU intruding on GL. > Odd way of saying it but we'll go with it. GL . . . "the movies" . . . are not the parallel universe he referred to. That is all GL = ~PU means. 'The movies' are 'not the parallel universe'. The attempt to invoke "intrude" to override "parallel universe" and "other world" is just silly. Lucas referred to the movies as his universe, and also referred to the movies as a select period of time. For something to intrude on a select period of time in the parallel universe does not make it part of another universe . . . merely as an event occurring in a select period of time. For example, let's say there are two games of chess. The first game is already occurring . . . it's moves are history . . . and all you know of it are moves 12-13, 20-21, and 32-33 . . . an original trilogy of moves. The only details you have are the knowledge of which pieces were moved, and from where to where. For the second game, you're a player, and you need only try to make sure that the same pieces are moved into the same spot during moves 12-13, 20-21, and 32-33 as they were in Game One. Your game starts and stays several moves behind Game One. You're recording this expanded game, and hoping to present a continuous and unified game insofar as that game does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of, the original game. Does that make it more clear? Your moves will intrude in between the historical moves, but that doesn't make your moves the historical moves, suddenly transport you into that game, or bear any relevance to that original game. It's a fun "what-if", but you can't claim to know how the other game happened from that one, even if the players of the first game happen to borrow a move from you. That simply makes it a move in their game. > OF = ~EU > Yes, yes, this is what 98% of anyone relevant to the conversation > thinks. Perfectly logical. > > AC = RS > AC = OF > RS = OF > No one is arguing with you on this. Honestly. I have yet to > understand why you think anyone is saying otherwise. I wouldn't mind > seeing whatever pieces of text led you to think the way you do. Try Burnett's claims of the real story not being the only story, Graeme or Strowbridge's claim that RS = OF + EU, et cetera. > Now here is where the disagreement is. > RS = ~EU > This is the positon generally taken, myself included. As you have > concluded, it logically follows from the previous statements. > Naturally, the next statement is also technically true. > RS /= EU > However, because RS = ~EU, EU is useful for determining the limits and > general path of RS. Thus, EU is admissable, but not equal to RS, > *where RS is undefined*. Your logic is curious. Before I begin to explore it, however, I should point out that your analysis is based on the assignment of particular values . . . hence the "where RS is undefined" . . . as opposed to the overall, general, global or meta- value (whichever term suits you). (Alternately, one might phrase it as an instance of descriptive versus normative.) The quotes from which the general value is based do not generally lend themselves to the distinction of particulars. At the moment, this is a subtle distinction, but could become more relevant depending on how far you take it. But, carrying on . . . If, globally, RS = ~EU (and RS /= EU), then the EU could not be used to determine or limit RS. At best, it could only suggest what RS *isn't*. Even if OF happened to present something similar to EU in regards to some *particular* something, then, globally speaking, EU has still not become RS, because EU = PU and not OF. Therefore, in the *particular* sense, EU = RS iff (i.e. if and only if) EU = OF. For particular values where OF is undefined, so to does RS remain undefined. Let's translate that to English. The Warsies argue that because the name Coruscant appeared first in the EU, and *then* the films, that the EU is somehow the real story or part of the real story. But this is absurd. Coruscant is the real name if and only if it appears in the films . . . it did, therefore it is. Vessels which look like the Outrider exist if and only if they appear in the films . . . one has, therefore one does. Dash Rendar's existence and captaincy of such a vessel exists if and only if he appear in the films in that capacity. He hasn't, therefore he and the ship do not. Sure, he exists in that capacity in the parallel universe, but that isn't the real story of Star Wars. > In other words, let us assume arbitrarily that The Real Story of _Star > Wars_ is equal to x, keeping in mind that we don't actually know the > Real Story, but that it is an intangible thing which we have some data > on. > However, because GL is only defined at 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, and GL = RS, > we only have data on RS for those points. Therefore > RS = x, x = 1,2,4,5,6 > That really isn't a lot of data, although it is enough to give a good > look into the equation for RS. Although it looks here like RS = x, we > have no way of knowing if the equation is more complicated than that > but stays near RS = x, or even if there is a sharp turn downwards > after x = 6 or somesuch thing, however unlikely that may be. RS must precisely equal X, not merely look like X or be more complicated but kinda similar. > Because we lack data, we turn to EU. Because RS = ~EU, if we combine > RS and EU to get C, or (to take a term from Mike Wong) continuity, we > will have a set of data not unlike RS. (I must point out that C (overall continuity inclusive of RS and EU) is a construct of Wong's which does not appear in the Canon Policy. The real C is an in-house affair, a characteristic of EU, or perhaps "RE" . . . the real story of the EU.) And where EU = RS, so does C. However, where RS is undefined (for instance, 3 . . . though this will change), EU can tell us nothing about RS, because RS /= EU, globally speaking. We must look to (i.e. wait for) RS to be defined at value 3 (or III for ease). For instance, if you wanted to graph the number of existent operational large-scale superlasers, you could mark your left-right axis as time, with particular tick marks representing the particular movies. The up-down axis would be the number of Death Stars. For the movies, the data points would be 1 at IV, and 1 at VI. For the EU . . . I'm not even sure, but there are going to be more, even during points IV and VI (if I remember my Death Star prototypes correctly). I sold my graphing calculator long ago, so I'll just accept that the thing you made for C resembled the thing you made for RS at the points for RS. > In summary, the real story, only the films, and the absolute cannon > are exactly the same thing, but we lack definitions of any of it > outside of a small group of five points, simplified in the previous > example as a line segment. Which, unfortunately, doesn't make the EU come any closer to RS at any point. > Now consider that when GL altered the positions of the points at x = > 4,5,6, they more closely matched regressions made with EU points in > that area. Er . . . that rather depends on what you're looking at, I would think. > In conclusion, it all comes down to this part of your previous post. > > That should be the end of the story, but it isn't. They're trying to claim > > absurdities appearing nowhere in the policy such as EU = AC, RS = OF + EU, > > EU /= PU, state insanities like "real /= only", insert hazy terms like > > "Acceptable Fact" (that, mysteriously, need not equal Real Story), et > > cetera. > > You have misunderstood the common position as being RS /= OF, and RS = > OF + EU. Uh, actually, someone said the last one. > You have yet to grasp the concept that RS is only equal to > OF where OF is defined, elsewhere it is completely and utterly > undefined. And where OF is undefined, we do not know RS. > It is an absolute must that OF be defined at a point to > determine RS at that point. However, we know that EU is similar to > and dependent upon RS. EU is dependent upon RS, but this relationship is not two-way. Explicitly, GL/OF/RS does not depend on the EU, and this is an important point that should not be missed. > Where OF is undefined, our only clue is the EU, But EU = PU . . . it can only give us clues about RE. To attempt to use EU to draw conclusions about RS where RS remains undefined by OF, you must make a proposition . . . if EU = RS and EU = X, then RS = X (or nearly so). But that proposition is a new creation, neither implied nor required by the Canon Policy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:08:18 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DB6C900.7050909@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "Alan Bolte" wrote: >>EU = PU >>More or less true, although quite a few people including myself are of >>the opinion that your concept of the value of PU is inaccurate, and in >>particular too literal > > Lucas refers to the EU as an "other world" from the movies, "outside my > little universe", and as a "parallel universe". He also says the eu, 'intrudes' on his universe. It's amazing how you always fail to mention that. > I have taken this to mean that the EU is an other world, a parallel universe > outside his own. Right, so you /interpreted/ George Lucas's statement (or more accurately, part of his statement) and you are using that interpretation to override everything else. We /interpret/ 'parallel' to mean, 'interdependent.' This agrees with the rest of the evidence. Guess who wins? C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 03:35:14 -0500 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DB6C900.7050909@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "Alan Bolte" wrote: > > >>EU = PU > >>More or less true, although quite a few people including myself are of > >>the opinion that your concept of the value of PU is inaccurate, and in > >>particular too literal > > > > Lucas refers to the EU as an "other world" from the movies, "outside my > > little universe", and as a "parallel universe". > > He also says the eu, 'intrudes' on his universe. It's amazing how you > always fail to mention that. I "fail" to mention it as often as you fail to comprehend that you can't use one half of a quote to override the other half. I have both parts in perfect harmony . . . you have to "get around" Lucas. > > I have taken this to mean that the EU is an other world, a parallel universe > > outside his own. > > Right, so you /interpreted/ George Lucas's statement (or more > accurately, part of his statement) and you are using that interpretation > to override everything else. No, I took the words and derived their meaning . . . which wasn't too damn hard, since their meaning is plain. It's you idiots who hoot and hollar about "intrude" and desperately try to use it to override other worlds, outside parallel universes, and so on. > > We /interpret/ 'parallel' to mean, 'interdependent.' This agrees with > the rest of the evidence. Except the fact that the Canon doesn't depend on the EU for shit. Damn, you're an ignorant fool. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:56:35 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DB825DD.7010201@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>DarkStar wrote: >>>"Alan Bolte" wrote: >>>>EU = PU >>>>More or less true, although quite a few people including myself are of >>>>the opinion that your concept of the value of PU is inaccurate, and in >>>>particular too literal >>> >>>Lucas refers to the EU as an "other world" from the movies, "outside my >>>little universe", and as a "parallel universe". >> >>He also says the eu, 'intrudes' on his universe. It's amazing how you >>always fail to mention that. > > I "fail" to mention it as often as you fail to comprehend that you can't use > one half of a quote to override the other half. I have both parts in > perfect harmony . . . you have to "get around" Lucas. That's what YOU are doing. Parallel can mean equal distance. Parallel can also mean interdependent, readily compared, analogous. Something that is equal distance can NOT intrude on each other. So it must mean interdependent, readily compared, analogous. >>>I have taken this to mean that the EU is an other world, a parallel >>>universe outside his own. >> >>Right, so you /interpreted/ George Lucas's statement (or more >>accurately, part of his statement) and you are using that interpretation >>to override everything else. > > No, I took the words and derived their meaning . . . which wasn't too damn > hard, since their meaning is plain. It's you idiots who hoot and hollar > about "intrude" and desperately try to use it to override other worlds, > outside parallel universes, and so on. That's what YOU are doing. Parallel can mean equal distance. Parallel can also mean interdependent, readily compared, analogous. Something that is equal distance can NOT intrude on each other. So it must mean interdependent, readily compared, analogous. >>We /interpret/ 'parallel' to mean, 'interdependent.' This agrees with >>the rest of the evidence. > > Except the fact that the Canon doesn't depend on the EU for shit. Damn, > you're an ignorant fool. Except we've proven Lucas does use the EU for canon material. He doesn't have to, but he does. