StarDestroyer.Net BBS

DodoBrd16 wrote:Well assume that you read a book two years ago and the writer spent time researching Star Wars and he put out a fine novel.

Now assume that just this week a book comes out for Star Wars written by a person who just pulled all the information out of his rear and he was wrong on every other page.

Now by assuming that New novels over ride old ones, it is being said that the new crap is better then the high quality older one. When in fact the older one is the more accurate one.

Provide such an example.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Explain.

Explain what? We know what EU policy is. We know how Canon stands in relation to EU, and we know how EU Stands as a source. We are told that anything not explicitly outside the continuity (IE infinities) is apart of the official timeline.

We are NOT told (again to my knowledge - I would APPRECIATE someone trying to find some goddamn sources if they are going to argue this):

1.) that newer EU overrides older.

2.) That certain EU is higher htan others.

These are largely fan-based contrivances, with little or no standing. Nor do we need it. Since one EU source cannot override another, we could no more dismiss one aspect over another. Therefore, it forces a third conclusion that satisfies both conditions. As with the speed/acceleration example, which I have provided explanation for.

*Jumps in quickly*

Boy has this thread lost it's original track...

*Jumps out just as quick*

Connor MacLeod wrote:
I'm sure you've scaled them, given your painstakingly detailed analytical methods.

besides which, you apparently have missed the point I have been making - EU cannot contradict itself.

Congratulations, you are an ass. Fire up X-Wing and give it a look
Your refusal to concede even that the scaling is wrong is truly sad.

Well lets see:

1.) Beam weapons

2.) Yields of the weapons (there are many kinds of warheads, duh)

3.) countermeasures.

1) Beam weapons: no. In all the X-Wing games the range of weapons is pathetically short- in fact in X-Wing Alliance, Star Destroyers weapons konk out at something like 5km (by the in-game measurements), IIRC.
2) Yields: pray tell how do the X-Wing games establish yields for weapons?
3) Countermeasures: the games say they exist. Therefore, because they don't contradict anything else, they do.

I've proven my poitn and countered each and every one of your arguments. The only thing you can do is continually whine "but they're NOT canon, they're NOT!" and plug your ears hoping I might go away. You have no proof, no argument, and no hope.

Quite the Darkstar-like declaration. And also, they're NOT canon, genius.

You dont get what I'm trying to get across Hot Foot.

I'm providing an example as to why the whole, "New EU overides old EU." could be flawed.

What I was trying to say was, that New EU could be totally wrong, yet due to the new policy "New EU overides old EU" You'd have to accept what this new novel put out, even if it contradicts all that has been figured out to this point.

Sorry if it makes no sense, kinda tired.

Shhhhhh!!! Crown, dont point out the obvious

DodoBrd16 wrote:You dont get what I'm trying to get across Hot Foot.

I'm providing an example as to why the whole, "New EU overides old EU." could be flawed.

What I was trying to say was, that New EU could be totally wrong, yet due to the new policy "New EU overides old EU" You'd have to accept what this new novel put out, even if it contradicts all that has been figured out to this point.

Sorry if it makes no sense, kinda tired.

You can't provide an example because there are none.

An example of New overrides Old would be the ICS and VDs over WEG.

Vympel wrote:I'm still waiting for you to admit I wasn't arguing for an EU caste system, Connor, only commenting on X-Wing games as a soruce.

Vympel wrote:I'm still waiting for you to admit I wasn't arguing for an EU caste system, Connor, only commenting on X-Wing games as a soruce.

Stop posting so much bullshit and I wouldn't have to wade through it all.

Repost from page 3:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Connor MacLeod:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Darth Yoshi:
Official means "canon unless contradicted by [science or] a higher source."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The only "higher" source than official is canon (meaning both primary and secondary canon.). This does not prove that some official sources rank higher than others. It amazes me that people continue to claim this, yet when I ask for proof, they all start clamming up and hope I go away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I believe the SW Encylopedia said something like official material related only to the films (Incredible Cross Sections and Visual Dictionary) has higher status than other materials. This is perfectly logical.

