If Thrawn won Bilbringi

[Crown]

No, moron, you completely revealed your personal colors here. I'm debating the subject. EVEN IF I AM A HYPOCRITICAL FUCK, it has ZERO grounds on my own position. It's called the Tu Quoque fallacy.

And my beef, asshole, was that they caught the mistake and pointed it out while the story was still in the editing phase.

Now, I would agree with you on this, if they caught the error on the DESB and told the author to go ahead, that's horseshit. Continuity editors should do their job, or why are they even reading the material if they're going to approve such a mistake, especially when its simple to correct?

How that changes the fact that after they published the DESB and two subsequent sources (thus implicitly thrice approving the mistake and making it official truth) you can't do shit about it and it is official I don't know.

I never argued that Survivor's Quest was wrong, I argued that if they do catch it, they should change it, because whenever we don't have to make a post hoc ugly continuity fix, the better.

Moreover, Leeland Chee's quote came from an explanation on why they were accomodating Zahn on Survivor's Quest as the reason why they approved it, which I thought was stretching since SQ hadn't been printed when Rostini caught it.

YOU are trying to argue that AFTER they published all three sources and thus OK-ed the original fuck-up AT LEAST two times (assuming the retcon wasn't approved from the outset) that the three sources are somehow not part of the official SW history. That is in NO WAY analogous to me arguing that if they catch an error they should tell Zahn to fix it while it hasn't been printed yet.

But I'll let you imagine it is, you dumb little fuck. You couldn't even be bothered to know what you were really talking about before you lashed at me, asshole.

I am arguing to suddenly make C'baoth the guardian (when anyone with a mental processing power of a worm can see is bullshit) IS FUCKED UP. Moreover we don't have to do this, since the HttE is the primary refernce on the events that happened in the HttE trilogy (if we follow historical fact and SoD).

You are saying that a histroical reference on Caesar (DESB) which contains a throw away line on Alexander's life (HttE) should take preceedance over the biography of Alexander's life (HttE) which was writter earlier, but remarkably closer to (or one might even suggest during) the time of Alexader.

That is the truth when dealing with real world history. Why this doesn't apply for SW continuity is bullshit.

I don't suggest we 'throw out DESB' (nice strawman there asshole), I suggest on matters of contradiction with the primary source of information, we attempt to resolve it rationally.

You inability -- nay, your stubborn unwillingness to even entertain the idea is FUCKED UP. And cannot be justified under any kind of 'policy' in LFL. A policy that has such strong and clear language as 'tends to' and 'in genera', no less.

Appeal to popularity. And I notice you also think ad nauseum is valid. Right.

Actually a statement of fact jerk off, or did it escape you that HttE was one of the best selling SW EU material?

And I'll be sure to point out that you cannot read, and that you're a grudge holding little asshole who wants to argue the people, not the issue, even though the incident cited isn't analogous to this.

Go fuck yourself, this is exactly analogous to this, since this whole thing started when I (just as you have) pointed out the shoddy research that went into the DESB, you even refuse to attempt to rationalise it, and just respond with newer > older, which is fucking bullshit. That isn't correct since one isn't even dealing primarily with the subject it contradicts in one line and can be viewed as an error, or rationalised in some way.

Your dogmatic arguement to Leland Chee is pathetic as the quote is so fucking ambiguous as to lack any kind of venom at all.

What the fuck the DESB has primacy on the actualy HttE and the events there in has, I do not know, and no one with half a brain can properly justify.

I never, ever argued that we should all throw out Survivor's Quest as evidence, and since you claimed what I said was analogous to you, prove it, asshole, or fucking concede. I'm sick of your trash talk with ZERO back-up.

And I never said we should throw out the DESB cunt face. I said we shouldn't just fucking changed the entire story arc of a central character due to one throw away line, and try and find some reasonable resolution to the discrepancy.

After all, if we can label the entire history of the Mon Cal as 'rebel propaganda', why then can't we apply a similar brush to a fucking sourcebook on a series that doesn't even deal with the trilogy it comments on?

[Crown]

Yes it can, imbecile.

Its an equal-value source, and also it follows the novels, and therefore it is more correct.

The Sourcebook is official. So is the TTT. The DESB was published later, therefore, the DESB is prefered in resolving contradictions.

I gave you the fucking quotes. You have yet to show why the DESB is lower-tier official (BY LFL's POLICY) besides screaming that it is a sourcebook. Sorry, but secondary source materials are official, just like the original stories.

IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE BOOKS you retarded dipshit. It is the DESB not the HttESB. You are (in affect) using the 'life of Caesar' as an accurate account of 'the life of Alexander'. Which is wrong, do you get it?

The DESB primary material is not HttE. It mentions it in passing (wrongly), and it shouldn't be used to overide it. If the HtteSB (if there is one) did the same, then we would have a problem.

And your 'policy' consits of such strong and clear language as 'tends to' and 'in general' Yeah that's real Iron Clad, that is ...

Sure, they're contradictory, but you cannot throw-out the DESB. And "it's a Sourcebook!!111!" is not grounds for dismissing sources, get it, dipshit?

I am not throwing out the DESB, I am reconciling out the rubbish it writes about events that is not based on the subject material it is meant to deal with. Which is what real historians do, I mean we gotta follow SoD, right?

I said yes, but if you want to joust with windmills that's your business, not mine.

Then as a reasonable intelligent human being (giving the benefit of the doubt here, as you have provided very little evidence in this thread), you should also realise that we try and reconcile the two, not throw out one for the other.

It doesn't. But you said Jorus C'boath had virtually no association with Palaptine despite the TTT itself emphasizing their past assocation.

Acutally I asked about what relationship Jorus C'baoth had on the issue at hand, Joruus C'baoth as the guardian.

Back then, they were controlled; at that time C'boath was under the ysalamiri, and they were free to do whatever they wanted, moron.

Bullshit. C'baoth didn't start mind fucking until General Covell. And if they were free to do whatever they wanted while C'baoth was under the ysalamiri, does that include; telling the truth?

Oh, I know, they just said that so you could turn around, do the exact opposite, and pretend that all later sources are invalidated by the original material. WHICH IS TOTAL BULLSHIT.

Hobbie dies when his snowspeeder careens into the AT-AT commanded by Veers on Hoth in the novelisation, which as a head-impact killed him too.

Yet, LFL retconned that and resurrected Hobbie AND Veers.

Think about it, fuckmook, if the original source materials ALWAYS were paramount, than there'd be no point in revision or retconning past material or contradictions among them, because those original problems would invalidate the solutions later published, idiot.

You're just bitching that it isn't hard-and-fast rules, well fine, but you cannot go and do the exact reverse because you don't like that several sources decided to retcon your baby trilogy. I don't fucking care. You don't have grounds for dismissing other sources just because you don't like them.

I am not going by the opposite you cock sucking donkey whore, the post I made directly under the one you 'chose' to 'rebut' clearly points out that I am looking for a reasonable compramise, which satisfies both. I think that at this point I have also made it very clear that had this been another source dealing with the same primary issues (say like an HttESB), I would have very fucking little room to argue about anything.

But since the DESB doesn't concern itself primarily with HttE, I don't think it should be taken as a green light to just erase everything that was written in HttE.

I might be wrong. As far as I know, Zahn himself could have told the authors for the Essential Guides and DESB that C'baoth was the guardian, or that the original guardian was C'baoth who cloned himself, and told them to put it in there and he would reveal all later. The latter certainly is a possibility, but that still doesn't mean that we can take one source which deals with the issue on a tangent, and completely dump the origianl and primary historical reference which states rather emphatically the opposite.

No, idiot, because that's a break in SoD. And the TTT is just as much "in-universe history" (as Mike prefers to look at official under SoD) as the DESB and Essential Guide.

And LFL rules of thumb, historical precedent, and general habit, whatever the fuck you want to call it, runs with the later source, of which there are several (The Dark Empire Sourcebook, The Essential Guide to Characters, The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons, all equal in the canon heirarchy).

Sorry, by SoD too, TTT is just some story written in-universe about the events of Thrawn's returns. Three other historical sources contradict it, and historically are given more validity than the prior source (LFL rule-of-thumb), therefore, we go by the latter sources.

Acutally no. That is not the way archaeology or history works. The HttE trilogy is the primary historical reference to the events that occured during that time. The Essential guides can only get its information from there, if it is wrong, then it is a mistake.

The DESB is the primary historical reference for the DE saga, you cannot throw out what we have learned first hand in the HttE, by one throw away line in the DESB.

As I have already pointed out, it is like taking one line out of the 'Life of Caesar' about Alexander, and using it to contradict what is written in the 'Life of Alexander'. One is a primary source the other is secondary.

Yeah you can. In fact, this is both correct under SoD and LFL historical precedent and general habit (since the word "policy" is evil bad, and according to Mr. Crown, the great authority on these matters, I should do exactly 180 degrees different than what Leeland Chee, keeper of the Holocron for Christ's sake, says LFL does, oh yes).