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:17:14 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DB45300.80105@shaw.ca> -------- PuPPeTeer wrote: > Can you belive some of the replies I'm getting?! There's some really > scary shit going down!!! They'll never conceed. It would mean changing > the way they think and re-evaluating years of calculations and > conclusions. And as you know, fat and lazy hates change and effort! > > Or maybe some of them are as fucking STUPID as they seem to be and > actually believe in there argument, and if THATS the case > then......HAHAHAHAH!!!!!!! Yeah, cause we all know it's stupid to look at all the evidence as a whole. What we should do instead is look at each single quotes, or even parts of those quotes, and making assumptions based only on that. And then threat those assumptions as facts and use that to override everything else that doesn't agree with it. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 01:40:29 -0500 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DB45300.80105@shaw.ca... > Yeah, cause we all know it's stupid to look at all the evidence as a > whole. What we should do instead is look at each single quotes, or even > parts of those quotes, and making assumptions based only on that. And > then threat those assumptions as facts and use that to override > everything else that doesn't agree with it. At least you tell the truth sometimes . . . even if you're trying to be sarcastic when you do so. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:14:33 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DB64C08.1060806@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>Yeah, cause we all know it's stupid to look at all the evidence as a >>whole. What we should do instead is look at each single quotes, or even >>parts of those quotes, and making assumptions based only on that. And >>then threat those assumptions as facts and use that to override >>everything else that doesn't agree with it. > > At least you tell the truth sometimes . . . even if you're trying to be > sarcastic when you do so. You know, I'm almost tempted to assume you are an ASVS joker pretending to be Darkstar, cause the real Darkstar couldn't possibly that stupid. Could he? C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 23 Oct 2002 17:24:23 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <20021023132423.24168.00002997@mb-ms.aol.com> -------- >"C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message >news:3DB45300.80105@shaw.ca... > >> Yeah, cause we all know it's stupid to look at all the evidence as a >> whole. What we should do instead is look at each single quotes, or even >> parts of those quotes, and making assumptions based only on that. And >> then threat those assumptions as facts and use that to override >> everything else that doesn't agree with it. > >At least you tell the truth sometimes . . . even if you're trying to be >sarcastic when you do so. > ...... I thought, for a while, that you might actually think you weren't ignoring evidence. Or maybe you were just being dishonest. But if you actually think this, I am flabbergausted. I am awestruck. How, Robert, how can anyone be this amazingly stupid? Did you lie about graduating from High School to get your current tech support job? Or have you built your wall of ignorance so well that you just yelled at the poor interviewer, accused him of logical fallacies, and repeated until you got hired? Seriously, how can you think that is a viable position? If famous scientists used your thoughts, gravity would be still considered to use Newton's theory... Einstein had evidence that contradicted it, but it could be ignored! Or would gravity even get that far, since we had all the evidence we need for the ellipses, and we could still be the center of the universe! Really, you are painfully stupid. Your methods would retard science thousands of years. How can you think like that and consider yourself anything but a moron? -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 02:57:48 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DB76140.20208@shaw.ca> -------- Sir Nitram wrote: >>"C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>Yeah, cause we all know it's stupid to look at all the evidence as a >>>whole. What we should do instead is look at each single quotes, or even >>>parts of those quotes, and making assumptions based only on that. And >>>then threat those assumptions as facts and use that to override >>>everything else that doesn't agree with it. >> >>At least you tell the truth sometimes . . . even if you're trying to be >>sarcastic when you do so. > Really, you are painfully stupid. Your methods would retard science thousands > of years. How can you think like that and consider yourself anything but a > moron? I know. One of the basics of the Scientific Method is putting your theory in danger. Looking at the evidence and attempting to disprove your theory. Every time you make an honest attempt to do that and your theory survives strengthens it. Darkstar is afraid to make that honest effort. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 03:43:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DB76140.20208@shaw.ca... > Sir Nitram wrote: > >>"C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>Yeah, cause we all know it's stupid to look at all the evidence as a > >>>whole. What we should do instead is look at each single quotes, or even > >>>parts of those quotes, and making assumptions based only on that. And > >>>then threat those assumptions as facts and use that to override > >>>everything else that doesn't agree with it. > >> > >>At least you tell the truth sometimes . . . even if you're trying to be > >>sarcastic when you do so. > > > > > Really, you are painfully stupid. Your methods would retard science thousands > > of years. How can you think like that and consider yourself anything but a > > moron? > > I know. One of the basics of the Scientific Method is putting your > theory in danger. Looking at the evidence and attempting to disprove > your theory. Every time you make an honest attempt to do that and your > theory survives strengthens it. Darkstar is afraid to make that honest > effort. Well, there's a damned lie. The predictions held . . . even while the theory was being placed down the throats of those who would be most opposed to it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:00:42 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DB826D5.8080602@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>I know. One of the basics of the Scientific Method is putting your >>theory in danger. Looking at the evidence and attempting to disprove >>your theory. Every time you make an honest attempt to do that and your >>theory survives strengthens it. Darkstar is afraid to make that honest >>effort. > > Well, there's a damned lie. The predictions held That's cause you judge everything based on your assumption your interpretation is correct. That's the fucking definition of Unfalsifiability. Your theory can't be proven false cause any evidence that does prove it's false is itself regarded as false. You see that and think, 'Wow. My theory is perfect.' A real scientists, or anyone with critical thinking skills, see that and thinks, 'Whoops, he's violated a critical criteria for creating valid theories. Back to the drawing board.' C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:57:46 -0500 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DB826D5.8080602@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>I know. One of the basics of the Scientific Method is putting your > >>theory in danger. Looking at the evidence and attempting to disprove > >>your theory. Every time you make an honest attempt to do that and your > >>theory survives strengthens it. Darkstar is afraid to make that honest > >>effort. > > > > Well, there's a damned lie. The predictions held > > That's cause you judge everything based on your assumption your > interpretation is correct. No, that's 'cause I observed facts you and yours would prefer to completely ignore, such as the DS2 ring offset, the planar effects with the ship-killer shots, and so on. > That's the fucking definition of Unfalsifiability. Nonsense! > Your theory can't be proven false cause any evidence > that does prove it's false is itself regarded as false. What evidence do you think proves it false? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:09:47 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DB84517.6070902@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>I know. One of the basics of the Scientific Method is putting your >>>>theory in danger. Looking at the evidence and attempting to disprove >>>>your theory. Every time you make an honest attempt to do that and your >>>>theory survives strengthens it. Darkstar is afraid to make that honest >>>>effort. >>> >>>Well, there's a damned lie. The predictions held >> >>That's cause you judge everything based on your assumption your >>interpretation is correct. > > No, that's 'cause I observed facts you and yours would prefer to completely > ignore, such as the DS2 ring offset, the planar effects with the ship-killer > shots, and so on. I'm talking about your SW Canon theory. As for you SLE Theory, no predictions could have been made, cause you never defined you theory. >>That's the fucking definition of Unfalsifiability. > > Nonsense! Look it up if you don't believe me. >>Your theory can't be proven false cause any evidence >>that does prove it's false is itself regarded as false. > > What evidence do you think proves it false? SW Canon theory: Alternate interpretations, context, detailed explanation from an inside man. SLE: THERE'S NO FUCKING THEORY! C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:20:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DB84517.6070902@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>I know. One of the basics of the Scientific Method is putting your > >>>>theory in danger. Looking at the evidence and attempting to disprove > >>>>your theory. Every time you make an honest attempt to do that and your > >>>>theory survives strengthens it. Darkstar is afraid to make that honest > >>>>effort. > >>> > >>>Well, there's a damned lie. The predictions held > >> > >>That's cause you judge everything based on your assumption your > >>interpretation is correct. > > > > No, that's 'cause I observed facts you and yours would prefer to completely > > ignore, such as the DS2 ring offset, the planar effects with the ship-killer > > shots, and so on. > > I'm talking about your SW Canon theory. In which case you're even more incorrect, because I started with the man himself. His words get the greatest weight. Next comes LFL reps in charge of such things . . . in this case, Sansweet, in his current position. He chose to quote Cerasi, so Cerasi's words get that weight. Further beyond, there are the opinions of those in LB and LL. They get less weight, especially where they contradict Lucas and LFL-Sansweet. > As for you SLE Theory, no predictions could have been made, cause you > never defined you theory. A blatant lie on your part. > >>That's the fucking definition of Unfalsifiability. > > > > Nonsense! > > Look it up if you don't believe me. Unlike you, I knew what unfalsifiability was to begin with. In regards to the Canon Policy (which is a matter of definition, not scientific theory), you have the following avenues to attempt falsification: 1. Prove Lucas and LFL are not in control of the Canon Policy. (Warsies have avoided this, at least explicitly . . . with the exception of Wong declaring Lucas wrong about the originals vs. the Special Editions.) 