I've never heard that newer overrides older though. I criticize official sources based on whether they contradict others.

Perfect example- the X-Wing games. So inaccurate that anyone who uses them as a source is off their nut.

=================

You challenged my point on this, then went off on a tangent about how the games should not be accorded any status at all because of these so-called contradictions. Technically that constitutes an attempt to enforce a "caste system" on the EU (since you are attempting to dismiss certani sources which we have raeson to believe are meant to be included, but for some bizarre reason you think should not, which you have not provided proof for.)

You were in FACT arguing for a Caste system when you started arguing that they should be limited in some fashion, or treated "differently" than the rest of the EU (or if you feel the rest of the EU is likewise subject, then you are still trying to enforce an unsubstantiated "modification" to the EU rules, thus trying to treat them differently.)

Dolphin, I'm not attacking any of the current books, thats why I didnt provide any examples.

However the "New EU overrides old EU" argument is flawed. What happens, IF a novel comes out that is totally wrong, contradicts everything up to that point...... are you going to agree with it simply because its New EU? Even if you know the stuff is wrong?

DodoBrd16 wrote:You dont get what I'm trying to get across Hot Foot.

I'm providing an example as to why the whole, "New EU overides old EU." could be flawed.

No, you're providing a line of logic which could make the "New EU overrides old EU" somewhat unstable. However, if that is flawed, then Star Trek canon is flawed.

I do believe, however, that the EU tries to keep close reins on anything that is published. Hence, my challenge to you to provide an actual example justifying your fears.

What I was trying to say was, that New EU could be totally wrong, yet due to the new policy "New EU overides old EU" You'd have to accept what this new novel put out, even if it contradicts all that has been figured out to this point.

So what? That's exactly what Trek does, and that's exactly what Lucas did in the Special Edition versions of Episodes 4-6. According to canon, Greedo shot first. I may not like that, but it's the truth. It might be poorly written, terribly justified, and shoddily put together, but it is the TRUTH. You can't deny that. Logically, if new canon overrides old canon, then new EU should override old EU. It does logically follow.

Sorry if it makes no sense, kinda tired.

Tip: Don't post if you don't think you're going to make any sense. When you get some rest, answer me this: if new EU doesn't override old EU, and there are inconsistancies, which EU takes precedence? How do you determine what is canon? If one person is right, and the other is wrong, do you compromise so that they are both now wrong?

You challenged my point on this, then went off on a tangent about how the games should not be accorded any status at all because of these so-called contradictions. Technically that constitutes an attempt to enforce a "caste system" on the EU (since you are attempting to dismiss certani sources which we have raeson to believe are meant to be included, but for some bizarre reason you think should not, which you have not provided proof for.)

You were in FACT arguing for a Caste system when you started arguing that they should be limited in some fashion, or treated "differently" than the rest of the EU (or if you feel the rest of the EU is likewise subject, then you are still trying to enforce an unsubstantiated "modification" to the EU rules, thus trying to treat them differently.)

*sigh*

Of course they should be limited in some fashion: it's called contradicting canon; which despite your lame rationalizations, they do repeatedly.

Where exactly did I use EU to demonstrate that the games are technically useless? That's right: nowhere.

You've been using me as a target because you have a massive axe to grind where in fact I didn't argue with you on the subject of EU castes at all!!!! Jeezus.

Vympel wrote: Congratulations, you are an ass. Fire up X-Wing and give it a look
Your refusal to concede even that the scaling is wrong is truly sad.

Oh yes, eyeballing things is real accurate. Besides which you continually miss the point. Refer to the Executor scalings for an example.

And since Canon (as SAxton has pointed out) favors the mile-long distinction, that can also call in the canon > official ruling, in which case you still lose.

How long do you intend to buff that fragile male ego of yours?

1) Beam weapons: no. In all the X-Wing games the range of weapons is pathetically short- in fact in X-Wing Alliance, Star Destroyers weapons konk out at something like 5km (by the in-game measurements), IIRC.