Nice continuation of your little strawman there jerk off. I have already stated that I would prefer some kind of rationalisation (as it is done in the real world archeology), and since Leeland Chee's 'great policy' consists off 'in general' and 'tends to', you will forgive me if I don't follow it to the letter.

Bullshit. It isn't Appeal to Ignorance. That is assuming something is true because you haven't proved it false. We know Palpatine did something, because Thrawn's death was intentional (you yourself found the quote and cited it, and then whined about it, so I do believe it is evidence), some Noghri were still aligned with the Empire later (Mysteries of the Sith), and Palpatine was using Thrawn as a diversion.

"Palpatine knew that Thrawn was going to be stabbed by Rukh"? How does that make it no accident. Tell me, genius, if Palpatine knows through the Force that there'll be a turbolift failure in the Palace, does that make the failure of the lift "no mistake"? Give me a break; "no contender could ever be allowed to become too powerful" (emphasis mine). You're full of shit.

Still, no contender could ever be allowed to become too powerful. It was no accident when Thrawn fell. Palpatine never knew if Thrawn guessed that he was being used to divert attention from his own return.

Right. If you think your explanation satisfies the evidence, you're in need of some medication.

<snip ... more back and forth of Primy strawman bullshit, 'you are doint a '180' on policy yadda yadda yadda. It's been dealt with above>

Which as I pointed out was another contradiction in the DESB with its self no less. Thrawn was given control because he lacked a powerbase so that he can be controled by the council. If he was no threat to them, how could he be a threat to Palpatine? He COULDN'T.

You're a total idiot.

When Thrawn came back from the UR, he picked up Pelleaon on the Chimeara, and the Ruling Circle controlled the Empire.

ERGO, a single ISD, even with Thrawn, doesn't threaten the entire Empire under the Ruling Circle (they didn't know about whatever shit he found in the boonies either-they thought it was an exile; you read the duology).

So they decided he could help them.

THEN, now that Thrawn had the entire Empire-minus-Palpy's-reserves behind him, and is a strategic genius and about to crush the New Republic in short order, and has quickly began to make the Empire a competitive entity for control of the galaxy again, he's decidably in a different position, at least militarily, than he was when he just got back from the UR and had to ask the Ruling Circle for a command, get it, moron?

The fucking piece of shit sourcebook contradicts its self for crying out loud. Why anyone takes it as 'gospel' is beyond me. It was a mistake, we move on, but you seem to be holding onto this one piece of fucking blatant erroneous bullshit with an almost zealot kind of zeal. LET. IT. GO.

Right. You're just too fucking stupid to realize that Thrawn when he comes back from the UR with absolutely nothing is QUITE different from Thrawn in control of the Empire winning a war against the NR and possessing a lot-of Palpatine's secret weapons, you know, the state he was in when he died as Palpatine wished, you know in that "not allowing any contender to become too powerful" bit. Why must Thrawn's power be consistent in a war where his support changes within the very novels you cite, asshole? Did you assume it was his hand-to-hand fighting ability? The Ruling Circle fearing Thrawn's street whoopass? You're just a dogmatic and obtuse brain-damaged idiot.

Yeah. Thrawn would have been a real threat to a man who can blank out the minds of trillions of people in order to bury a SSD in Coruscant. To a man who has back channel codes hard wired into all of the fleet so that no one could use it against him. To a man who has entire legions of superweapons hidden away in the Deep Core, and Dark Side adepts, and Hands who are nothing more but an extension of his will.

Yes, Thrawn. An alien in a prejudiced Empire, who hasn't placed his ysalamiri in his fleet to protect them from Force user. A Grand Admiral with a fleet of 200 + 5, is going to be a real threat against the Emperor reborn who controls ships who in volume alone dwarf Thrawn ...

Well you put me in my place there dickhead.

Not to mention even if you attack these mistakes, how does that invalidate the entire source? Do I try to throw out everything with the five-mile Executor? Your agenda, from post one on this subject, has been to undermine and dismiss the DESB because you do not like it, and you really don't like that its take and retcons of events were carried over the trilogy and continuously published by LFL after review by its continuity editors time, and time again.

You're transparent, and pathetic.

I AM NOT THROWING OUT THE ENTIRE SOURCEBOOK YOU STRAWMAN LOVING MOTHERFUCKING CRACK SMOKING DONKEY RAPING MOTHERFUCKER

I made that ubundantly clear throughtout the post you replied to, and the one directly underneath it.

I believe that if we take what the DESB says in passing about events it isn't even in a position to comment on with authority over the primary source of information IS FUCKING STUPID, and unjustifiable by any kind of logical thought.

[Crown]

The post where I even offered a compramise (thus disproving your 180 degree in the opposite direction bullshit strawman) was made 15hrs prior to your rebuttle.

Don't even try and tell me you missed it.

[consequences]

*mutters to self*
Firking stupid intellectual honesty
*ends muttering*

The Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook, published 1996, agrees that Joruus was always the guardian:

Over the years, Joruus has become somewhat confused over who he was. He did not remember that he was the Emperor's Guardian of the Mount Tantiss facility. Instead, he believed that he killed the guardian and then took control of both Mount Tantiss and the world of Wayland.

I don't have the original individual sourcebooks for the trilogy, so I can't comment on whether or not that was a deliberate ret-con.

[Crown]

Fuck it then. Arguement conceeded. Apologies to Primus.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I am arguing to suddenly make C'baoth the guardian (when anyone with a mental processing power of a worm can see is bullshit) IS FUCKED UP.

Really, which is why some in this very thread--two actually--thought the same I did? Oops.

Moreover we don't have to do this, since the HttE is the primary refernce on the events that happened in the HttE trilogy (if we follow historical fact and SoD).

No, primary sources refer to accounts from the individual involved themselves, like, say a memoir of Luke Skywalker's. Would you please prove to me that the DESB and other source materials are secondary materials insofar that in-universe they used the TTT as source material? That's OUT of universe, idiot. They're all history books. The fact that TTT was the source material in the real world fiction of SW is not admissible evidence.

From the perspective of history, The Thrawn Trilogy is like a historian writing a "true history" book like say The Hot Zone about the outbreaks of filoviruses and what happened.

Now, a few background facts in the former is not explicitly true when all the other historical documents on the subject say otherwise. Particularly when you're dealing with the equivalent of a history's book's portrayal of a completely insane and delusional man's point-of-view.

You are saying that a histroical reference on Caesar (DESB) which contains a throw away line on Alexander's life (HttE) should take preceedance over the biography of Alexander's life (HttE) which was writter earlier, but remarkably closer to (or one might even suggest during) the time of Alexader.

Sorry, but TTT is most definitely not "Alexander's Life"; its a history of the Ptolemic Egypt with a couple references to Ptolemy's origin and very early military career that all the other history books disagree with emphatically.

Sorry, when LFL itself approved this mistake not once (possibly just missed it), but is again approved twice more, you're not going to look at it as some historical error. That's bullshit, and the entire point of TTT just being another history book with a few references and being on the same level as the DESB and ECs.

That is the truth when dealing with real world history. Why this doesn't apply for SW continuity is bullshit.

Yeah, because the TTT is a history of C'boath according to you, idiot.

I don't suggest we 'throw out DESB' (nice strawman there asshole), I suggest on matters of contradiction with the primary source of information, we attempt to resolve it rationally.

Which, according to you means doing exactly the opposite of what is suggested to be the norm by Chee, which was followed by LFL not just once (to-be-published, remember?), but three seperate times over the course of over half a decade, which is in opposition to SoD--all of this, which for all basic purposes is totally ignoring the DESB on this subject.

Just admit it. Your "[resolving] it rationally" means for all basic purposes deleting the following...

C'baoth was a more curious case. Thrawn was brilliant enough to realize only an insane Dark Jedi would violate the Emperor's ban ordering them all into silence years ago. While they waited in their castles for their Emperor's command. Thrawn had sought out the one who would have forgotten all such orders years ago. It was most satisfying to watch the mad Jedi's mind unravel.

Why can't you just say that?

You inability -- nay, your stubborn unwillingness to even entertain the idea is FUCKED UP. And cannot be justified under any kind of 'policy' in LFL. A policy that has such strong and clear language as 'tends to' and 'in genera', no less.

Which was exercised all over the place, including in this instance for the approval of three seperate equal-value sources to the TTT, and you want to essentially discount each and every single source speaking anything to the contrary of what the TTT says about C'boath.

No, three second opinions on C'boath does not mean treating the TTT as sacrosant and inviolate in this case, particularly when that is just opposite of the generalisation. And no, whining that "the language isn't strong enough" isn't grounds to wholely ignore it, either.

I asked you why this is a unique occasion which doesn't fit what Chee says (even though LFL applied it twice to approve both the Essential Guides). Where is my reason? Maybe it isn't hard-and-fast policy. That doesn't mean you get to wave it off without stating any reason why this instance is special.

Actually a statement of fact jerk off, or did it escape you that HttE was one of the best selling SW EU material?

If you learned anything on this board by now, you'd know that fallacies are invalid arguments, not declarations of untruthfulness.