2. Attack the basis of the claim by attacking the quotes themselves, the analysis of the words, or the concept that words have meaning. (All three have been attempted by Warsies. The Lucas quotes have been attacked as off-the-cuff remarks, the meanings of words and terms have been assaulted and molested, and so on.) 3. Prove the weight I assign to the words of Lucas and LFL is improper. (Warsies have attempted this in several forms, most notably claiming that Lucas was ambiguous compared to LL-Sansweet, which doesn't hold in the first place, and doesn't hold when one looks up "quasi-".) 3a. Manufacture a weighting scale that places the highest weight on the comments of lesser individuals . . . book authors, certain *specific* LB/LL personnel (at certain times), etc. (This usually appears as a complement to the #2 argument, though it is not explicitly defined.) Etc. > >>Your theory can't be proven false cause any evidence > >>that does prove it's false is itself regarded as false. > > > > What evidence do you think proves it false? > > SW Canon theory: Alternate interpretations, No proof there. > context, What context proves it false? > detailed explanation from an inside man. Lucas? LFL-Sansweet? Cerasi? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:32:17 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DB98DD8.5080705@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>No, that's 'cause I observed facts you and yours would prefer to >>>completely ignore, such as the DS2 ring offset, the planar effects with the >>>ship-killer shots, and so on. >> >>I'm talking about your SW Canon theory. > > In which case you're even more incorrect, because I started with the man > himself. His words get the greatest weight. And you misinterpreted his words. cause something can't be mathematically parallel and still intrude on each other. And George Lucas himself said, 'intrude.' They could still be parallel as in _easily comparable_, that would support our side perfectly. > Next comes LFL reps in > charge of such things . . . in this case, Sansweet, in his current position. > He chose to quote Cerasi, so Cerasi's words get that weight. And Cerasi set up the hierarchy. Films, novelizations, EU, interactive. > urther > beyond, there are the opinions of those in LB and LL. They get less weight, > especially where they contradict Lucas and LFL-Sansweet. Which they don't. They contradict your interpretation of Lucas, et al. >>As for you SLE Theory, no predictions could have been made, cause you >>never defined you theory. > > A blatant lie on your part. Proof it. Proof you've explained your theory for all to see. >>>>That's the fucking definition of Unfalsifiability. >> >>>Nonsense! >> >>Look it up if you don't believe me. > > Unlike you, I knew what unfalsifiability was to begin with. So did I. It's a basic tenant of the Scientific Method. > In regards to > the Canon Policy (which is a matter of definition, not scientific theory), > you have the following avenues to attempt falsification: We're talking about alternate definitions, and nothing else. > 2. Attack the basis of the claim by attacking the quotes themselves, the > analysis of the words, or the concept that words have meaning. > (All three have been attempted by Warsies. The Lucas quotes have been > attacked as off-the-cuff remarks, the meanings of words and terms have been > assaulted and molested, and so on.) This is a perfect example. Your definition is the only definition that is example. Even though others have given alternate definition that include all the evidence. >>>>Your theory can't be proven false cause any evidence >>>>that does prove it's false is itself regarded as false. >>> >>>What evidence do you think proves it false? >> >>SW Canon theory: Alternate interpretations, > > No proof there. The fact that you claim Lucas overrides qualified individuals is proof enough that alternate interpretations should exist. How could so many people be running around thinking there's a hierarchy when George Lucas said so clearly there isn't? Oh wait, HE NEVER DID! We've given the alternate interpretations (Parallel = Interdependent, Readily Comparable, Analogous; Real = Important as opposed to Secondary) and we've shown why it's a better interpretation (No direct quotes from qualified individuals have to be overruled.) We even directly ask a SW author who was told about SW Acceptable Source Policy by the very people who enforce it. And he agreed with us. >>context, > > What context proves it false? With Lucas it's the whole sentence, not just focusing on the word, 'Parallel.' "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) So Parallel can't mean equal distance at all times cause the 'licensing world' intrudes into his world. Not just the dozen or so times we've pointed out facts created for the EU being used in canon, but in between the movies. Which makes sense when you look at Saxton's quote (from theforce.net not a private e-mail, so I can quote it here.) "Q. Were there any other gaps you had to fill in from the script? A. I wouldn't call them gaps. I'd rather say we had the privilege of defining the back-story for almost everything in the book." So books not only intrudes between the movies, but some books (like Curtis Saxton's) intrude between the gaps of a single movie. >>detailed explanation from an inside man. > > Lucas? LFL-Sansweet? Cerasi? Saxton. Whom you dismissed without cause. Ok, you thought you had a nitpick (he said he worked for the wrong company) but you never substantiated that with a quote from the interview, nor did you explain why it meant he was unqualified. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:27:19 -0700 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote > "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) > > So Parallel can't mean equal distance at all times cause the 'licensing > world' intrudes into his world. Not just the dozen or so times we've > pointed out facts created for the EU being used in canon, but in between > the movies. Which makes sense when you look at Saxton's quote (from > theforce.net not a private e-mail, so I can quote it here.) > > "Q. Were there any other gaps you had to fill in from the script? > > A. I wouldn't call them gaps. I'd rather say we had the privilege of > defining the back-story for almost everything in the book." Lucas is a bit loose with that statement: "I don't get too involved in the parallel universe". He approves storylines and gives the go ahead (or not) on many story elements. According to Timothy Zahn, (www.theforce.net interview) Lucas nixed the idea of a mad clone of Kenobi, so he created Joruus C'Baoth. The Noghri were orininally to be the "Sith", but Lucas said no to that idea too. In Dr. Saxton's interview, he points out that Lucas named Rothana, for the AOTC: ICS. Also, every word Curtis wrote in the interview had to be approved by Lucy Wilson before TFN could post anything. -- " Eat my shit! I like making fun of you, and I'm going to keep doing it as long as I derive pleasure from it" ------- Kynes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 02:29:51 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DB9FDCB.102@shaw.ca> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > In Dr. Saxton's interview, he points out that Lucas named Rothana, for the > AOTC: ICS. Also, every word Curtis wrote in the interview had to be approved > by Lucy Wilson before TFN could post anything. That's the same reason I can't post my 'interview' with Saxton. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:42:40 -0500 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DB98DD8.5080705@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>No, that's 'cause I observed facts you and yours would prefer to > >>>completely ignore, such as the DS2 ring offset, the planar effects with the > >>>ship-killer shots, and so on. > >> > >>I'm talking about your SW Canon theory. > > > > In which case you're even more incorrect, because I started with the man > > himself. His words get the greatest weight. > > And you misinterpreted his words. cause something can't be > mathematically parallel and still intrude on each other. Nor did he suggest that was the case. Remember, they don't intrude on his world, which is a select period of time . . . and his world is also the films, not the parallel licensing universe, as he'd previously stated. Temporal intrusion . . . not universal. > > Next comes LFL reps in > > charge of such things . . . in this case, Sansweet, in his current position. > > He chose to quote Cerasi, so Cerasi's words get that weight. > > And Cerasi set up the hierarchy. Films, novelizations, EU, interactive. Oh boy . . . from where the hell in your ass do you get that? > This is a perfect example. Your definition is the only definition that > is example. Even though others have given alternate definition that > include all the evidence. What? > We've given the alternate interpretations (Parallel = Interdependent, > Readily Comparable, Analogous; Real = Important as opposed to Secondary) > and we've shown why it's a better interpretation (No direct quotes from > qualified individuals have to be overruled.) You've shown why you want it to be a better interpretation . . . not why it is. You think you can split "parallel" from "parallel universe", redefine it, and throw it back in to modify the term. You think you can blatantly misunderstand "real story of Star Wars" to suit your own requirements. And finally, you think that this is a better way to do things, simply to maintain the validity of a low-weight quote by some LL marketing guy. Do you not understand the problem? You are, in effect (not to mention explicitly, but you're arguing it differently at the moment so I'll modify accordingly), placing the marketing guy at the top . . . you are considering him the uncontradictable man. Sorry, pal . . . that's Lucas. Only he can be the uncontradictable man at the top. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:17:25 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DBB223B.1060106@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>>No, that's 'cause I observed facts you and yours would prefer to >>>>>completely ignore, such as the DS2 ring offset, the planar effects with >>>>>the ship-killer shots, and so on. >>>> >>>>I'm talking about your SW Canon theory. >>> >>>In which case you're even more incorrect, because I started with the man >>>himself. His words get the greatest weight. >> >>And you misinterpreted his words. cause something can't be >>mathematically parallel and still intrude on each other. > > Nor did he suggest that was the case. Remember, they don't intrude on his > world, which is a select period of time . . . and his world is also the > films, not the parallel licensing universe, as he'd previously stated. > Temporal intrusion . . . not universal. So, according to your theory, Star Wars ceases to exists at the end of each movie, and doesn't start again till the beginning of the next movie. It's not a continuing universe but a series of mini-universes. Our theory is that the films and licensing universes are analogous. What happens in one also happens in the other. The main differences between the two are as follows: 1.) The films are the primary source of information. If it happened in the films it happened exactly how we see it. If it happened in the Licensing World it could be contradicted by canon and simply be overruled. 