SirNitram wrote:Illuminatus Primus wrote:Out of context? What is the context? It says everything is canon. I combined what Sansweet mentioned "Absolute Canon of the movies" with that for the basic two-fold heirarchy that is generally accepted. But you singled out Sansweet's outdated quote and used it to make up a heirarchy he never really outlined that intentionally marginalized the exact sources I was using..
You've based this whole system of arguments of one quote of Thrawn's dialogue and consistently avoided discussing what I actually said. Red herring and ad homeinum described almost all of your posts in this debate in a matter of words.
SirNitram wrote:What you actually say is almost always a lie or a red herring. Pardon me if I don't dissect each.
So you'll just lie, hm?
Well, you repeat your excuses, and I again point out I am using all data. Gamer 6, Sansweet, and Star Wars Gamer. You can claim 'OUTDATED! OUTDATED!' and whine like a little bitch-boy, but I don't care. You claim uses two quotes and throws out the rest. I use all of it. Which, do you suppose, is more likely to be accurate?.[/quote]
Define "all of it." All you used was Sansweet's quote to invent a heirarchy that served your arguments. He never stated that....no one ever has.
Since you'll just lie, I'll post it so everyone can see your heirarchy didn't exist in SW until you posted it earlier.
Steve Sansweet, SW.com Jedi Council wrote:There's been some confusion of late regarding the 'Infinities' symbol, and Star Wars Expanded Universe continuity in general. Terms like "canon" and "continuity" tend to get thrown around casually, which doesn't help at all.
When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves - and only the films. Even novelizations are interpretations of the film, and while they are largely true to George Lucas' vision (he works quite closely with the novel authors), the method in which they are written does allow for some minor differences. The novelizations are written concurrently with the film's production, so variations in detail do creep in from time to time. Nonetheless, they should be regarded as very accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies.
The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation. Not all artists draw Luke Skywalker the same way. Not all writers define the character in the same fashion. The particular attributes of individual media also come into play. A comic book interpretation of an event will likely have less dialogue or different pacing than a novel version. A video game has to take an interactive approach that favors gameplay. So too must card and roleplaying games ascribe certain characteristics to characters and events in order to make them playable.
The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them. Like the great Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi said, 'many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.'
Returning to the question at hand. Yes, Star Wars Gamer is part of continuity, though as game material, there is room for interpretation. Only specific articles marked with the 'Infinities' logo within the magazine should be considered out of continuity.
Fans of the old monthly Marvel Star Wars comic will be heartened to know that LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity. Decades of retrospect haven't been kind to all the elements of the comic series, but the characters and events still hold weight and are referenced in newer material whenever possible.
Does anyone see SirNitram's heirarchy in there? I sure don't.
DarkStar made an assertion about canon. It was wrong even based on his own sources as he manipulated a Lucas quote into supporting what he wanted. You've manipulated Sansweet's quote into creating your imaginary heirarchy. And I'm the one behaving like DarkStar here?
Outdated is irrelevent because you say so? Why don't you actually take the time to say anything rather then criticize me? So Paramount's retroactive decision that the old TMs are uncanon is not overriding of former statments?
Revised EU canonocity statements are somehow irrelevent and invalidated by earlier and vague statements?
Sue Rostini, LFL Representative wrote:Things that Lucas Licensing does not consider official parts of the continuous Star Wars history show
an Infinities logo or are contained in Star Wars Tales. Everything else is considered canon.
I never said this was the final story. I even took Wong's compromise interpretation.
But, I say "you're wrong" and mention "canon" and I'm DarkStar? This isn't one of your characteristic calc wars.
SirNitram wrote:[Oh, wait. You're a Darkstar clone. You'll think yours is.
Translation: *Snip bitchying, posturing, post-count arrogance, and wannabe bs* I have nothing to actually say about your points of debate.
Maybe I wouldn't have to repeat them if you'd address them.
You see, Wong addressed DarkStar's points and he stood their dumbfounded. You haven't addressed the horrific bull you invented on canon, you haven't said how other sources make your black/white intepretation of Thrawn's oh so holy word infalliable.
I've conceded what I was wrong about. I am not anything like DarkStar.
And His Divine Shadow, you do realize that when LFL chooses to make a second declaration on the same subject later on in the same magazine it generally is likely to be more up-to-date with legal and canon understanding with higher-ups. Needless to say, canon here is generally an issue of importance.
MY ONLY POINT on canon was that SirNitram's artifically produced heirarchy (found in no quotes even outlined remotely) was specifically written to marginalize my sources which contradicted the only thing he was knowledgeable on: the TTT.