In other words, baby Crown, you're right, but that fact is totally, completely, and utterly irrelevent to the argument. You know, as in it doesn't fucking matter.

As in, don't waste my time with invalid arguments then offer such gems in response as "but my premises are correct, DUHHhhh, how could you be so DUM, PRIMEY?!11!"

Go fuck yourself, this is exactly analogous to this, since this whole thing started when I (just as you have) pointed out the shoddy research that went into the DESB, you even refuse to attempt to rationalise it, and just respond with newer > older, which is fucking bullshit. That isn't correct since one isn't even dealing primarily with the subject it contradicts in one line and can be viewed as an error, or rationalised in some way.

And the TTT addresses C'boath and the Guardian as a major and integral point of plot? Three. Seperate. Sources. Moreover, LFL's continuity editors reviewed the second two and decided that the "one line" was more authoritive than the longer diatrabes in TTT, so good luck using that as proof that this is a unique case to which somehow Chee's remark has ZERO relevence to. Give me a fucking break. Are you going to spew horseshit and claim the TTT is analogous to a history of C'boath specifically again?

AND AGAIN, HOW IS FUNCTIONALLY DELETING ALL REFERENCES TO C'BOATH'S ORIGIN EVERYWHERE BUT THE THRAWN TRILOGY "RATIONALISING" THE ERROR?

At least mine requires eliminating references only in one history book by one author, not three different ones by all seperate sources.

Your dogmatic arguement to Leland Chee is pathetic as the quote is so fucking ambiguous as to lack any kind of venom at all.

How is it ambiguous? Can you point out the section where it says "if the primary source addresses the point of contention in a larger word count than the second, we throw out all references to the contrary after the original, no matter if there are multiple ones, even in more than one source."

What the fuck the DESB has primacy on the actualy HttE and the events there in has, I do not know, and no one with half a brain can properly justify.

Its very simple.

They're all on the same level of authority (Official). We have four sources. Three agree with each other, and disagree with the first.

LFL generally takes the later source, even if it hasn't been published yet, over the earlier source.

ALL three corroborating sources take place after the disagreeing one.

Therefore, the three corroborating sources should be considered the more authoritive version of that specific detail. QED.

What does it matter what the Sourcebook is about? I don't see how that makes it worth less, its all official.

And I never said we should throw out the DESB cunt face. I said we shouldn't just fucking changed the entire story arc of a central character due to one throw away line, and try and find some reasonable resolution to the discrepancy.

Please stop crying all over the place about this "central story arc" bullshit. Can someone please explain how C'boath mentioning the Guardian a grand total of twice and Psadans once somehow greatly impacts the plot and the character of C'boath? He's fucking insane.

And the Guardian is mentioned over so many lines? Give me a break.

SoD. How do you justify taking one history book's couple lines here-and-there irrelevent background to the central story and decide that three other all corroborating sources are all incorrect based on one uncorroborated source?

After all, if we can label the entire history of the Mon Cal as 'rebel propaganda', why then can't we apply a similar brush to a fucking sourcebook on a series that doesn't even deal with the trilogy it comments on?

Because it doesn't matter what series it comments on. Why would it matter? Its all official.

And besides, the background of the Mon Cal is impossible to reconcile with canon video observation, and isn't analogous at all, you dishonest fuck.

IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE BOOKS you retarded dipshit. It is the DESB not the HttESB. You are (in affect) using the 'life of Caesar' as an accurate account of 'the life of Alexander'. Which is wrong, do you get it?

Bullshit, because the bits of background about C'boath are not central to either the Hier to the Empire novel nor to the Dark Empire Sourcebook.

Besides, The Essential Guide to Characters does contain a dedicated biographical account of Joruus C'boath. The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons does contain a dedicated entry on the history of Wayland.

The DESB primary material is not HttE. It mentions it in passing (wrongly), and it shouldn't be used to overide it. If the HtteSB (if there is one) did the same, then we would have a problem.

Really, tell me how you found the source material used by SW historians to make the DESB. Tell me how you know its the Heir to the Empire novel.

Hint hint: the sources used extrinsically are not evidence under SoD. Tell me, if KJA calls up GL for information about the Sith, what is that to our in-universe historian? Inspiration from God about what happened in history?

WHERE IS WORD COUNT AN EXCEPTION TO CHEE'S PATTERN OF DEALING WITH CONTRADICTIONS?

WHERE IS IT STATED THAT SOURCEBOOKS ARE OFFICIAL ONLY INSOFAR THAT THEY REFER TO THE CENTRAL STORY OF THE MAIN MEDIA BEING ADDRESSED?

And your 'policy' consits of such strong and clear language as 'tends to' and 'in general' Yeah that's real Iron Clad, that is ...

Yeah you're right. So I know what we should do. We should put the first source's handful of background lines on a pedestal and throw-out all references in three different sources which all agree with each other and in which LFL approved three seperate times the contested bits, including a dedicated bio of Joruus C'boath, of which there is no other in SW continuity.

WHERE IS WORD COUNT LISTED BY CHEE AS GROUNDS FOR EXCEPTION TO HIS PATTERN?

I am not throwing out the DESB, I am reconciling out the rubbish it writes about events that is not based on the subject material it is meant to deal with. Which is what real historians do, I mean we gotta follow SoD, right?

PROVE THAT THE IN-UNIVERSE HISTORIAN'S SOURCE MATERIAL WAS THE OTHER HISTORY BOOKS WE HAVE ACCESS TO, FOR ALL YOU KNOW, IT WAS PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL THEY WERE BASED ON.

Then as a reasonable intelligent human being (giving the benefit of the doubt here, as you have provided very little evidence in this thread), you should also realise that we try and reconcile the two, not throw out one for the other.

How is "C'boath was the guardian" fit with "C'boath wasn't the Guardian" or "it was a earlier clone of C'boath which was the Guardian" a reconciliation? It undermines the meaning of the three other sources until it might as well delete those portions. And tell me, what is wrong with "C'boath is totally insane, cooked up a fantasy, and because he brainfucked his subjects, they believed it too" or alternatively "C'boath is totally insane, cooked up a fantasy, and his fall into madness was so profound his primitive subjects thought he was a different man and believed that he'd killed the Guardian."

Not only does your quote fail on the "he forgot Palpatine's orders" and "he was the Guardian" (what, are they talking about a mysterious other "he" and changing the subject by the end of the sentence to C'boath #2? Right), but a hypothesized source of C'boath clone madness was the fact he was an early clone experiment, which is inconsistent with him being a later clone from a sane Joruus C'baoth.

Acutally I asked about what relationship Jorus C'baoth had on the issue at hand, Joruus C'baoth as the guardian.

Palpatine had special interest in Jorus C'boath, which is probably why he selected him to be a cloning experiment.

Bullshit. C'baoth didn't start mind fucking until General Covell. And if they were free to do whatever they wanted while C'baoth was under the ysalamiri, does that include; telling the truth?

No, because my point was if they were under the thrall of C'boath back when he imagined he killed the Guardian, they'd be under the same delusion. There's no way their memories of that delusion would magically change once C'boath was gone.

I am not going by the opposite you cock sucking donkey whore, the post I made directly under the one you 'chose' to 'rebut' clearly points out that I am looking for a reasonable compramise, which satisfies both. I think that at this point I have also made it very clear that had this been another source dealing with the same primary issues (say like an HttESB), I would have very fucking little room to argue about anything.

Your compromise makes no sense in the DESB or other sources and directly contradicts the spirit of them.

It is NOT a reasonable compromise. You're functionally deleting the references in three other sources to bend to one historical source (thus being subjective in of itself) which in uncorroborated.

But since the DESB doesn't concern itself primarily with HttE, I don't think it should be taken as a green light to just erase everything that was written in HttE.

Who said "everything"?

You want to watch where those strawmen point, asshole?

And I never recall reading that Sourcebooks are only authoritive insofar that they refer to the primary piece of literature they're associated with.

I might be wrong. As far as I know, Zahn himself could have told the authors for the Essential Guides and DESB that C'baoth was the guardian, or that the original guardian was C'baoth who cloned himself, and told them to put it in there and he would reveal all later. The latter certainly is a possibility, but that still doesn't mean that we can take one source which deals with the issue on a tangent, and completely dump the origianl and primary historical reference which states rather emphatically the opposite.

Actually, the Thrawn Trilogy is just another secondary history book. It isn't a source in SoD, because you can't prove that it was used as source material by the imaginary authors.

Besides, the C'baoth/Guardian history is a bit of background fluff in the HttE. I guess I should discount those dedicated bios of C'boath and Wayland in two seperate sources, eh?

Acutally no. That is not the way archaeology or history works. The HttE trilogy is the primary historical reference to the events that occured during that time. The Essential guides can only get its information from there, if it is wrong, then it is a mistake.

No, because in-universe, you don't know that the HttE is used as a source for the Essential Guides. For all you know, the history book of the Essential Guides were compiled from primary sources and documentary films. We don't know. But since you don't have that in-universe bibliography, you're arguing a point with no evidence but out-of-universe reality which is inadmissible.

