Vympel wrote:Check back at page three. The minute you responded to my post. I might add I wasnt the only one doing so
This is a challenge? I was pointing out something Saxton said on his site. I still don't know if that's incorrect, if you have the SW: Encylopedia, provide the quote. Personally, I still think it's viable, because the ICS for example was made with the contributions of the AOTC team, including Doug Chiang and also George Lucas (who intervened on at least one occasion to name the planet Rothana). However, I will not argue this point as TRUE until I see the exact quote.
The second part is. I dealt with the first part. Why bother stating it if not intending to challenge the notion that the games are an official source? (as opposed to you saying "only parts of the games are valid, and we should ignore the rest because they can't be rationalized?")
As a technical source (i.e. not just within the games; but in the entirety of the SW universe- as in protons in the games are more powerful than concussions, even though the ROTJ novel says the opposite is the case), they're nigh on useless.
Except I already demonstrated that rationalization is possible. We already know multiple kinds and yields for warheads are possible. Proton torpedoes can be from low kiloton to high gigaton+ range. I might add this is just a recycling of some argument some SB trekkies tried pulling on me once when they tried arguing particle shields were weak (they tried claiming there WEREN'T variable kinds of warheads, despite the fact there is proof there are).
So tell em why we don't have to abide by any sort of continuity in dealing with these sources, because that IS what this boils down to.
I'm not going to bend over backwards to make up new mini-stardestroyers with strange armament that can't catch the Millenium Falcon so as not to throw them out as an accurate description of ISDs. I'll allow beam weapons, and countermeasures, because there's no contradiction with canon. However, where there is a irreconcilable contradiction, that part is thrown out. Rationalizing must be within REASON; not slavish dogma where everything is allowed.
So where is it stated that EU can be dismissed by the fans without the "canon overriding official" element? You cant' dismiss parts of one source yet accept other parts on a completely unsubstantiated and arbitrary opinion that its "inconsistent". The reason we can dismiss parts of EU because they conflict with canon is becaue this is APART OF THE KNOWN POLICY.
This is not about dogma, this is about CONTINUITY. Even if we say something is wrong, there is STILL a legitimate reason for it. We could rationalize the smaller wedge shaped ships as being a different ship and mislabled ISD class - call it a sensor malfunction. It doesn't matter because IT STILL MUST BE RATIONALIZED. We can say something is not as it is, rationalize it, and still maintain continuity.
This would NOT be a dismissal (A dismissal is where you decide "it doesnt fit" and toss it out without providing an adequate rationalization as per "suspension of disbelief" For example, if the "in game" ISD is not a mile long, then it must be rationalized as another vessel mislabeled as an ISD by whatever reason (faulty sensor data, Deception EW possibly, etc.) This does NOT break continuity, but we do this only when we absolutely MUST, and to the minimal extent possible. Which does NOT mean chucking it out wholesale while keeping certain tidbits.
Use them as history. They're official (my initial speculation that they may be apocrypha aside)- my view coincides with what sw.com says on the topic- which is they are part of the history of Star Wars, but that the firepower/scale/speed etc (someone provide the quote if they can) is inaccurate.
Yet this excuses NOT rationalizing the inconsistency how? You appear to have this opinion that you can say "it doesnt work" and thats it. Thats what Trekkies do (Such as mentioning certain events, IE the so called "darksaber BDZ's" in order to claim a contradiction to dismiss an EU source. Simply claiming a contradiction is meaningless, rationalization is required because CONTINUITY between sources is paramount.)
And yes, you CAN dismiss parts of a source and not others if the part being dismisses contradicts canon. That is the PRIMARY way to maintain continuity. You can't have official material running around contradicting canon, EVER.
You can eliminate SPECIFIC elements that contradict with canon. A slight contradiction with canon in one instance does not dismiss other things by implication. Otherwise we can just go on and throw out a goodly chunk of the EU and WEG sources on the whole 8km SD length fallacy. We "eliminate" specific elements of canon because this IS apart of established policy, and because those points are unworkable to the overall continuity.
Canon cannot be contradicted, but it requires a DIRECT contradiction to invoke the ability to dismiss it on the basis of canon overriding EU. Implied contradictions are not neccesarily that clean. Implied contradictions can be rationalized. Weapons range and speed (and even ship sizes) are examples of implied contradictions.