Beam weapons. Tractor beam, jamming beam, decoy beam. Not the lasers.

Aside from which, weapons ranges are never fixed values, as they are affected by numerous variables, including targeting method, dissipation of the bolt's energy, Electronic warfare, etc.

2) Yields: pray tell how do the X-Wing games establish yields for weapons?

TIE fighter. Proton torpedoes are roughly 3.3 times as strong as concussion missiles, and so forth.

3) Countermeasures: the games say they exist. Therefore, because they don't contradict anything else, they do.

Wow, you CAN accept something from the EU without blathering on about how its inconsistent. You get a cookie.

Quite the Darkstar-like declaration. And also, they're NOT canon, genius.

Correct. I made a mistake in calling them canon in that instance, meaning official (which I have already stated numerous times.) Unlike you, I CAN admit errors.

Vympel wrote: *sigh*

Of course they should be limited in some fashion: it's called contradicting canon; which despite your lame rationalizations, they do repeatedly.

Yet again: I've admitted that when official contradicts canon, canon overrules. This does not address your arbitrary assumption regarding the games.

Where exactly did I use EU to demonstrate that the games are technically useless? That's right: nowhere.

No, you assumed I meant Games > Canon, and then went off ranting about how the games contradicted canon, and then expanded this to mean they are technically useless as a whole.

You've been using me as a target because you have a massive axe to grind where in fact I didn't argue with you on the subject of EU castes at all!!!! Jeezus.

You're the one who challenged me dipshit. If you can't back up your point you shouldn't have made the post in the first place.

Welcome to Connor MacLeod can't admit he's wrong, the award winning TV-show.

Where did I directly challenge you?

I have made no arbitrary assumptions about the games- I've pointed out their low technical standing by showing contradictions with canon.

I did not assume you said games>canon, I merely pointed out at the start that my approach to interpreting EU was whether they contradict canon, and that's all. Personally, I'm not clear on the new overrides old thing.

Okay, Connor, what do you think we are suppost to do when EU does contradict each other? Make up some reason so they fit in?

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Okay, Connor, what do you think we are suppost to do when EU does contradict each other? Make up some reason so they fit in?

Precisely. Does continuity not mean anything at all?

Unless you have a better idea that can be PROVEN to not violate the known canon/official policies.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Okay, Connor, what do you think we are suppost to do when EU does contradict each other? Make up some reason so they fit in?

Apparently. So far what he's telling us is take one source which is right, one source which is wrong, and combine them to make both sources wrong. Brilliant!

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Okay, Connor, what do you think we are suppost to do when EU does contradict each other? Make up some reason so they fit in?

Precisely. Does continuity not mean anything at all?

Unless you have a better idea that can be PROVEN to not violate the known canon/official policies.

Can you prove that your own method does not violate known canon/official policies?

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Okay, Connor, what do you think we are suppost to do when EU does contradict each other? Make up some reason so they fit in?

Precisely. Does continuity not mean anything at all?

Unless you have a better idea that can be PROVEN to not violate the known canon/official policies.

I knew you would say that.

Thank you. You have just prooven how much of an irrational idiot you are when it comes to your agenda.

Vympel wrote:Welcome to Connor MacLeod can't admit he's wrong, the award winning TV-show.

Where did I directly challenge you?

Check back at page three. The minute you responded to my post. I might add I wasnt the only one doing so.

I have made no arbitrary assumptions about the games- I've pointed out their low technical standing by showing contradictions with canon.

No, you've shown that there are elements that conflict with canon, in which case THOSE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS are overridden. That does not mean that the source as a whole is useless (or neccesarily from a technical standpoitn even. You just jump from "some canon contradictions" to "games should be ignored because they're inconsistent"

I did not assume you said games>canon, I merely pointed out at the start that my approach to interpreting EU was whether they contradict canon, and that's all. Personally, I'm not clear on the new overrides old thing.