The DESB is the primary historical reference for the DE saga, you cannot throw out what we have learned first hand in the HttE, by one throw away line in the DESB.

Yeah you can, because they're both official. And from our SoD perspective, they're two history books.

And its not just the DESB. The only dedicated bio we have on C'boath disagrees with the background offered in HttE.

I'll give an example.

Back to The Hot Zone. Now, they talk about Patient Zero of the Marburg microbreak in Kenya, "Charles Monet." Now they talk of his life and house and past, but its not the main story.

If I open up a medical tome and it has a dedicated bio on each pf the major players of The Hot Zone and emphatically disagrees with the small bits of background fluff in The Hot Zone, do I consider The Hot Zone paramount? Because it has more words?

As I have already pointed out, it is like taking one line out of the 'Life of Caesar' about Alexander, and using it to contradict what is written in the 'Life of Alexander'. One is a primary source the other is secondary.

The

Nice continuation of your little strawman there jerk off. I have already stated that I would prefer some kind of rationalisation (as it is done in the real world archeology), and since Leeland Chee's 'great policy' consists off 'in general' and 'tends to', you will forgive me if I don't follow it to the letter.

No, you'll just do the exact opposite and take the earliest source over three other corroborating sources.

Oh, and let's see some of the passages which would be gloriously "rationalized" by Crown's staggering genius.

Joruus protected the Wayland facility known as Mount Tantiss, a secret Imperial facility used for cloning purposes and weapons storage. (emphasis mine)

Wow, they're talking about another Joruus and then continue off with the real Joruus with no hint of a transition. Let's hear a round of applause for Crown.

And this is SW continuity's sole dedicated bio of Joruus C'boath.

With his memories clouded, this C'boath did not even remember his original mission, nor his service to the Emperor Palpatine. (emphasis mine)

This is even worse, they're specific to the clone of C'boath that he was Palpatine's servant. So he forgot his mission and service to Palpatine and then was killed by his clone which this bio will clearly overlook. How does this require fewer terms than "he's insane and has been proven to manipulate people's brains, thus he could've infected his subjects over decades with his own delusions." At least I rely on things we've been givein, all of them by HttE itself, which doesn't require anything but delusion on the part of an insane character and him to manipulate others' memory when we've observed him to manipulate thoughts on a large scale before, rather than nonexistant clones which essentially delete the meaning of the above passages.

Pissing on Occam's Razor now, too?

Bullshit. It isn't Appeal to Ignorance. That is assuming something is true because you haven't proved it false. We know Palpatine did something, because Thrawn's death was intentional (you yourself found the quote and cited it, and then whined about it, so I do believe it is evidence), some Noghri were still aligned with the Empire later (Mysteries of the Sith), and Palpatine was using Thrawn as a diversion.

"Palpatine knew that Thrawn was going to be stabbed by Rukh"? How does that make it no accident. Tell me, genius, if Palpatine knows through the Force that there'll be a turbolift failure in the Palace, does that make the failure of the lift "no mistake"? Give me a break; "no contender could ever be allowed to become too powerful" (emphasis mine). You're full of shit.

Still, no contender could ever be allowed to become too powerful. It was no accident when Thrawn fell. Palpatine never knew if Thrawn guessed that he was being used to divert attention from his own return.

Right. If you think your explanation satisfies the evidence, you're in need of some medication.

Hey, you didn't respond to this at all.

Yeah. Thrawn would have been a real threat to a man who can blank out the minds of trillions of people in order to bury a SSD in Coruscant. To a man who has back channel codes hard wired into all of the fleet so that no one could use it against him. To a man who has entire legions of superweapons hidden away in the Deep Core, and Dark Side adepts, and Hands who are nothing more but an extension of his will.

Yes, Thrawn. An alien in a prejudiced Empire, who hasn't placed his ysalamiri in his fleet to protect them from Force user. A Grand Admiral with a fleet of 200 + 5, is going to be a real threat against the Emperor reborn who controls ships who in volume alone dwarf Thrawn ...

Well you put me in my place there dickhead.

Firstly, it was your assertion that due to the fact he didn't threaten the Ministers, he didn't threaten Palpatine, which is a Non sequitur since Thrawn's harmlessness when he has nothing but a Holonet connection is not logically connected to Thrawn later being a threat to Palpatine.

You made that argument, ass, so don't bitch and change it around. You didn't argue that Palpy was too powerful, you argued that the DESB contradicted itself because the Ministers weren't threatened by Thrawn, therefore Palpy wouldn't be once Thrawn was winning the war.

But you changed the point being debated from the consistency of the DESB (which, when it doesn't apply to C'boath, is a red herring, but I digress) to "whether it made sense that Palpatine felt Thrawn was a threat."

Secondly, too bad despite all the shit listed above a few morons who couldn't wave a lightsabre to save their lives, a single Royal Guard, and the Emperor's doctor were responsible for his final death, huh?

And besides, there's levels of threat. Thrawn's continued campaign was a threat to Palpatine's specific plans, which called for attacking the Core from the inside while the NRDF was on the Outer Rim reclaiming Thrawn's conquest. At this point, the NRDF was still more powerful militarily than the entire Empire even at the end of Dark Empire, according to New Republic Intelligence.

Having all those forces bottled up around Coruscant and her sisters because of Thrawn when Palpatine launched his invasion could have caused his offensive to stall right there in the Core, and thus throw off all his delicate war plans for fighting a superior enemy.

But yeah, even though that information was acquired from the DESB, which I know you own from citing it, you couldn't be bothered to read it, or even consider it, but were too quickly changing your original red herring when it was clear that your "inconsistency" fell flat on its ass.

I AM NOT THROWING OUT THE ENTIRE SOURCEBOOK YOU STRAWMAN LOVING MOTHERFUCKING CRACK SMOKING DONKEY RAPING MOTHERFUCKER

I made that ubundantly clear throughtout the post you replied to, and the one directly underneath it.

Yeah, your "rationalisations" sure preserve the meaning of the Essential Guide quotes above, and the DESB quote.

To claim that that is a rationalisation which actually satisfies the Essential Guides and DESB is dishonest and you fucking know it. Functionally, there's NO DIFFERENCE between what you're doing and just deleting those references. None whatsoever.

I believe that if we take what the DESB says in passing about events it isn't even in a position to comment on with authority over the primary source of information IS FUCKING STUPID, and unjustifiable by any kind of logical thought.

Sorry, still not knowing what this "word count" difference is all about.

I guess we should've never used that "ionized tracer" stuff as evidence in the SoTE novel back before ICS2 because we had a whole section on blasters in the Essential Guides, and the SoTE is a "off hand reference."

It doesn't mean good ol' Crown's word count requirements. My apologies.

EDIT: I'm neither a skilled enough typist nor enough of a masochist to type this behemoth after Crown conceded. I condensed a reply to the last couple posts in here, and it was in the works a couple hours (with eating and talking to people I know, etc.--like I said, not that masochistic).

So this is technically a pre-concession post, I suppose. Just letting people know.

[Crown]

I am arguing to suddenly make C'baoth the guardian (when anyone with a mental processing power of a worm can see is bullshit) IS FUCKED UP.

Really, which is why some in this very thread--two actually--thought the same I did? Oops.

An appeal to others Primy? -- How very common of you, should I also point out that others also agreed with me? Dumbass.

Moreover we don't have to do this, since the HttE is the primary refernce on the events that happened in the HttE trilogy (if we follow historical fact and SoD).

No, primary sources refer to accounts from the individual involved themselves, like, say a memoir of Luke Skywalker's. Would you please prove to me that the DESB and other source materials are secondary materials insofar that in-universe they used the TTT as source material? That's OUT of universe, idiot. They're all history books. The fact that TTT was the source material in the real world fiction of SW is not admissible evidence.

From the perspective of history, The Thrawn Trilogy is like a historian writing a "true history" book like say The Hot Zone about the outbreaks of filoviruses and what happened.

Now, a few background facts in the former is not explicitly true when all the other historical documents on the subject say otherwise. Particularly when you're dealing with the equivalent of a history's book's portrayal of a completely insane and delusional man's point-of-view.

C'baoth's point of view is used to justify that he isn't the Guardian once. The other time was a Psadan's point of view, but hey lets not ingore that.

If we treat TTT as a historical documentary, giving us an unbiased third person view of events that actually occured, sourcebooks and essential guides are be defenition the cliff notes of history. They are treatise to guide, us the readers, through events. But the ultimate historical reference should be the documentary, which introduces the characters.

You are saying that a histroical reference on Caesar (DESB) which contains a throw away line on Alexander's life (HttE) should take preceedance over the biography of Alexander's life (HttE) which was writter earlier, but remarkably closer to (or one might even suggest during) the time of Alexader.

Sorry, but TTT is most definitely not "Alexander's Life"; its a history of the Ptolemic Egypt with a couple references to Ptolemy's origin and very early military career that all the other history books disagree with emphatically.