2.) The flow of information is unequal. When an event happens it canon is _must_ happen in the Licensing World (with the exceptions noted by Cerasi.) However, if an event takes place in the Licensing World it might not happen in the Film World if George Lucas decided to contradict it. NOTE: George Lucas has set limitation on what the Licensing World can create, as to limit the number of Canon / EU contradictions. >>> Next comes LFL reps in >>>charge of such things . . . in this case, Sansweet, in his current >>>position. > >>>He chose to quote Cerasi, so Cerasi's words get that weight. >> >>And Cerasi set up the hierarchy. Films, novelizations, EU, interactive. > > Oh boy . . . from where the hell in your ass do you get that? I read it in the quote. You read the first paragraph and a half and judged the rest of the quote based on your interpretation of the first part. What you should have done is judge the quote as a whole. >>This is a perfect example. Your definition is the only definition that >>is example. Even though others have given alternate definition that >>include all the evidence. > > What? Oops. Not paying attention to my spellchecker. "This is a perfect example. Your definition is the only definition that is acceptable. Even though others have given alternate definition that include all the evidence." >>We've given the alternate interpretations (Parallel = Interdependent, >>Readily Comparable, Analogous; Real = Important as opposed to Secondary) >>and we've shown why it's a better interpretation (No direct quotes from >>qualified individuals have to be overruled.) > > You've shown why you want it to be a better interpretation . . . not why it > is. Bullshit. Our definition fits ALL the evidence. It doesn't cause any evidence to be overridden. > You think you can split "parallel" from "parallel universe", redefine > it, and throw it back in to modify the term. We are using the normal definition of Parallel universe. Have you ever read anything involving parallel universes? Parallel Universes are analogous universes. Readily comparable. Not so different that no two events are the same. You are thinking of 'Alternate Universe.' > You think you can blatantly > misunderstand "real story of Star Wars" to suit your own requirements. Did you bother to read the definition of, 'real,' I showed you? Oh that's right. You decided that since it wasn't the first definition on the list it couldn't be the right one. Guess what, you retard monkey spanker? There's a reason there's more than one definition in the dictionary. Words can mean more than one thing. > Sorry, pal . . . that's Lucas. Only he can be the uncontradictable man at > the top. There are no fucking contradictions in our theory. NONE! And our theory is the only one confirmed by an inside man. Suck on that. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:07:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DBB223B.1060106@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>>No, that's 'cause I observed facts you and yours would prefer to > >>>>>completely ignore, such as the DS2 ring offset, the planar effects with > >>>>>the ship-killer shots, and so on. > >>>> > >>>>I'm talking about your SW Canon theory. > >>> > >>>In which case you're even more incorrect, because I started with the man > >>>himself. His words get the greatest weight. > >> > >>And you misinterpreted his words. cause something can't be > >>mathematically parallel and still intrude on each other. > > > > Nor did he suggest that was the case. Remember, they don't intrude on his > > world, which is a select period of time . . . and his world is also the > > films, not the parallel licensing universe, as he'd previously stated. > > Temporal intrusion . . . not universal. > > So, according to your theory, Star Wars ceases to exists at the end of > each movie, and doesn't start again till the beginning of the next > movie. It's not a continuing universe but a series of mini-universes. Nope. That is an absurd straw man. George Lucas's canon universe continues . . . the fact that we get to see time-slices of it does not make it more than one universe. > >>And Cerasi set up the hierarchy. Films, novelizations, EU, interactive. > > > > Oh boy . . . from where the hell in your ass do you get that? > > I read it in the quote. There is no mention or suggesting of heirarchy in the Cerasi quote, and especially not in a manner which you could possibly find helpful. > >>This is a perfect example. Your definition is the only definition that > >>is example. Even though others have given alternate definition that > >>include all the evidence. > > > > What? > > Oops. Not paying attention to my spellchecker. > > "This is a perfect example. Your definition is the only definition that > is acceptable. Even though others have given alternate definition that > include all the evidence." Those alternate definitions require the abandonment and/or rewriting of evidence . . . it is a failure of the method employed. That is why the definition ends up being counterfactual. > > You think you can split "parallel" from "parallel universe", redefine > > it, and throw it back in to modify the term. > > We are using the normal definition of Parallel universe. Have you ever > read anything involving parallel universes? Plenty. And there's nothing about "interdependence" there. > You are thinking of 'Alternate Universe.' No, you're thinking of "alternate history" stories, wherein everything is presumed to be the same except for one event, and its requisite effects. > > > You think you can blatantly > > misunderstand "real story of Star Wars" to suit your own requirements. > > Did you bother to read the definition of, 'real,' I showed you? Yes, I did, and noted that your narrow choice not only did not reflect the other definitions, but also did not suit the context. > > Sorry, pal . . . that's Lucas. Only he can be the uncontradictable man at > > the top. > > There are no fucking contradictions in our theory. NONE! You contradict Lucas, Sansweet, and Cerasi. You cannot claim that because you are able to massage and modify their quotes to suit the SWE theory, that there is no contradiction. > And our theory is the only one confirmed by an inside man. Ah, yes, your book author's concept . . . whereas mine is the only one confirmed by Sansweet of LFL fan relations in public statements. Funny, that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 01:50:18 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DBB4611.9040902@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>>>>No, that's 'cause I observed facts you and yours would prefer to >>>>>>>completely ignore, such as the DS2 ring offset, the planar effects >>>>>>>with the ship-killer shots, and so on. >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm talking about your SW Canon theory. >>>>> >>>>>In which case you're even more incorrect, because I started with the >>>>>man himself. His words get the greatest weight. >>>> >>>>And you misinterpreted his words. cause something can't be >>>>mathematically parallel and still intrude on each other. >>> >>>Nor did he suggest that was the case. Remember, they don't intrude on >>>his world, which is a select period of time . . . and his world is also the >>>films, not the parallel licensing universe, as he'd previously stated. >>>Temporal intrusion . . . not universal. >> >>So, according to your theory, Star Wars ceases to exists at the end of >>each movie, and doesn't start again till the beginning of the next >>movie. It's not a continuing universe but a series of mini-universes. > > Nope. That is an absurd straw man. George Lucas's canon universe continues > . . . the fact that we get to see time-slices of it does not make it more > than one universe. So they intrude within George Lucas's Film Universe. That means when George Lucas said 'Parallel Universe' he couldn't have meant what you meant. Our theory is that the films and licensing universes are analogous. What happens in one also happens in the other. The main differences between the two are as follows: 1.) The films are the primary source of information. If it happened in the films it happened exactly how we see it. If it happened in the Licensing World it could be contradicted by canon and simply be overruled. 2.) The flow of information is unequal. When an event happens it canon is _must_ happen in the Licensing World (with the exceptions noted by Cerasi.) However, if an event takes place in the Licensing World it might not happen in the Film World if George Lucas decided to contradict it. NOTE: George Lucas has set limitation on what the Licensing World can create, as to limit the number of Canon / EU contradictions. >>>>And Cerasi set up the hierarchy. Films, novelizations, EU, interactive. >>> >>>Oh boy . . . from where the hell in your ass do you get that? >> >>I read it in the quote. > > There is no mention or suggesting of heirarchy in the Cerasi quote, and > especially not in a manner which you could possibly find helpful. Have you read the whole quote? 1.) He says only the movies are absolute canon. (Could this mean other sources are also canon, just not absolute canon? Hmmm.) 2.) He says the novelizations, 'very accurate depictions.' He continues stating that some parts of the movie are changed after the book is written. 3.) Next comes the books, which tend to differ amongst each other. Therefore, to determine what the facts are you might have to, 'interpret,' the evidence. 4.) Next down the line are the interactive portion of the Licensing World. These have changed facts to help with game play and balancing issues. He then stated that the games were part of the SW Continuity. And remember what the actual question was, "I'm really confused about canon. Is Star Wars Gamer canon? What about the Marvel series? Are they now considered "Infinities?" Cerasi wasn't asked about the mythical EU Internal Continuity, he was asked about _CANON_. He then mentions the exception that proves the rule: Infinities. >> >>This is a perfect example. Your definition is the only definition that >> >>is example. Even though others have given alternate definition that >> >>include all the evidence. >> >>>What? >> >>Oops. Not paying attention to my spellchecker. >> >>"This is a perfect example. Your definition is the only definition that >>is acceptable. Even though others have given alternate definition that >>include all the evidence." > > Those alternate definitions require the abandonment and/or rewriting of > evidence They ignore your interpretation of the evidence. You interpretation is not evidence in itself. Your interpretation means shit, cause you are very, very stupid. Am I going to fast for you? Do you need that last part explained to you again? Ok, I'll try a simpler approach. George Lucas, Cerasi, Sanweet and about a million other people have all made several billion statements about what can and can not be used to judge Star Wars. You looked at George Lucas's statement, interpreted it one way and declared that interpretation to be absolute fact. All other interpretations must be wrong. At this point I tell you, 'You have abandoned Critical Thinking skills. Please try again.' We looked at all the information as a whole. Sifted through possible meanings, subtle differences and tried to come up with a comprehensive Star Wars Fact Policy. When we had what we thought was the Star Wars Fact Policy, we contacted someone on the inside who could confirm or correct us. And confirm it they did. So, on the one hand, you have you interpretation of the evidence. An interpretation that you want to treat as fact. And on the other hand, we have direct confirmation from a reliable inside source. I know which side you think is better. And I also know how much your opinion means. >>>You think you can split "parallel" from "parallel universe", redefine >>>it, and throw it back in to modify the term. >> >>We are using the normal definition of Parallel universe. Have you ever >>read anything involving parallel universes? > > Plenty. And there's nothing about "interdependence" there. How about, 'analogous?' Is that a better term? Readily comparable? Similar in development and key features? >>You are thinking of 'Alternate Universe.' > > No, you're thinking of "alternate history" stories, wherein everything is > presumed to be the same except for one event, and its requisite effects. Alternate History is a subset of Parallel Universes. Universes where only a few things are the same would not be called Parallel Universes. >>>You think you can blatantly >>>misunderstand "real story of Star Wars" to suit your own requirements. >> >>Did you bother to read the definition of, 'real,' I showed you? > > Yes, I did, and noted that your narrow choice not only did not reflect the > other definitions, but also did not suit the context. Bullshit, it didn't suit your preferred interpretation but it fits the facts, all of them. >>>Sorry, pal . . . that's Lucas. Only he can be the uncontradictable man >>>at the top. >> >>There are no fucking contradictions in our theory. NONE! > > You contradict Lucas, Sansweet, and Cerasi. No, we contradict your interpretation of Lucas, Sansweet and Cerasi. >>And our theory is the only one confirmed by an inside man. > > Ah, yes, your book author's concept . . . whereas mine is the only one > confirmed by Sansweet of LFL fan relations in public statements. Funny, > that. You mean you interpretation of the evidence supports your preferred conclusion? Say it ain't so! Direct quote on a direct question from a qualified source trumps your interpretation of _anything_. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 13:58:26 -0600 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DBB4611.9040902@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>>>>No, that's 'cause I observed facts you and yours would prefer to > >>>>>>>completely ignore, such as the DS2 ring offset, the planar effects > >>>>>>>with the ship-killer shots, and so on. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I'm talking about your SW Canon theory. > >>>>> > >>>>>In which case you're even more incorrect, because I started with the > >>>>>man himself. His words get the greatest weight. > >>>> > >>>>And you misinterpreted his words. cause something can't be > >>>>mathematically parallel and still intrude on each other. > >>> > >>>Nor did he suggest that was the case. Remember, they don't intrude on > >>>his world, which is a select period of time . . . and his world is also the > >>>films, not the parallel licensing universe, as he'd previously stated. > >>>Temporal intrusion . . . not universal. > >> > >>So, according to your theory, Star Wars ceases to exists at the end of > >>each movie, and doesn't start again till the beginning of the next > >>movie. It's not a continuing universe but a series of mini-universes. > > > > Nope. That is an absurd straw man. George Lucas's canon universe continues > > . . . the fact that we get to see time-slices of it does not make it more > > than one universe. > > So they intrude within George Lucas's Film Universe. No, they intrude within his select periods of time, as he said. Imagine two parallel lines, representing the parallel universes. | | Now, imagine a time period boundary which exists in both (they are, after all, parallel universes), as a perpendicular line across them. - | - | - And now, a temporal intrusion occurs . . . is this best represented by a line perpendicular to the vertical universe line, or is it best represented by a vertical line? You think it is the former. I still do not see why you think this way. > >>>>And Cerasi set up the hierarchy. Films, novelizations, EU, interactive. > >>> > >>>Oh boy . . . from where the hell in your ass do you get that? > >> > >>I read it in the quote. > > > > There is no mention or suggesting of heirarchy in the Cerasi quote, and > > especially not in a manner which you could possibly find helpful. > > Have you read the whole quote? Gee, no. (rolls eyes) What's amusing is that you take the order in which he addresses subject matter and conclude that there's a heirarchy. > He then stated that the games were part of the SW Continuity. Where SW Continuity is the in-house LB/LL affair. > And > remember what the actual question was, "I'm really confused about canon. > Is Star Wars Gamer canon? What about the Marvel series? Are they now > considered "Infinities?" Cerasi wasn't asked about the mythical EU > Internal Continuity, he was asked about _CANON_. Which required, if you would look at that question, that he explain the canon and the EU Continuity. > >>"This is a perfect example. Your definition is the only definition that > >>is acceptable. Even though others have given alternate definition that > >>include all the evidence." > > > > Those alternate definitions require the abandonment and/or rewriting of > > evidence > > They ignore your interpretation of the evidence. No, they require that the very words be ignored. > George Lucas, Cerasi, Sanweet and about a million other people have all > made several billion statements about what can and can not be used to > judge Star Wars. You looked at George Lucas's statement, interpreted it > one way and declared that interpretation to be absolute fact. I 'interpreted' it the only way it can and should be interpreted . . . by using logic, reason, and his own statements, all of which point to the interpretation's validity. > We looked at all the information as a whole. Sifted through possible > meanings, Bingo. That's why you fail. > When we had what we thought was the Star Wars > Fact Policy, we contacted someone on the inside who could confirm or > correct us. And who is this magical person you keep invoking? Saxton? How is it that he overrules Lucas, Sansweet, Cerasi, et al.? > >>>You think you can split "parallel" from "parallel universe", redefine > >>>it, and throw it back in to modify the term. > >> > >>We are using the normal definition of Parallel universe. Have you ever > >>read anything involving parallel universes? > > > > Plenty. And there's nothing about "interdependence" there. > > How about, 'analogous?' Is that a better term? Not too bad. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=analogous > Similar in development and key features? There's where you try to leap. > >>You are thinking of 'Alternate Universe.' > > > > No, you're thinking of "alternate history" stories, wherein everything is > > presumed to be the same except for one event, and its requisite effects. > > Alternate History is a subset of Parallel Universes. Universes where > only a few things are the same would not be called Parallel Universes. Funny, that. The story from which Lucas's Howard the Duck was drawn referred to a parallel universe where ducks evolved instead of humans. Here are various other definitions and opinions on what "parallel universe" means. http://www.sfsite.com/columns/amy26.htm "PARALLEL/ALTERNATE UNIVERSE SF: The idea behind parallel/alternate universe SF is that for every decision made or event that occurs, there is another place where the decision or the event went differently. For example, Robert Harris's Fatherland, in which Hitler was victorious, could be considered alternate universe sf. Steven Gould's Wildside presents a contemporary parallel in which high school seniors pass through a portal to a primeval Earth never inhabited by humans. Another type of alternate/parallel universe sf is that written by hard SF writers, usually physicists like John Cramer whose novels Twistor and Einstein's Bridge are good examples. " http://timeliketoons.tripod.com/sideways_text/sideways_talk.htm "For years, I've had a strong fascination with the concept of parallel universes. Why? Because parallel universes represent UNLIMITED FREEDOM OF CHOICE! Living in a single universe offers comparatively few choices (if any). Having the option of visting parallel universes, or at least writing about the concept, does provide one with a titantic level of free choice." http://ljconstantine.com/column12.htm "Parallel Universes are different simultaneous dimensions. For example, rather than diverging at a single point before or during series canon, a parallel universe timeline is separate from the source universe, rather than diverging from the source universe's timeline. Think Sliders or the Star Trek mirror universe. Parallel universes co-exist and are equally valid, whereas alternate universes are self-annuling and "overwrite" the source universe. Also, alternate universes will tend to focuses on the differences brought about by an individual, whereas parallel universes involve more "global" changes such as a world in which World War I was won by the Germans, or vampires have overrun the planet." http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/hal/219/slidtech.htm#universe "What is a parallel universe? A parallel universe is another universe that is a copy of our own. It has stars and solar systems and galaxies. Some have planets that are exact copies of our Earth. On some of them, people exist. These are parallel worlds. There are a near-infinite number of parallel worlds. Everyone has copies of themselves on at least some of them. Every time a set of conflicting events arise, parallel universes are created reflecting each possible outcome. For instance, you're driving along, and decide to turn a corner. In one universe, you go left. In the other, you go right. These minor and major changes cause alternate realities to differ from our own. Any world you can imagine might exist in a parallel universe. A world where America is a communist nation. A world where women are in control instead of men. A world where the dinosaurs never died off. These are the worlds of Sliders." http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:R3dbxN4o1LcC:mac.buf.kristianstad.se/De geberga/Elevarbeten/SF/eng/time.html+%22parallel+universe%22+genre+%22altern ate+universe%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 http://www.steampunk.com/sfch/bibliographies/alternate-histories/part1.html http://www.b5-dark-mirror.demon.co.uk/ http://www.strangehorizons.com/2000/20000911/Article_Hambly_Pellegrino.shtml http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/generalfiction/0,6121,635732,00.html http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/generalfiction/0,6121,713864,00.html http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue237/screen.html http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2000/060100/film2.html > >>>You think you can blatantly > >>>misunderstand "real story of Star Wars" to suit your own requirements. > >> > >>Did you bother to read the definition of, 'real,' I showed you? > > > > Yes, I did, and noted that your narrow choice not only did not reflect the > > other definitions, but also did not suit the context. > > Bullshit, it didn't suit your preferred interpretation but it fits the > facts, all of them. How does "real" as 'primary or most important' jive with the novels being mere depictions? > >>And our theory is the only one confirmed by an inside man. > > > > Ah, yes, your book author's concept . . . whereas mine is the only one > > confirmed by Sansweet of LFL fan relations in public statements. Funny, > > that. > > You mean you interpretation of the evidence supports your preferred > conclusion? Say it ain't so! WTF? No, I mean that my "preferred conclusion" is supported by Sansweet in public statements. > Direct quote on a direct question from a qualified source trumps your > interpretation of _anything_. And direct quotes from Lucas, Sansweet, and Cerasi trump your effort to use LL marketing statements as primary fact. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 21:24:54 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DBC5967.7050100@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>So, according to your theory, Star Wars ceases to exists at the end of >>>>each movie, and doesn't start again till the beginning of the next >>>>movie. It's not a continuing universe but a series of mini-universes. >>> >>>Nope. That is an absurd straw man. George Lucas's canon universe >>>continues . . . the fact that we get to see time-slices of it does not make it >>>more than one universe. >> >>So they intrude within George Lucas's Film Universe. > > No, they intrude within his select periods of time, as he said. > > Imagine two parallel lines, representing the parallel universes. Parallel Universes have nothing to do with Parallel lines. They have to do with parallel development. This is what you don't understand. You've created a faulty analogy and are convinced it's a 100% correct despite the evidence to the contrary. > I still do not see why you think this way. That's cause you are retarded. >>>>>>And Cerasi set up the hierarchy. Films, novelizations, EU, >>>>>>interactive. > >>>>>Oh boy . . . from where the hell in your ass do you get that? >>>> >>>>I read it in the quote. >>> >>>There is no mention or suggesting of heirarchy in the Cerasi quote, and >>>especially not in a manner which you could possibly find helpful. >> >>Have you read the whole quote? > > Gee, no. (rolls eyes) I have my doubts. > What's amusing is that you take the order in which he addresses subject > matter and conclude that there's a heirarchy. Cause he describes them as being less and less accurate. Here's 100% accurate, this is very accurate, these involves some variations, here facts were changed for game play and balance. A hierarchy. I explained this in my last message and you just snipped it. >>He then stated that the games were part of the SW Continuity. > > Where SW Continuity is the in-house LB/LL affair. Proof? >>And >>remember what the actual question was, "I'm really confused about canon. >>Is Star Wars Gamer canon? What about the Marvel series? Are they now >>considered "Infinities?" Cerasi wasn't asked about the mythical EU >>Internal Continuity, he was asked about _CANON_. > > Which required, if you would look at that question, that he explain the > canon and the EU Continuity. Where was the EU Continuity mentioned in the question? Answer, it fucking wasn't! That's just your messed up interpretation of what was said. >>>>"This is a perfect example. Your definition is the only