Then why the HELL do we have to ignore them? Do you not understand the concept of suspension of disbelief? An Imperial officer is not going to say "that can't happen so it must be inconsistent!" An event in an EU source (such as in your "contradictions") need not happen in a particular way if its conflicting with another - but there must be a REASON they are different. Even if we acknowledge it as a contradiction - contradiction itself is not a rationalization, its a dismissal (And dismissals do squat for continuity.)

One could not use the source if one is going to dismiss parts of it unless this is allowed (as with Canon > official) Continuity demands an explanation that makes the sources work. Bigger values can be rationalized with smaller values if the smaller values occur because of some situational limiting factor (speeds and accelerations can be limited by engagement ranges and human reflexes, weapons ranges can be limited by the dissipation rate of the energy weapons, sensors vs EW, etc.)

Besides which, you can't toss out parts of a source and keep others. Rationalizing it allows us to bypass the need for dismissing it, while still accepting that it could have happened (But not neccesarily in the way it may have been intended.)

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Okay, Connor, what do you think we are suppost to do when EU does contradict each other? Make up some reason so they fit in?

Precisely. Does continuity not mean anything at all?

Unless you have a better idea that can be PROVEN to not violate the known canon/official policies.

I knew you would say that.

Thank you. You have just prooven how much of an irrational idiot you are when it comes to your agenda.

How so? Trekkies get this same logic when they try using the "dialogue over visuals" distinction, and there is good reason for that.

Prove how it is "irrational" to reconcile a conflict in EU so as to maintain overall continuity and avoid subjective "picking and choosing" of evidence among EU sources.

Hotfoot wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Okay, Connor, what do you think we are suppost to do when EU does contradict each other? Make up some reason so they fit in?

Precisely. Does continuity not mean anything at all?

Unless you have a better idea that can be PROVEN to not violate the known canon/official policies.

Can you prove that your own method does not violate known canon/official policies?

EU as a whole is allowable unless contradicted by canon. This by definition means that teh sources have equal standing amongst each other, even though they asy different things. Knowing that depending on events ambiguity can exist, there can be more than one explanation for various sourecs. Maintaining continuity requires an explanation to explain WHY one event occurs one way, and another occurs differently. This largely requires on flexible interpretation of EU sources, but only to the extent that is neccessary to maintain continuity.

In other words, you can "bend" definitions, but you don't break them.

Hotfoot wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Okay, Connor, what do you think we are suppost to do when EU does contradict each other? Make up some reason so they fit in?

Apparently. So far what he's telling us is take one source which is right, one source which is wrong, and combine them to make both sources wrong. Brilliant!

No, I'm saying that since both sources have equal weight, the explanation must be geared towards rationalizing both.

For example, higher end accelertaion calcs derived from EU are not dismissed by game-based speed or accelerations, because reasons exist for WHY such velocities might be used. This sort of logic also applies when someone says "We only see X-wings fighting at slow speeds in the movies, so they cant' move faster!"

How is this difficult to accept?

What if they are totally opposite?

What about how WEG said DS1 was 120 km, while BTM and ICS says it's 160 km, the correct size that was earlier established by Saxton?

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Hotfoot wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote: Precisely. Does continuity not mean anything at all?

Unless you have a better idea that can be PROVEN to not violate the known canon/official policies.

Can you prove that your own method does not violate known canon/official policies?

EU as a whole is allowable unless contradicted by canon. This by definition means that teh sources have equal standing amongst each other, even though they asy different things. Knowing that depending on events ambiguity can exist, there can be more than one explanation for various sourecs. Maintaining continuity requires an explanation to explain WHY one event occurs one way, and another occurs differently. This largely requires on flexible interpretation of EU sources, but only to the extent that is neccessary to maintain continuity.

In other words, you can "bend" definitions, but you don't break them.

So, by your logic, if all EU is equal, then should not all canon be equal?

In which case, what about binary contradictions, where either it did happen or it didn't?

Did Greedo shoot first, or did Solo?

Or, going to the EU...

Do "TIE Tanks" exist? Is Darth Vader's Glove the primary factor in how Vader deflected Han Solo's blaster shot on Cloud City? Did the Death Star II's Hypermatter reactor transport said glove to another planet when it exploded?