Sorry, when LFL itself approved this mistake not once (possibly just missed it), but is again approved twice more, you're not going to look at it as some historical error. That's bullshit, and the entire point of TTT just being another history book with a few references and being on the same level as the DESB and ECs.

That makes it even worse you dipshit. Lets go with the Alexander theory, you quite correctly point out that the TTT when dealing with C'baoth isn't the same as 'Alexander's life' dealing with Alexander. But it is the same when C'baoth is viewed as Ptolemy. He is one of Alexander's generals, while Alexander in this case is the primary focus (say Luke, Leia or Thrawn), Ptolemy sitll played a fucking prominient role.

And then while reading Caesars story, we get a throwaway line; Ptolemy was a cross-dresser. Then this mistake is picked up and repeated continiously in other 'refrence' guides. The sourcebook's and the guides, cannot supercede first hand accounts, because that's where they get their information from!

That is the truth when dealing with real world history. Why this doesn't apply for SW continuity is bullshit.

Yeah, because the TTT is a history of C'boath according to you, idiot.

It is the only first hand account of Joruus C'baoth's life, do you have another? Fucknuts.

I don't suggest we 'throw out DESB' (nice strawman there asshole), I suggest on matters of contradiction with the primary source of information, we attempt to resolve it rationally.

Which, according to you means doing exactly the opposite of what is suggested to be the norm by Chee, which was followed by LFL not just once (to-be-published, remember?), but three seperate times over the course of over half a decade, which is in opposition to SoD--all of this, which for all basic purposes is totally ignoring the DESB on this subject.

Just admit it. Your "[resolving] it rationally" means for all basic purposes deleting the following...

C'baoth was a more curious case. Thrawn was brilliant enough to realize only an insane Dark Jedi would violate the Emperor's ban ordering them all into silence years ago. While they waited in their castles for their Emperor's command. Thrawn had sought out the one who would have forgotten all such orders years ago. It was most satisfying to watch the mad Jedi's mind unravel.

Why can't you just say that?

Oh for fucks sake;

1. Thrawn wasn't sneeking out an 'insane Dark Jedi'.
2. He had no reason to believe that the Guardian would be insane.
3. Yes, he need a Force user, but it wasn't a pre-requesite for his search (how the fuck he would know C'baoth would be insane, before he even found out the location of Wayland you tell me).
4. The fucking quote in the DESB hinges on evidence not fucking present in the book.

That's why 'you can't just say that'!

You inability -- nay, your stubborn unwillingness to even entertain the idea is FUCKED UP. And cannot be justified under any kind of 'policy' in LFL. A policy that has such strong and clear language as 'tends to' and 'in genera', no less.

Which was exercised all over the place, including in this instance for the approval of three seperate equal-value sources to the TTT, and you want to essentially discount each and every single source speaking anything to the contrary of what the TTT says about C'boath.

No, three second opinions on C'boath does not mean treating the TTT as sacrosant and inviolate in this case, particularly when that is just opposite of the generalisation. And no, whining that "the language isn't strong enough" isn't grounds to wholely ignore it, either.

I asked you why this is a unique occasion which doesn't fit what Chee says (even though LFL applied it twice to approve both the Essential Guides). Where is my reason? Maybe it isn't hard-and-fast policy. That doesn't mean you get to wave it off without stating any reason why this instance is special.

Do you work this hard at being such a cock munching strawman pushing dickhead, or does it come naturally? Your fucking approach is to ingnore the TTT entirely in favour of three wrong guides. Rather than even attempting to say there is a fucking contradiction. The DESB contradicts its self on Thrawn seeking out C'baoth in the first place, you are looking more like an idiot the more you argue this.

Actually a statement of fact jerk off, or did it escape you that HttE was one of the best selling SW EU material?

If you learned anything on this board by now, you'd know that fallacies are invalid arguments, not declarations of untruthfulness.

In other words, baby Crown, you're right, but that fact is totally, completely, and utterly irrelevent to the argument. You know, as in it doesn't fucking matter.

As in, don't waste my time with invalid arguments then offer such gems in response as "but my premises are correct, DUHHhhh, how could you be so DUM, PRIMEY?!11!"

Oh, witlle inkumps Primy annnoyeed that he didn't catch me out in a fallacy. Didums,

He dickhead, it is a statement of fact that TTT is well known and fucking popular. It is just another example of how poor reaserch can mean a great big fuck up later on.

Go fuck yourself, this is exactly analogous to this, since this whole thing started when I (just as you have) pointed out the shoddy research that went into the DESB, you even refuse to attempt to rationalise it, and just respond with newer > older, which is fucking bullshit. That isn't correct since one isn't even dealing primarily with the subject it contradicts in one line and can be viewed as an error, or rationalised in some way.

And the TTT addresses C'boath and the Guardian as a major and integral point of plot? Three. Seperate. Sources. Moreover, LFL's continuity editors reviewed the second two and decided that the "one line" was more authoritive than the longer diatrabes in TTT, so good luck using that as proof that this is a unique case to which somehow Chee's remark has ZERO relevence to. Give me a fucking break. Are you going to spew horseshit and claim the TTT is analogous to a history of C'boath specifically again?

AND AGAIN, HOW IS FUNCTIONALLY DELETING ALL REFERENCES TO C'BOATH'S ORIGIN EVERYWHERE BUT THE THRAWN TRILOGY "RATIONALISING" THE ERROR?

At least mine requires eliminating references only in one history book by one author, not three different ones by all seperate sources.

Let's review; Heir to the Empire C'baoth != the Guardian. Dark Force Rising C'baoth != the Guardian. The Last Command C'baoth != the Guardian. Gee, I wonder if the author was trying to tell us something? How about this you dickwad, the DESB claims that Thrawn sought out C'baoth because he was insane ... where the fuck did they get that impression from the book? Yes Thrawn needed, and wanted the services of a Jedi, but he didn't plan his entire campaign on the possibility that he ran into an insane one.

The 'three' different 'history books' are not history books, they are treatise written by a definate person -- thus not fucking un biased documentaries. They fucking reference the actually history books, in this case the novels, or comics. For a real world analogy; the novels and comics are Aristotle's Ethics. The guides and sourcebooks are like the cliff notes for Aristotle's Ethics. There is a fucking differece.

Your dogmatic arguement to Leland Chee is pathetic as the quote is so fucking ambiguous as to lack any kind of venom at all.

How is it ambiguous? Can you point out the section where it says "if the primary source addresses the point of contention in a larger word count than the second, we throw out all references to the contrary after the original, no matter if there are multiple ones, even in more than one source."

Here's what I'll point to;

She [Lucy Wilson, in charge of continuity] told us that we don't necessarily have to refer to everything that happens in other writers' adventures, but we must make certain that we just don't contradict anything.

At this point -- oops -- someone dropped the ball. But that is okay, no harm done, a sourcebook or a guide isn't able to just fucking alter something willy nilly. I mean if they said that Thrawn's secret plan consisted of Telly Tubies, I am sure we can discount it, right? But Leeland's quote doesn't say; always, without a doubt, no point in even trying to deny it; newer > old, though does it fuckface? Which is what you need in order to convince me that I have to bend over and take the DESB without even a grumble.

You have accused me, over and over, about how I have been trying to throw out DESB ('and the other 2 sources') for TTT alone. I have denied this twice. This makes it the third time you like cuntstain.

She told us that we don't necessarily have to refer to everything that happens in other writers' adventures, but we must make certain that we just don't contradict anything.

What the fuck the DESB has primacy on the actualy HttE and the events there in has, I do not know, and no one with half a brain can properly justify.

Its very simple.

They're all on the same level of authority (Official). We have four sources. Three agree with each other, and disagree with the first.

LFL generally takes the later source, even if it hasn't been published yet, over the earlier source.

ALL three corroborating sources take place after the disagreeing one.

Therefore, the three corroborating sources should be considered the more authoritive version of that specific detail. QED.

What does it matter what the Sourcebook is about? I don't see how that makes it worth less, its all official.

BECAUSE SOURCEBOOKS AND GUIDES AREN'T HISTORICALL DOCUMENTARIES LIKE FUCKING NOVELS OR COMICS you crack smoking donkey raping whoring bitch.

They get their information *from* the first hand documents, in this case the novels. If DE itself said that C'baoth was the Guardian, I WOULDN'T HAVE A FUCKING LEG TO STAND ON. As it is on the same leve AND of the same type as TTT. But a sourcebook and a guide isn't a documented historical fact, it is the fucking collation of evidence from actual documentation. AND IN THIS CASE THEY GOT IT WRONG.

And I never said we should throw out the DESB cunt face. I said we shouldn't just fucking changed the entire story arc of a central character due to one throw away line, and try and find some reasonable resolution to the discrepancy.

Please stop crying all over the place about this "central story arc" bullshit. Can someone please explain how C'boath mentioning the Guardian a grand total of twice and Psadans once somehow greatly impacts the plot and the character of C'boath? He's fucking insane.

And the Guardian is mentioned over so many lines? Give me a break.