definition that >>>>is acceptable. Even though others have given alternate definition that >>>>include all the evidence." >>> >>>Those alternate definitions require the abandonment and/or rewriting of >>>evidence >> >>They ignore your interpretation of the evidence. > > No, they require that the very words be ignored. YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT LUCAS SAID IS NOT THE SAME AS WHAT LUCAS SAID! You are not George Lucas, you don't decide what he meant. Only George Lucas can decide what George Lucas meant. People who have talked to him (or work with the Canon Policy) will have a very good opinion of what George Lucas meant. That is not you. That would be Curtis Saxton, but not you. >>George Lucas, Cerasi, Sanweet and about a million other people have all >>made several billion statements about what can and can not be used to >>judge Star Wars. You looked at George Lucas's statement, interpreted it >>one way and declared that interpretation to be absolute fact. > > I 'interpreted' it the only way it can and should be interpreted . . . by > using logic, reason, and his own statements, all of which point to the > interpretation's validity. I'll give you a little hint, in English many, many words have different meanings. Look up the word, 'set' if you don't believe me. Another good example is the word, 'parallel.' It can mean equal distance, (the definition you cling to.) Or it can mean analogous, readily comparable, similar development, etc. Which is the definition used when it was explained to Curtis Saxton by people who spoke directly to George Lucas about the subject. >>We looked at all the information as a whole. Sifted through possible >>meanings, > > Bingo. That's why you fail. That's why we succeed. We don't look for one definition and ignore all evidence to the contrary. We look for the one definition that fits _ALL_ the evidence. >>When we had what we thought was the Star Wars >>Fact Policy, we contacted someone on the inside who could confirm or >>correct us. > > And who is this magical person you keep invoking? Saxton? How is it that > he overrules Lucas, Sansweet, Cerasi, et al.? He doesn't overrule them. He gave us the explanation that was given to him. The only one he overrules is you. >>>>>You think you can split "parallel" from "parallel universe", redefine >>>>>it, and throw it back in to modify the term. >>>> >>>>We are using the normal definition of Parallel universe. Have you ever >>>>read anything involving parallel universes? >>> >>>Plenty. And there's nothing about "interdependence" there. >> >>How about, 'analogous?' Is that a better term? > > Not too bad. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=analogous This is a start. You might get it yet. >>Similar in development and key features? > > There's where you try to leap. They're both in the definition of, 'parallel.' So why is one correct and the other wrong? >>>>You are thinking of 'Alternate Universe.' >>> >>>No, you're thinking of "alternate history" stories, wherein everything >>>is presumed to be the same except for one event, and its requisite effects. >> >>Alternate History is a subset of Parallel Universes. Universes where >>only a few things are the same would not be called Parallel Universes. > > Funny, that. The story from which Lucas's Howard the Duck was drawn > referred to a parallel universe where ducks evolved instead of humans. > > Here are various other definitions and opinions on what "parallel universe" > means. Funny how in almost every example the differences are pointed out. Almost like they are assumed to be the same unless directly stated to be different. >>>>>You think you can blatantly >>>>>misunderstand "real story of Star Wars" to suit your own requirements. >>>> >>>>Did you bother to read the definition of, 'real,' I showed you? >>> >>>Yes, I did, and noted that your narrow choice not only did not reflect >>>the other definitions, but also did not suit the context. >> >>Bullshit, it didn't suit your preferred interpretation but it fits the >>facts, all of them. > > How does "real" as 'primary or most important' jive with the novels being > mere depictions? The films are the primary source, they can not be overruled. The novels are secondary sources. Considered accurate unless overruled. >>>>And our theory is the only one confirmed by an inside man. >>> >>>Ah, yes, your book author's concept . . . whereas mine is the only one >>>confirmed by Sansweet of LFL fan relations in public statements. >>>Funny, that. >> >>You mean you interpretation of the evidence supports your preferred >>conclusion? Say it ain't so! > > WTF? No, I mean that my "preferred conclusion" is supported by Sansweet in > public statements. Two points: 1.) You interpretation of Sansweet. 2.) If I wanted to be intellectually dishonest I could point out that you agree that you said, 'preferred conclusion,' therefore you agree with me that you are only looking for evidence that agrees with you and are ignoring the rest. >>Direct quote on a direct question from a qualified source trumps your >>interpretation of _anything_. > > And direct quotes from Lucas, Sansweet, and Cerasi trump your effort to use > LL marketing statements as primary fact. All those quotes support us. It's not the quotes we disagree with, it's your interpretation of the quotes. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 23:39:51 -0600 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DBC5967.7050100@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>So, according to your theory, Star Wars ceases to exists at the end of > >>>>each movie, and doesn't start again till the beginning of the next > >>>>movie. It's not a continuing universe but a series of mini-universes. > >>> > >>>Nope. That is an absurd straw man. George Lucas's canon universe > >>>continues . . . the fact that we get to see time-slices of it does not make it > >>>more than one universe. > >> > >>So they intrude within George Lucas's Film Universe. > > > > No, they intrude within his select periods of time, as he said. > > > > Imagine two parallel lines, representing the parallel universes. > > Parallel Universes have nothing to do with Parallel lines. They have to > do with parallel development. This is what you don't understand. You've > created a faulty analogy and are convinced it's a 100% correct despite > the evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence to the contrary. > > What's amusing is that you take the order in which he addresses subject > > matter and conclude that there's a heirarchy. > > Cause he describes them as being less and less accurate. Here's 100% > accurate, this is very accurate, these involves some variations, here > facts were changed for game play and balance. A hierarchy. And yet you fail to note the delineation in the midst of the heirarchy between Lucas and LB, or real and not real. > >>>Those alternate definitions require the abandonment and/or rewriting of > >>>evidence > >> > >>They ignore your interpretation of the evidence. > > > > No, they require that the very words be ignored. > > YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT LUCAS SAID IS NOT THE SAME > AS WHAT LUCAS SAID! Lucas's words are what Lucas said. You can try to re-interpret them to be a secret coded message to Lucas stockholders or any other ignorant thing, but it won't help you escape the real meaning. > You are not George Lucas, you don't decide what he meant. Only > George Lucas can decide what George Lucas meant. People who have talked > to him (or work with the Canon Policy) will have a very good opinion of > what George Lucas meant. Sansweet, then. > >>George Lucas, Cerasi, Sanweet and about a million other people have all > >>made several billion statements about what can and can not be used to > >>judge Star Wars. You looked at George Lucas's statement, interpreted it > >>one way and declared that interpretation to be absolute fact. > > > > I 'interpreted' it the only way it can and should be interpreted . . . by > > using logic, reason, and his own statements, all of which point to the > > interpretation's validity. > > I'll give you a little hint, in English many, many words have different > meanings. Look up the word, 'set' if you don't believe me. > > Another good example is the word, 'parallel.' It can mean equal > distance, (the definition you cling to.) Or it can mean analogous, > readily comparable, similar development, etc. Which is the definition > used when it was explained to Curtis Saxton by people who spoke directly > to George Lucas about the subject. > > >>We looked at all the information as a whole. Sifted through possible > >>meanings, > > > > Bingo. That's why you fail. > > That's why we succeed. No, you can't simply shop for possible meanings that happen to suit your purpose. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 06:06:47 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DBCD3BC.3040206@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>So they intrude within George Lucas's Film Universe. >>> >>>No, they intrude within his select periods of time, as he said. >>> >>>Imagine two parallel lines, representing the parallel universes. >> >>Parallel Universes have nothing to do with Parallel lines. They have to >>do with parallel development. This is what you don't understand. You've >>created a faulty analogy and are convinced it's a 100% correct despite >>the evidence to the contrary. > > There is no evidence to the contrary. The Curtis Saxton quote proves you wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it. >>>What's amusing is that you take the order in which he addresses subject >>>matter and conclude that there's a heirarchy. >> >>Cause he describes them as being less and less accurate. Here's 100% >>accurate, this is very accurate, these involves some variations, here >>facts were changed for game play and balance. A hierarchy. > > And yet you fail to note the delineation in the midst of the heirarchy > between Lucas and LB, or real and not real. Real = Primary, Not Real = Secondary. Curtis Saxton proves that. >> And remember what the actual question was, "I'm really confused about >> canon. Is Star Wars Gamer canon? What about the Marvel series? Are >> they now considered "Infinities?" Cerasi wasn't asked about the >> mythical EU Internal Continuity, he was asked about _CANON_. > > Which required, if you would look at that question, that he explain > the canon and the EU Continuity. Where was the EU Continuity mentioned in the question? Answer, it fucking wasn't! That's just your messed up interpretation of what was said. >>>>>Those alternate definitions require the abandonment and/or rewriting of >>>>>evidence >>>> >>>>They ignore your interpretation of the evidence. >>> >>>No, they require that the very words be ignored. >> >>YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT LUCAS SAID IS NOT THE SAME >>AS WHAT LUCAS SAID! > > Lucas's words are what Lucas said. You can try to re-interpret them to be > a secret coded message to Lucas stockholders or any other ignorant thing, > but it won't help you escape the real meaning. Yep, and Curtis Saxton proved what the real meaning is. >>You are not George Lucas, you don't decide what he meant. Only >>George Lucas can decide what George Lucas meant. People who have talked >>to him (or work with the Canon Policy) will have a very good opinion of >>what George Lucas meant. > > Sansweet, then. Curtis Saxton, then. He said there was a hierarchy and described what it was. >>>>George Lucas, Cerasi, Sanweet and about a million other people have all >>>>made several billion statements about what can and can not be used to >>>>judge Star Wars. You looked at George Lucas's statement, interpreted it >>>>one way and declared that interpretation to be absolute fact. >>> >>>I 'interpreted' it the only way it can and should be interpreted . . . >>>by using logic, reason, and his own statements, all of which point to the >>>interpretation's validity. >> >>I'll give you a little hint, in English many, many words have different >>meanings. Look up the word, 'set' if you don't believe me. >> >>Another good example is the word, 'parallel.' It can mean equal >>distance, (the definition you cling to.) Or it can mean analogous, >>readily comparable, similar development, etc. Which is the definition >>used when it was explained to Curtis Saxton by people who spoke directly >>to George Lucas about the subject. No comment? Usually when you can't reply you simply snip the message. >>>>We looked at all the information as a whole. Sifted through possible >>>>meanings, >>> >>>Bingo. That's why you fail. >> >>That's why we succeed. > > No, you can't simply shop for possible meanings that happen to suit your > purpose. We look for the meaning that explains everything. Not for the one we want and to hell with the rest of the evidence. Sweet Jesus at a bake sale! Did you suddenly have to run off for an emergency spank-fest? You snipped half the message. I know we've been asking you do be brief, but that's not what we meant! >> When we had what we thought was the Star Wars Fact Policy, we >> contacted someone on the inside who could confirm or correct us. > > And who is this magical person you keep invoking? Saxton? How is it > that he overrules Lucas, Sansweet, Cerasi, et al.? He doesn't overrule them. He gave us the explanation that was given to him. The only one he overrules is you. >>>>> You think you can split "parallel" from "parallel universe", >>>>> redefine it, and throw it back in to modify the term. >>>> >>>> We are using the normal definition of Parallel universe. Have you >>>> ever read anything involving parallel universes? >>> >>> Plenty. And there's nothing about "interdependence" there. >> >>How about, 'analogous?' Is that a better term? > > Not too bad. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=analogous This is a start. You might get it yet. >> Similar in development and key features? > > There's where you try to leap. They're both in the definition of, 'parallel.' So why is one correct and the other wrong? >>>> You are thinking of 'Alternate Universe.' >>> >>> No, you're thinking of "alternate history" stories, wherein >>> everything is presumed to be the same except for one event, and its >>> requisite effects. >> >> Alternate History is a subset of Parallel Universes. Universes where >> only a few things are the same would not be called Parallel >> Universes. > > Funny, that. The story from which Lucas's Howard the Duck was drawn > referred to a parallel universe where ducks evolved instead of humans. > > Here are various other definitions and opinions on what "parallel > universe" means. Funny how in almost every example the differences are pointed out. Almost like they are assumed to be the same unless directly stated to be different. >>>>> You think you can blatantly misunderstand "real story of Star >>>>> Wars" to suit your own requirements. >>>> >>>> Did you bother to read the definition of, 'real,' I showed you? >>> >>> Yes, I did, and noted that your narrow choice not only did not >>> reflect the other definitions, but also did not suit the context. >> >> Bullshit, it didn't suit your preferred interpretation but it fits >> the facts, all of them. > > How does "real" as 'primary or most important' jive with the novels > being mere depictions? The films are the primary source, they can not be overruled. The novels are secondary sources. Considered accurate unless overruled. >>>> And our theory is the only one confirmed by an inside man. >>> >>> Ah, yes, your book author's concept . . . whereas mine is the only >>> one confirmed by Sansweet of LFL fan relations in public statements. >>> Funny, that. >> >> You mean you interpretation of the evidence supports your preferred >> conclusion? Say it ain't so! > > WTF? No, I mean that my "preferred conclusion" is supported by > Sansweet in public statements. Two points: 1.) You interpretation of Sansweet. 2.) If I wanted to be intellectually dishonest I could point out that you agree that you said, 'preferred conclusion,' therefore you agree with me that you are only looking for evidence that agrees with you and are ignoring the rest. >> Direct quote on a direct question from a qualified source trumps your >> interpretation of _anything_. > > And direct quotes from Lucas, Sansweet, and Cerasi trump your effort > to use LL marketing statements as primary fact. All those quotes support us. It's not the quotes we disagree with, it's your interpretation of the quotes. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 07:47:16 -0600 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DBCD3BC.3040206@shaw.ca... Wow. You invoked Saxton so often, it was as if you were praying to him for deliverance. Unfortunately, Sansweet > Saxton. Also, Lucas > Saxton. And let's not forget that Cerasi > Saxton. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 28 Oct 2002 17:04:04 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <20021028120404.13240.00000025@mb-fb.aol.com> -------- >"C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message >news:3DBCD3BC.3040206@shaw.ca... > >Wow. You invoked Saxton so often, it was as if you were praying to him for >deliverance. > >Unfortunately, Sansweet > Saxton. > >Also, Lucas > Saxton. And let's not forget that Cerasi > Saxton. > What a pity none of their quotes agree with you if you aren't twisting the meaning, taking them out of context, snipping relevent parts, or outright lying. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:30:23 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DBD73FA.3070303@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > Wow. You invoked Saxton so often, it was as if you were praying to him for > deliverance. > > Unfortunately, Sansweet > Saxton. > > Also, Lucas > Saxton. And let's not forget that Cerasi > Saxton. And Saxton > Your interpretation of all the above. We win, you lose. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:45:12 -0600 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DBD73FA.3070303@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > Wow. You invoked Saxton so often, it was as if you were praying to him for > > deliverance. > > > > Unfortunately, Sansweet > Saxton. > > > > Also, Lucas > Saxton. And let's not forget that Cerasi > Saxton. > > And Saxton > Your interpretation of all the above. > > We win, you lose. Nope, sorry. Words have meaning . . . which is a fact you deny. I could be really evil and comment on the fact that it is merely your interpretation of Saxton . . . but why would I need to drop to the Warsie level of argumentation? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 28 Oct 2002 19:13:39 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <20021028141339.05443.00001077@mb-fw.aol.com> -------- >"C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message >news:3DBD73FA.3070303@shaw.ca... >> DarkStar wrote: >> > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >> >> > Wow. You invoked Saxton so often, it was as if you were praying to him >for >> > deliverance. >> > >> > Unfortunately, Sansweet > Saxton. >> > >> > Also, Lucas > Saxton. And let's not forget that Cerasi > Saxton. >> >> And Saxton > Your interpretation of all the above. >> >> We win, you lose. > >Nope, sorry. Words have meaning . . . which is a fact you deny. I could >be really evil and comment on the fact that it is merely your interpretation >of Saxton . . . but why would I need to drop to the Warsie level of >argumentation? > Words have meaning, yes. Taken at face value, all quotes agree with our continuity policy. That you twist and lie about these quotes does not lower our validity. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg Burnett" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:23:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:J46cnd-LDNsqGCCgXTWcpw@comcast.com... > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message > news:3DBD73FA.3070303@shaw.ca... > > DarkStar wrote: > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > > Wow. You invoked Saxton so often, it was as if you were praying to him > for > > > deliverance. > > > > > > Unfortunately, Sansweet > Saxton. > > > > > > Also, Lucas > Saxton. And let's not forget that Cerasi > Saxton. > > > > And Saxton > Your interpretation of all the above. > > > > We win, you lose. > > Nope, sorry. Words have meaning . . . which is a fact you deny. Yup, multiple meaning, multiple contexts, colloquial definitions, meanings subject to difference based on tone, etc. In other words there is more han one definition. > I could > be really evil and comment on the fact that it is merely your interpretation > of Saxton . . . but why would I need to drop to the Warsie level of > argumentation? > You could try but Saxton's words are rather explicit so you coudl try and provide a coutner argument but anh that'd be too ahrd right? Instead you just dismiss it. Once more: Our argument: Constructed to rationalize ALL the quotes Your argument: Takes several quotes and then declares that toehr quotes are overridden or irrelevant based on the quotes taken You have eliminated data PERIOD, this makes your theory/argument inferior to ours. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:49:36 -0600 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <1m8rru8ipbenolmqpnrhnmi6n4q2rgkifa@4ax.com> -------- On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:23:13 -0500, "Greg Burnett" wrote: >Once more: >Our argument: Constructed to rationalize ALL the quotes >Your argument: Takes several quotes and then declares that toehr quotes are >overridden or irrelevant based on the quotes taken > >You have eliminated data PERIOD, this makes your theory/argument inferior to >ours. But DarkStar thinks that eliminating data makes a theory BETTER. -- Iceberg, the Dancing Black Mage With only a single word/The future is decided Our beat is/A shining diamond Into the true sky into the true sky/Our life shining into the sky - "Try Again," Macross 7 maberger IX V IX 0 at webmail dot winona dot edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:18:13 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DBDB773.8070101@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>Wow. You invoked Saxton so often, it was as if you were praying to him >>>for deliverance. >>> >>>Unfortunately, Sansweet > Saxton. >>> >>>Also, Lucas > Saxton. And let's not forget that Cerasi > Saxton. >> >>And Saxton > Your interpretation of all the above. >> >>We win, you lose. > > Nope, sorry. Words have meaning . . . which is a fact you deny. Most words have multiple meanings. A fact you deny. When you choose one meaning over another you are /interpreting/ what the person said. It doesn't matter how much you think the context points to one over the other, it is still an interpretation. > I could be really evil and comment on the fact that it is merely your > interpretation of Saxton . How would you know? You've never seen his words. But of course, that didn't stop you from judging them. BTW, if you ask the question clearly enough, there is no interpretation necessary. For instance, 'Here are two possible Canon Policies: (A) No Hierarchy (canon or crap) and (B) Hierarchy, Real Unless Contradicted by Canon. Which is the correct one.' 'B' Not much room for misinterpretation. NOTE: This is _not_ exactly what happened. I can not divulge exactly what happened due to legal reasons. > . . but why would I need to drop to the Warsie level of argumentation? Good lord, you wouldn't want to do that. Don't think your tiny mind could handle it. 'Must not. Consider. Alternate. Interpretations. Mind. Can't handle. Two. Thoughts. At once.' C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@swineherd.co.uk (The Baron) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:45:43 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3dbdaff7.83377634@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 07:47:16 -0600, "DarkStar" wrote: > >"C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message >news:3DBCD3BC.3040206@shaw.ca... > >Wow. You invoked Saxton so often, it was as if you were praying to him for >deliverance. > >Unfortunately, Sansweet > Saxton. > >Also, Lucas > Saxton. And let's not forget that Cerasi > Saxton. > > What about Darkstar < Donkey Shit. -- As you read this sig I waste your worthless life. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 21:35:10 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DBC5BCF.3000009@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: OK, this is getting long so I'm going to give a brief summary of why we're right. We've talked directly to a person who worked with the Star Wars Canon Policy. They told us that they were told there is a hierarchy of acceptable Star Wars Evidence. The people that told him spoke directly to George Lucas himself on this very subject. So, to sum up the evidence for the two sides. You: Your interpretation of a single George Lucas quote Us: George Lucas's explanation given to the people who need to work with the Star Wars Canon Policy. Who wins? Us! Just like it was with the Star Trek Canon Policy. We've talked directly to a person who worked with the Star Trek Canon Policy. They told us that they were told there is no hierarchy of acceptable Star Trek Evidence, it's either Canon or Crap. The people that told him created the policy. You were told that and you still thought your interpretation of what Gaskill said overruled Ordover. Hell, you thought your interpretation of what Gaskill overruled Gaskills explanation of what he said. