Lord Edam wrote:
The artist should know whether or not he had permission to do the pictures, so yes, because the artist said so.
You'd make a great SB B5 fanatic, Edam. They use much the same logic to justify the "Tim Earls" size charts. Ask Brian. He went through that himself.
And did you check to see if these were a sold or comissioned commodity? IE was money exchanged for their creation? If so, then it might be as "fan-based" as you claim. Either that or Mandel has managed to evade legal action for over 20 years now.
Fine. But that still doesnt address the fact you could have fabricated the email, even if he says the same thing. I was asking what reason we had to trust YOU were being honest about it, since you have demonstrated dishonesty in the past where debating is concerned (Mike Wong's debate with you is rather clear evidence of that..)
Thus, I or anyone else have no reason to trust anything you say or post without some proof you actually DID the work. You may not think so, but honesty and integrity DO count for something in debates.
No, fanart.
Same thing Mr. Semantics Whore (pot calling kettle black, I'd say.)
No, I don't. Of course, I could take the alternative track with this - if you want to use the Mandel blueprints, prove they are sanctioned by Lucasfilm (whether you realise it or not you are asking me to prove the blueprints are not canon, ie prove a negative. You should know better than that
Want to bet? Saxton calls them "official" on his site (look under Dimensions/Artistic intentions, in the picture section:
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/isd.html#intentions)
"The blueprints of Geoffrey Mandel are rare but official publications predating the second-generation products which were initiated with the game references of West End Games."
This has not changed to my knowledge (nor has he indicated any awareness of their lack of official status) recently. I am going by his assurances that it is official. If he is proven wrong, he will no doubt change or exclude that, and that will be sufficient for me.
Further, you're insisting we take the word of someone who has KNOWN to be dishonest not only in his debating tactics, but his sources, over someone whose integrity and honesty in research is well known. (whereas you seem to do all of five minutes worth of research before declaring yourself correct. The fact you're basing your entire argument on an EMAIL is perhaps proof of this.)
Further, you are pulling the same BS tactics Fivers attempt to pull regarding the "Tim Earls size charts" - which were never officially published yet they claim because he WORKED on them and he said JMS approved them, they're canonical (and that they supersede the show, in fact.)
As I understand it so far, tehse were officiall ypublished materials (and there were multiple copies in existence) - and that some places have had them for sale. I would question whether LFL woudl allow a published source using their copyrighted material (for sale no less) unless they were totally unaware of it for some twenty years.
Do I think its possible you might be right? Perhaps. I'm trying my best to look into this (including talking with Saxton) to find out something, and if I'm wrong in this regard, I'm wrong. But does that mean I'm going to take your word over Saxton's without some fairly conclusive proof? If so you're more delusional than I think.
I am not and have never accused saxton of dishonesty for using the Mandel blueprints, and fail to see how anything I have posted here would make you think that.
Well, the fact you're calling them unofficial while Saxton calls them such might be a clue. Maybe that little detail has yet to penetrate your skull.
You may never have SAID it, but the fact you continually insist that the blueprints are NOT official when Saxton continues to say the opposite would say otherwise. Or do you think somehow NOT saying so doesnt make it true?
I forwarded a copy of Mandel's e-mail to Saxton when I received it so that he could decide himself what to do. Wayne Poe also mentioned it to him, and posted his response on SB.com. Dr Saxton says the plans came in packaging acknowledging LFL intellectual ownership - but then, Conquest and Portal both acknowledge LFL/Paramount intellectual ownership, but are far from canon. Neither are the movies and pictures from SpaceBattles, which similarly acknowledge intellectual ownership.(
link)
[/quote]
The difference between your "Examples" of course being that the Mandel blueprints were published, and none of the ones you cited above are. There's a big difference there. And you still haven't addressed the fact Saxton treats them as official, especially if in fact he HAS seen your email.
The point being who is, at this moment lacking more substnatial evidence, more believable. A man known for dishonest debating and misrepresentation of facts to suit his own ends (That's you, if you're not paying attention) or someone who is not only a published SW author, but also has demonstrated honesty in his methodology? You get three guesses, and none of them involve you. Until something more substantial comes up, I have no reason to trust nor believe you, and nor does anyone else.
Nor, for that matter, do I intend to continue attempting to hammer the obvious into your skull. If this is beyond your comprehension, this is not my fault. We'll see how the dice fall when some more research is done. if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. (that might serve as a good example of WHEN its a good time to admit error - something you have seem to have had a problem with in the past.)
Nice try, asshole. 