SoD. How do you justify taking one history book's couple lines here-and-there irrelevent background to the central story and decide that three other all corroborating sources are all incorrect based on one uncorroborated source?

Because the three others a 'study guide' to history you fucking moronic dence headed cocksucker. Not actual historical documents. You check their validity by comparing them to historical documents, in this case TTT (and for SSD case the movies). And when you do you find that they are WRONG. It doesn't *matter* that in this case they are both of 'the EU', and in the SSD case one is a movie. It is all about checking your sources, and in this case IT IS WRONG.

And while C'baoth might not be the 'central arc' of the entire TTT, his relationship with the Guardian is a 'central arc' for his character. It is mentioned three times in all three of the fucking books. You can't just call it 'bullshit' and move on because it suits you.

Add that, the DESB suddenly puts motive to Thrawn's decision to go the Wayland because he knew C'baoth was insane which is also NO WHERE IN THE FUCKING BOOK.

After all, if we can label the entire history of the Mon Cal as 'rebel propaganda', why then can't we apply a similar brush to a fucking sourcebook on a series that doesn't even deal with the trilogy it comments on?

Because it doesn't matter what series it comments on. Why would it matter? Its all official.

And besides, the background of the Mon Cal is impossible to reconcile with canon video observation, and isn't analogous at all, you dishonest fuck.

Yes. It. Does.

One is an unbiased third person view, and the other (the sourcebook) is a treatise on the fucking subject. One doesn't use a refrence -- it is the reference, the other has to use references and IT FUCKED UP!

IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE BOOKS you retarded dipshit. It is the DESB not the HttESB. You are (in affect) using the 'life of Caesar' as an accurate account of 'the life of Alexander'. Which is wrong, do you get it?

Bullshit, because the bits of background about C'boath are not central to either the Hier to the Empire novel nor to the Dark Empire Sourcebook.

Besides, The Essential Guide to Characters does contain a dedicated biographical account of Joruus C'boath. The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons does contain a dedicated entry on the history of Wayland.

And we have seen errors in these in relation to fucking CANON you dipshit motherfucker. They can't be viewed as in anyway close to un-biased accuracy. They are cliff notes, or study guides, or reading list for students. NOT FIRST HAND HISTORICAL DATA, which is what the movies are (un refutable), and then the rest of the EU -- novels and comics (as long as they don't contradict the movies). The sourcebooks and guides are fucking treatise on the subject, written in a definate first person. And thus, we should be able to challenge their findings, since their sources disagree with their conclusions.

The DESB primary material is not HttE. It mentions it in passing (wrongly), and it shouldn't be used to overide it. If the HtteSB (if there is one) did the same, then we would have a problem.

Really, tell me how you found the source material used by SW historians to make the DESB. Tell me how you know its the Heir to the Empire novel.

Hint hint: the sources used extrinsically are not evidence under SoD. Tell me, if KJA calls up GL for information about the Sith, what is that to our in-universe historian? Inspiration from God about what happened in history?

WHERE IS WORD COUNT AN EXCEPTION TO CHEE'S PATTERN OF DEALING WITH CONTRADICTIONS?

WHERE IS IT STATED THAT SOURCEBOOKS ARE OFFICIAL ONLY INSOFAR THAT THEY REFER TO THE CENTRAL STORY OF THE MAIN MEDIA BEING ADDRESSED?

The sourcebooks are by defenition not first hand historical evidence you twat. They reference first had evidence to make their case, reducing them to treatise on subjects by SW historians that we get to read. The assumption that C'baoth is the Guardian, or that Thrawn specifically sought him out is not supported by any of the evidence AT ALL! Jeezus, one would think that you have enough brains to figure this out.

And your 'policy' consits of such strong and clear language as 'tends to' and 'in general' Yeah that's real Iron Clad, that is ...

Yeah you're right. So I know what we should do. We should put the first source's handful of background lines on a pedestal and throw-out all references in three different sources which all agree with each other and in which LFL approved three seperate times the contested bits, including a dedicated bio of Joruus C'boath, of which there is no other in SW continuity.

WHERE IS WORD COUNT LISTED BY CHEE AS GROUNDS FOR EXCEPTION TO HIS PATTERN?

Sourcebooks and guides AREN'T SOURCES you god-dammed fucker. They are a collation of evidence from sources, in this case they are wrong.

I am not throwing out the DESB, I am reconciling out the rubbish it writes about events that is not based on the subject material it is meant to deal with. Which is what real historians do, I mean we gotta follow SoD, right?

PROVE THAT THE IN-UNIVERSE HISTORIAN'S SOURCE MATERIAL WAS THE OTHER HISTORY BOOKS WE HAVE ACCESS TO, FOR ALL YOU KNOW, IT WAS PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL THEY WERE BASED ON.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don't need to prove an appeal to ignorance fallacy to dumbshit. I just have to show that we have one first hand evidence of C'baoth, his role on Wayland, and the reason or circumstances that came about to Thrawn meeting him, and that is TTT. That is the only first hand evidence that is known to us. Based on this, the DESB and the guides ARE WRONG. As they do not cite their evidence, they may even be CITING EACH OTHER (and doesn't this seem familiar? Crown: Primy why do you insist that the DESB is right about this? Primy: Because the Guide agrees with it. Crown: And how do you know that the guide is right? Primy: Because the DESB agrees with, fucking duh! --- and oh my god, I can't believe I have even bothered to reply to this bullshit for so long).

Then as a reasonable intelligent human being (giving the benefit of the doubt here, as you have provided very little evidence in this thread), you should also realise that we try and reconcile the two, not throw out one for the other.

How is "C'boath was the guardian" fit with "C'boath wasn't the Guardian" or "it was a earlier clone of C'boath which was the Guardian" a reconciliation? It undermines the meaning of the three other sources until it might as well delete those portions. And tell me, what is wrong with "C'boath is totally insane, cooked up a fantasy, and because he brainfucked his subjects, they believed it too" or alternatively "C'boath is totally insane, cooked up a fantasy, and his fall into madness was so profound his primitive subjects thought he was a different man and believed that he'd killed the Guardian."

Not only does your quote fail on the "he forgot Palpatine's orders" and "he was the Guardian" (what, are they talking about a mysterious other "he" and changing the subject by the end of the sentence to C'boath #2? Right), but a hypothesized source of C'boath clone madness was the fact he was an early clone experiment, which is inconsistent with him being a later clone from a sane Joruus C'baoth.

It wasn't proposed as the solution dickwad, but I fucking take it back. All that bullshit about C'baoth in the guides and DESB is bullshit, they aren't first hand evidence, they are written in past tense and by the first person, they don't cite their sources, and the one irrefutable historical source we do have, disagrees with them. Clearly someone should get a failing mark. Oh and lets not forgett;

Emperor Palpatine
Type: Jedi Master
DEXTERITY 2D+1
Blaster 8D+1. brawling parry 8D, dodge 10D. lightsaber 13D, melee combat 9D+ 2, melee parry 9D+1, running 7D
KNOWLEDGE 4D+1
Alien species 10D+2,, bureaucracy: Empire 14D, cultures 9D. intimidation 14D, languages 9D, law enforcement: Empire 8D, military history 14D planetary systems 7D+1, scholar: archaic library systems 10D. scholar: arcane technologies 12D+2, scholar: clone vat systems 7D+2, scholar: Dark Side Lore 15D+1, scholar: Jedi lore 14D. scholar: lightsaber histories 14D, survival 7D, tactics: fleets 12D, tactics: ground assault 6D, value 10D+1, willpower 13D
MECHANICAL 2D
PERCEPTION 4D+1
Bargain 10D, command 11D, command: Imperial Forces 13D, con 8D, hide 7D+1, investigation 8D+2, persuasion 13D. persuasion: oration 15D+2, search 8D.
STRENGTH 3D
Brawling 8D, climbing/jumping 7D+1, lifting 7D, stamina 9D swimming 5D
TECHNICAL 2D
Computer programming/repair 5D, droid programming 4D, lightsaber repair 10D, first aid 5D, security 8D

Acutally I asked about what relationship Jorus C'baoth had on the issue at hand, Joruus C'baoth as the guardian.

Palpatine had special interest in Jorus C'boath, which is probably why he selected him to be a cloning experiment.

Or rather how he managed to get a tissue sample of a Jedi, for the cloning experiment, but fuck it, like this means shit all.

Bullshit. C'baoth didn't start mind fucking until General Covell. And if they were free to do whatever they wanted while C'baoth was under the ysalamiri, does that include; telling the truth?

No, because my point was if they were under the thrall of C'boath back when he imagined he killed the Guardian, they'd be under the same delusion. There's no way their memories of that delusion would magically change once C'boath was gone.