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 23:43:38 -0600 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DBC5BCF.3000009@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > OK, this is getting long so I'm going to give a brief summary of why > we're right. This should be amusing. > We've talked directly to a person who worked with the Star Wars Canon > Policy. Curtis Saxton, I presume . . . though I find your lack of identification interesting. > They told us that they were told there is a hierarchy of acceptable Star > Wars Evidence. Hearsay, okay. > The people that told him spoke directly > to George Lucas himself on this very subject. Mmkay. > So, to sum up the evidence for the two sides. > > You: Your interpretation of a single George Lucas quote Oh, you stupid bitch. It's multiple Lucas quotes, Sansweet's quotation of Cerasi, Sansweet's statements in Australia, with support from every other damn quote of relevance out there. > Us: George Lucas's explanation given to the people who need to work > with the Star Wars Canon Policy. > > Who wins? Us! Just like it was with the Star Trek Canon Policy. Holy crap . . . you *still* think that Ordover is a worthwhile source, overriding all other statements . . . absurd. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 06:12:23 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DBCD50D.4060000@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>We've talked directly to a person who worked with the Star Wars Canon >>Policy. > > Curtis Saxton, I presume . . . though I find your lack of identification > interesting. His name hardly needs mentioning, again. >>They told us that they were told there is a hierarchy of acceptable Star >>Wars Evidence. > > Hearsay, okay. And your interpretation is less than hearsay. >>So, to sum up the evidence for the two sides. >> >>You: Your interpretation of a single George Lucas quote > > Oh, you stupid bitch. You deny using the the fact that George Lucas said it is all that matters? Do you deny saying only that quote matters? Do you deny saying anything that contradicts your interpretation of that quote is wrong? > It's multiple Lucas quotes, Sansweet's quotation of Cerasi, Sansweet's > statements in Australia, with support from every other damn quote of > relevance out there. And we can use all those quotes too. >>Us: George Lucas's explanation given to the people who need to work >>with the Star Wars Canon Policy. >> >>Who wins? Us! Just like it was with the Star Trek Canon Policy. > > Holy crap . . . you *still* think that Ordover is a worthwhile source, > overriding all other statements . . . absurd. Ordover didn't overruled any of those statements, he only overruled your fucking interpretation. You _still_ think your interpretation of the evidence actually matters. Absurd. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg Burnett" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 07:56:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DBCD50D.4060000@shaw.ca... > >>Us: George Lucas's explanation given to the people who need to work > >>with the Star Wars Canon Policy. > >> > >>Who wins? Us! Just like it was with the Star Trek Canon Policy. > > > > Holy crap . . . you *still* think that Ordover is a worthwhile source, > > overriding all other statements . . . absurd. > > Ordover didn't overruled any of those statements, he only overruled your > fucking interpretation. You _still_ think your interpretation of the > evidence actually matters. Absurd. > I've been saying it for weeks, he suffers from Wes Hutchings disease, if the doctors don't work quickly he might look like "cool new hip" Al Gore after the disease is done with him. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:01:28 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DBEF702.50600@shaw.ca> -------- Greg Burnett wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>Us: George Lucas's explanation given to the people who need to work >>>>with the Star Wars Canon Policy. >>>> >>>>Who wins? Us! Just like it was with the Star Trek Canon Policy. >>> >>>Holy crap . . . you *still* think that Ordover is a worthwhile source, >>>overriding all other statements . . . absurd. >> >>Ordover didn't overruled any of those statements, he only overruled your >>fucking interpretation. You _still_ think your interpretation of the >>evidence actually matters. Absurd. > > I've been saying it for weeks, he suffers from Wes Hutchings disease, if the > doctors don't work quickly he might look like "cool new hip" Al Gore after > the disease is done with him. Maybe it's too late. Have you seen a picture of Darkstar? C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Greg Burnett" Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 18:42:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DBEF702.50600@shaw.ca... > Greg Burnett wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>Us: George Lucas's explanation given to the people who need to work > >>>>with the Star Wars Canon Policy. > >>>> > >>>>Who wins? Us! Just like it was with the Star Trek Canon Policy. > >>> > >>>Holy crap . . . you *still* think that Ordover is a worthwhile source, > >>>overriding all other statements . . . absurd. > >> > >>Ordover didn't overruled any of those statements, he only overruled your > >>fucking interpretation. You _still_ think your interpretation of the > >>evidence actually matters. Absurd. > > > > I've been saying it for weeks, he suffers from Wes Hutchings disease, if the > > doctors don't work quickly he might look like "cool new hip" Al Gore after > > the disease is done with him. > > Maybe it's too late. Have you seen a picture of Darkstar? > Thank God, singular and non-denominational, that I haven't. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 02:39:28 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DBF4649.90802@shaw.ca> -------- Greg Burnett wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>Maybe it's too late. Have you seen a picture of Darkstar? > > Thank God, singular and non-denominational, that I haven't. Don't worry if it does happen. I'm studying psychology so I'll know where in your brain I need to stab you to destroy all memory of it. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 07:51:45 -0600 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DBCD50D.4060000@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>We've talked directly to a person who worked with the Star Wars Canon > >>Policy. > > > > Curtis Saxton, I presume . . . though I find your lack of identification > > interesting. > > His name hardly needs mentioning, again. > > >>They told us that they were told there is a hierarchy of acceptable Star > >>Wars Evidence. > > > > Hearsay, okay. > > And your interpretation is less than hearsay. The words themselves, and their real meaning, is more than hearsay. > > >>So, to sum up the evidence for the two sides. > >> > >>You: Your interpretation of a single George Lucas quote > > > > Oh, you stupid bitch. > > You deny using the the fact that George Lucas said it is all that > matters? I deny your claim that there is but a single Lucas quote upon which my position is based. > > It's multiple Lucas quotes, Sansweet's quotation of Cerasi, Sansweet's > > statements in Australia, with support from every other damn quote of > > relevance out there. > > And we can use all those quotes too. Only when 'properly' mangled to allow you to "get around" Lucas. > >>Us: George Lucas's explanation given to the people who need to work > >>with the Star Wars Canon Policy. > >> > >>Who wins? Us! Just like it was with the Star Trek Canon Policy. > > > > Holy crap . . . you *still* think that Ordover is a worthwhile source, > > overriding all other statements . . . absurd. > > Ordover didn't overruled any of those statements, he only overruled your > fucking interpretation. You _still_ think your interpretation of the > evidence actually matters. You're wrong again. Ordover means jack shit to the Trek canon policy. The fact that you still believe otherwise is astonishing . . . though, given your precarious opinions on so many matters, it really shouldn't be. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:38:44 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: <3DBD75F0.8070206@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>They told us that they were told there is a hierarchy of acceptable Star >>>>Wars Evidence. >>> >>>Hearsay, okay. >> >>And your interpretation is less than hearsay. > > The words themselves, and their real meaning, is more than hearsay. It's not their words that disagree with us, it's your interpretation of their words. This isn't the problem with Curtis Saxton, cause if there's any confusion I can just ask for a clarification. Can you do the same with Lucas, Sansweet and Cerasi? >>>>So, to sum up the evidence for the two sides. >>>> >>>>You: Your interpretation of a single George Lucas quote >>> >>>Oh, you stupid bitch. >> >>You deny using the the fact that George Lucas said it is all that >>matters? > > I deny your claim that there is but a single Lucas quote upon which my > position is based. Do you deny using your interpretation of that quote to overrule any other interpretation of any other quote? It is the corner stone of your argument, all other pieces of information is judge on whether it conforms to you interpretation of that quote. >>>It's multiple Lucas quotes, Sansweet's quotation of Cerasi, Sansweet's >>>statements in Australia, with support from every other damn quote of >>>relevance out there. >> >>And we can use all those quotes too. > > Only when 'properly' mangled to allow you to "get around" Lucas. Wrong. We looked at the evidence as a whole, we didn't pick and choose quotes that fit our predetermined view and used those to override other quoted from qualified individuals. >>>>Us: George Lucas's explanation given to the people who need to work >>>>with the Star Wars Canon Policy. >>>> >>>>Who wins? Us! Just like it was with the Star Trek Canon Policy. >>> >>>Holy crap . . . you *still* think that Ordover is a worthwhile source, >>>overriding all other statements . . . absurd. >> >>Ordover didn't overruled any of those statements, he only overruled your >>fucking interpretation. You _still_ think your interpretation of the >>evidence actually matters. > > You're wrong again. Ordover means jack shit to the Trek canon policy. That's a complete lie. Ordover worked with the Star Trek Canon Policy as part of his job. Ordover himself said so. So unless you can prove Ordover was lying about this point you are wrong. Ordover was told what the Star Trek Canon Policy was by Paramount and he passed that information along to us. That information agrees with Moore, Gaskill, Okuda, etc. It disagrees with your interpretation of the evidence, but you interpretation means shit. > The fact that you still believe otherwise is astonishing . . . though, > given your precarious opinions on so many matters, it really shouldn't > be. The fact that you still believe your opinion matters is astonishing. The fact that you still believe you matter is astonishing. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:47:40 -0600 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3DBD75F0.8070206@shaw.ca... > DarkStar wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>They told us that they were told there is a hierarchy of acceptable Star > >>>>Wars Evidence. > >>> > >>>Hearsay, okay. > >> > >>And your interpretation is less than hearsay. > > > > The words themselves, and their real meaning, is more than hearsay. > > It's not their words that disagree with us, it's your interpretation of > their words. I know . . . I'm one of those fucking English-speakers. Holy crap! You're still arguing this!: > > You're wrong again. Ordover means jack shit to the Trek canon policy. > > That's a complete lie. Ordover worked with the Star Trek Canon Policy as > part of his job. Ordover himself said so. Un-fucking