YOU HAVE NO FUCKING EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THEY WERE EVER UNDER C'BAOTH'S MIND CONTROL. The books themselves make it plainly clear that he didn't start with the fucking mind melding bullshit until after Thrawn found him. Your only reason to suggest it is in a vain attempt to explain DESB while not admitting that it can be flawed. Why were they under mind control? So that they would believe that C'baoth wasn't the guardian. Whey would they need to believe that? So they could tell Luke that C'baoth and the Guardian weren't the same person -- even though it is important that they are. Why is it important that they are? So the DESB could be correct. But the DESB contradics TTT. No it doesn't! C'baoth is insane and he mind fucked the natives ... Repeat ad nauseam until Primy gets his point across.

I am not going by the opposite you cock sucking donkey whore, the post I made directly under the one you 'chose' to 'rebut' clearly points out that I am looking for a reasonable compramise, which satisfies both. I think that at this point I have also made it very clear that had this been another source dealing with the same primary issues (say like an HttESB), I would have very fucking little room to argue about anything.

Your compromise makes no sense in the DESB or other sources and directly contradicts the spirit of them.

It is NOT a reasonable compromise. You're functionally deleting the references in three other sources to bend to one historical source (thus being subjective in of itself) which in uncorroborated.

TTT is NOT SUBJECTIVE you dickhead, it is OBJECTIVE, having very little narative and showing the inner thoughts of all the protagonists (besides Thrawn). The sourcebooks and guides -- by comparison -- are written with a narrative, and clearly aren't historical evidence, but a collation thereof, and they are clearly fucking wrong!

But since the DESB doesn't concern itself primarily with HttE, I don't think it should be taken as a green light to just erase everything that was written in HttE.

Who said "everything"?

You want to watch where those strawmen point, asshole?

And I never recall reading that Sourcebooks are only authoritive insofar that they refer to the primary piece of literature they're associated with.

HttE; C'baoth is not the Guardian. DESB; C'baoth is the Guardain. Primy: C'baoth is the Guardian and forget about what HttE has to say about it ...

Yeah hatfucker, that was a real strawman there wasn't it?

I might be wrong. As far as I know, Zahn himself could have told the authors for the Essential Guides and DESB that C'baoth was the guardian, or that the original guardian was C'baoth who cloned himself, and told them to put it in there and he would reveal all later. The latter certainly is a possibility, but that still doesn't mean that we can take one source which deals with the issue on a tangent, and completely dump the origianl and primary historical reference which states rather emphatically the opposite.

Actually, the Thrawn Trilogy is just another secondary history book. It isn't a source in SoD, because you can't prove that it was used as source material by the imaginary authors.

Besides, the C'baoth/Guardian history is a bit of background fluff in the HttE. I guess I should discount those dedicated bios of C'boath and Wayland in two seperate sources, eh?

Rubbish. In SoD, we consider the movies and the novels and such to be primary historical data which is documented by an unknown, benevalant, and un-biased being. They are not 'secondary' they are primary. With the exception that the movies are given the primary responsability as 'ultimate authority'. The guides and sourcebooks are considered treateises on historical data, and thus should be allowed to be challenged if their hypothesis doesn't mesh with what is given the primary sources.

Acutally no. That is not the way archaeology or history works. The HttE trilogy is the primary historical reference to the events that occured during that time. The Essential guides can only get its information from there, if it is wrong, then it is a mistake.

No, because in-universe, you don't know that the HttE is used as a source for the Essential Guides. For all you know, the history book of the Essential Guides were compiled from primary sources and documentary films. We don't know. But since you don't have that in-universe bibliography, you're arguing a point with no evidence but out-of-universe reality which is inadmissible.

Oh for fucks sake, here it is again, another appeal to ignorance. WHAT WE DO know is that the only first hand account surrounding C'baoth is in TTT. The guides and sourcebook contradict this, they offer NO fucking citations for verification. TTT is considered FIRST HAND and ACCURATE (so long as it deosn't contradict the movies), ergo the guides and sourcebooks are wrong.

The DESB is the primary historical reference for the DE saga, you cannot throw out what we have learned first hand in the HttE, by one throw away line in the DESB.

Yeah you can, because they're both official. And from our SoD perspective, they're two history books.

And its not just the DESB. The only dedicated bio we have on C'boath disagrees with the background offered in HttE.

I'll give an example.

Back to The Hot Zone. Now, they talk about Patient Zero of the Marburg microbreak in Kenya, "Charles Monet." Now they talk of his life and house and past, but its not the main story.

If I open up a medical tome and it has a dedicated bio on each pf the major players of The Hot Zone and emphatically disagrees with the small bits of background fluff in The Hot Zone, do I consider The Hot Zone paramount? Because it has more words?

STRAWMAN

This isn't a discussion about 'who has more words'. The actualy analogy (had you the credability to say it) would have been;

I read a non-narrative third person account of the story of Alexander, his beginings, his campaigns and his death. With the novel obviously being presented as a 'Gods eye view' on things that there is no way any one person could have known and it is written in the present tense.

I then read Plutarch's The Age of Alexander, he wasn't actually there, he doesn't name his sources and in one throw away line changes the relationship between Alexander and Ptolemy, and Ptolemy is all of a sudden someone else too boot.

Who's work do you think is more authoritive on the subject?

As I have already pointed out, it is like taking one line out of the 'Life of Caesar' about Alexander, and using it to contradict what is written in the 'Life of Alexander'. One is a primary source the other is secondary.

The

Nice continuation of your little strawman there jerk off. I have already stated that I would prefer some kind of rationalisation (as it is done in the real world archeology), and since Leeland Chee's 'great policy' consists off 'in general' and 'tends to', you will forgive me if I don't follow it to the letter.

No, you'll just do the exact opposite and take the earliest source over three other corroborating sources.

Oh, and let's see some of the passages which would be gloriously "rationalized" by Crown's staggering genius.

Joruus protected the Wayland facility known as Mount Tantiss, a secret Imperial facility used for cloning purposes and weapons storage. (emphasis mine)

Wow, they're talking about another Joruus and then continue off with the real Joruus with no hint of a transition. Let's hear a round of applause for Crown.

And this is SW continuity's sole dedicated bio of Joruus C'boath.

With his memories clouded, this C'boath did not even remember his original mission, nor his service to the Emperor Palpatine. (emphasis mine)

This is even worse, they're specific to the clone of C'boath that he was Palpatine's servant. So he forgot his mission and service to Palpatine and then was killed by his clone which this bio will clearly overlook. How does this require fewer terms than "he's insane and has been proven to manipulate people's brains, thus he could've infected his subjects over decades with his own delusions." At least I rely on things we've been givein, all of them by HttE itself, which doesn't require anything but delusion on the part of an insane character and him to manipulate others' memory when we've observed him to manipulate thoughts on a large scale before, rather than nonexistant clones which essentially delete the meaning of the above passages.

Pissing on Occam's Razor now, too?

Plutarch's The Age of Alexander vs a gods eye view of 'the age of Alexander' ... who wins jerk off? You are continously pointing to second hand material in order to disprove first hand historical fact. IT IS WRONG.

Bullshit. It isn't Appeal to Ignorance. That is assuming something is true because you haven't proved it false. We know Palpatine did something, because Thrawn's death was intentional (you yourself found the quote and cited it, and then whined about it, so I do believe it is evidence), some Noghri were still aligned with the Empire later (Mysteries of the Sith), and Palpatine was using Thrawn as a diversion.

"Palpatine knew that Thrawn was going to be stabbed by Rukh"? How does that make it no accident. Tell me, genius, if Palpatine knows through the Force that there'll be a turbolift failure in the Palace, does that make the failure of the lift "no mistake"? Give me a break; "no contender could ever be allowed to become too powerful" (emphasis mine). You're full of shit.

Still, no contender could ever be allowed to become too powerful. It was no accident when Thrawn fell. Palpatine never knew if Thrawn guessed that he was being used to divert attention from his own return.

Right. If you think your explanation satisfies the evidence, you're in need of some medication.

Hey, you didn't respond to this at all.

Noghri weren't 'still alligned' to the Empire, they were unaware of the Empires betrayal. TLC sourcebook shows that Rukh wasn't a isolated as you wanted, right.

Yeah. Thrawn would have been a real threat to a man who can blank out the minds of trillions of people in order to bury a SSD in Coruscant. To a man who has back channel codes hard wired into all of the fleet so that no one could use it against him. To a man who has entire legions of superweapons hidden away in the Deep Core, and Dark Side adepts, and Hands who are nothing more but an extension of his will.

Yes, Thrawn. An alien in a prejudiced Empire, who hasn't placed his ysalamiri in his fleet to protect them from Force user. A Grand Admiral with a fleet of 200 + 5, is going to be a real threat against the Emperor reborn who controls ships who in volume alone dwarf Thrawn ...

Well you put me in my place there dickhead.

Firstly, it was your assertion that due to the fact he didn't threaten the Ministers, he didn't threaten Palpatine, which is a Non sequitur since Thrawn's harmlessness when he has nothing but a Holonet connection is not logically connected to Thrawn later being a threat to Palpatine.

You made that argument, ass, so don't bitch and change it around. You didn't argue that Palpy was too powerful, you argued that the DESB contradicted itself because the Ministers weren't threatened by Thrawn, therefore Palpy wouldn't be once Thrawn was winning the war.

But you changed the point being debated from the consistency of the DESB (which, when it doesn't apply to C'boath, is a red herring, but I digress) to "whether it made sense that Palpatine felt Thrawn was a threat."

Kiss my ass asshole. I'm not aware that I am meant to factor in a rebuttle to whatever asinine point you may bring up in a post I made that prompted your 'rebuttle' to begin with.

Secondly, too bad despite all the shit listed above a few morons who couldn't wave a lightsabre to save their lives, a single Royal Guard, and the Emperor's doctor were responsible for his final death, huh?

Point of relevance .... umm ... anyone ... ummmm ... Riiiiiiight

And besides, there's levels of threat. Thrawn's continued campaign was a threat to Palpatine's specific plans, which called for attacking the Core from the inside while the NRDF was on the Outer Rim reclaiming Thrawn's conquest. At this point, the NRDF was still more powerful militarily than the entire Empire even at the end of Dark Empire, according to New Republic Intelligence.

Having all those forces bottled up around Coruscant and her sisters because of Thrawn when Palpatine launched his invasion could have caused his offensive to stall right there in the Core, and thus throw off all his delicate war plans for fighting a superior enemy.

But yeah, even though that information was acquired from the DESB, which I know you own from citing it, you couldn't be bothered to read it, or even consider it, but were too quickly changing your original red herring when it was clear that your "inconsistency" fell flat on its ass.

Lets review; could Thrawn pose a threat to Palpy? No he couldn't. Primy's solution; wave hands frantically, make wild accusations of dishonesty, accuse people of a red herring, fuck project motive to a statement that was only brought about due to his own fucking 'rebuttle' and then stand on a slippery slope and hope you don't fall over. Primy's guide to pretend you didn't get bitch slapped into the next century.

Hey cock nuts; Palpy gets on the Holonet. Appears to Thrawn. I'm back bitch. Thrawn knowing the extend of percausions that Palpy has made to ensure that his fleet cannot be used against him, knowing that he doesn't have anywhere near enough ysalamiri to counteract his awesome mind control, quickly comes to the one logical realisation. Welcome you majesty, how are things?

You are fucking pathetic, do you know that?

I AM NOT THROWING OUT THE ENTIRE SOURCEBOOK YOU STRAWMAN LOVING MOTHERFUCKING CRACK SMOKING DONKEY RAPING MOTHERFUCKER

I made that ubundantly clear throughtout the post you replied to, and the one directly underneath it.

Yeah, your "rationalisations" sure preserve the meaning of the Essential Guide quotes above, and the DESB quote.

To claim that that is a rationalisation which actually satisfies the Essential Guides and DESB is dishonest and you fucking know it. Functionally, there's NO DIFFERENCE between what you're doing and just deleting those references. None whatsoever.

I didn't claim it had to be 'the rationalisation' now did I, you sad excuse for grey matter?

I believe that if we take what the DESB says in passing about events it isn't even in a position to comment on with authority over the primary source of information IS FUCKING STUPID, and unjustifiable by any kind of logical thought.

Sorry, still not knowing what this "word count" difference is all about.

I guess we should've never used that "ionized tracer" stuff as evidence in the SoTE novel back before ICS2 because we had a whole section on blasters in the Essential Guides, and the SoTE is a "off hand reference."

It doesn't mean good ol' Crown's word count requirements. My apologies.

Oh for the love of everything decent and good in the world, you are a sad, sad little boy you know that?

Fact: TTT isn't written in a narrative (obvious one), it is a 'gods eye view' of events as they happened. It is the only first hand historical document that we have.

Fact: The guides and sourcebooks aren't first hand accounts of a 'gods eye view'. They are written with a narrative (in the past tense), and THEY CANNOT INTRODUCE NEW INFORMATION, but only cite actual historical data.

If there is a conflict between the two, I leave it up to to anyone with a fucking brain to tell me whether they would believe a first hand, historical evidence written in a gods eye view. Or something written in the past tense, in the first (or possibly second, actually I think it is second I always get the two confused) person, which is more a treatise than actual hard evidence.

EDIT: I'm neither a skilled enough typist nor enough of a masochist to type this behemoth after Crown conceded. I condensed a reply to the last couple posts in here, and it was in the works a couple hours (with eating and talking to people I know, etc.--like I said, not that masochistic).

So this is technically a pre-concession post, I suppose. Just letting people know.

I just needed to reply to the stupidity of 'you moved the goal posts with the whole ruling council vs Thrawn thing and the Emperor returned vs Thrawn thing' bullshit that was pasted across numbnuts here's post. The rest was just for fun.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It's not really a concession if you're still arguing the point, is it?

Are you retracting that concession? Either way I'm going to bed. I'll deal with that in the morning.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Emperor Palpatine
Type: Jedi Master
DEXTERITY 2D+1
Blaster 8D+1. brawling parry 8D, dodge 10D. lightsaber 13D, melee combat 9D+ 2, melee parry 9D+1, running 7D
KNOWLEDGE 4D+1
Alien species 10D+2,, bureaucracy: Empire 14D, cultures 9D. intimidation 14D, languages 9D, law enforcement: Empire 8D, military history 14D planetary systems 7D+1, scholar: archaic library systems 10D. scholar: arcane technologies 12D+2, scholar: clone vat systems 7D+2, scholar: Dark Side Lore 15D+1, scholar: Jedi lore 14D. scholar: lightsaber histories 14D, survival 7D, tactics: fleets 12D, tactics: ground assault 6D, value 10D+1, willpower 13D
MECHANICAL 2D
PERCEPTION 4D+1
Bargain 10D, command 11D, command: Imperial Forces 13D, con 8D, hide 7D+1, investigation 8D+2, persuasion 13D. persuasion: oration 15D+2, search 8D.
STRENGTH 3D
Brawling 8D, climbing/jumping 7D+1, lifting 7D, stamina 9D swimming 5D
TECHNICAL 2D
Computer programming/repair 5D, droid programming 4D, lightsaber repair 10D, first aid 5D, security 8D

Well, this is stupid, but within the realms of possibility. I guess if Palpatine put the Force behind everything he did, he might just get the Strength and Dexterity stuff. And who knows, he might just be a Naval Tactics genius and we just didn't see it.

You should have used R2D2, who's apparently a better Pilot than Wedge Antilles

[Crown]

It's not really a concession if you're still arguing the point, is it?

Well when you put it that way ... no, it isn't is it?

Are you retracting that concession? Either way I'm going to bed. I'll deal with that in the morning.

Deal with what? it is was prompted by your little;

'Well you moved the goal posts, you didn't say that in your original statement about Thrawn vs Palpy! You committed a Non sequitur fallacy (news flash bitch, believe it or not the power of Palpy and the Ruling Council are logically connected as we measure one agains the other; Palpy >>>> Ruling Council )! You're a bad man, and look as I stand on this slippery slope while I try and not look like I should never have tried to argue this point. Boo-hoo!'

If you want to continue it fine go ahead.

Quick summery;

My position is thus; the Guides and sourcebooks are not primary historical evidence. They are written in the second person, in a past tense and should be viewed as a treatise on the subject at hand.;

The movies (and novel and comics) on the other hand are treated by SoD as primary historical evidence, especially as they are presented in the third person (a gods eye view of things), they are written in the present tense (once we move beyond the 'A long time ago, in galaxy far, far away ...') and they are the evidence from which the guides and sourcebooks draw their conclusion from.

Any discrepancy between the two, refer to the historical data over the guides/source books.

Primy agrees with this, when the discrepancy is between the movies and the guides/sourcebooks -- as do I -- but argues that only because they are of different rank in terms of canon. I agree with this, however I also believe that when it comes between the sourcebooks/guides and the same rank canon, then the novels/comics take precedance.

Primy disagrees on the last, and points to Leeland's newer > older 'policy' which has such iron clad, no bullshit ambiguity wording like 'in general' and 'tends to' thus of course slaming down the chance of their being exceptions to the rule ... (yes that last part was sarcasm).

Which prompted my exit from this fucking debate, because we are just going round in circles. Leeland's quote is NOWHERE near fucking concrete enough to possibly even deny the possibility that there are exceptions. I can't convince Primy of that, he can't sell me on the fact that you can put guides/sourcebooks on the same level as novels/comics in terms of historic evidence, and around and around we go.

Mark my words, if you want to continue this, I bet you ten bucks it will be just the same bullshit over and over.

As to the Thrawn vs Palpy thing (snickers) that I just brought up that the DESB contradicts itself when it wants to. And if you really want to argue to me that Thrawn was ever really a threat to Palpy, then go ahead.

Personally this thread, and arguement has lost its focus ages ago, for the first half of our posts we sound like broken records, and again in the second half of our posts, since we are essentially rebutting the same arguements over and over again.

And all of this started when I pointed out that DESB contradicted TTT on if C'baoth was or wasn't the Guardian. *shakes head* Ohhhh, what a brave little thread you have been, here's some water to grow some more.