Wong Debate

Round 2



"Michael Wong" <mike@stardestroyer.net> wrote in message
> Preface: once again, the following post is also on my website at
> http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Round2a-1.html, with
> in-line screenshots. I have been forced to break it up into two pieces
> because of the rapidly expanding length.
> ----------------------------------------------
> > In spite of the pre-debate concession, term violations, and tardiness
> > <snip>
> Ad hominem fallacy: attacking my personal behaviour before even
> mentioning any of my arguments.

1. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/index.html
2. I said: "In spite of the pre-debate concession, term violations, and
tardiness, your post is relatively on-topic, though there are several slips.
As such, I shall reply to the pertinent and/or contested elements of our
respective arguments, in keeping with the precepts of rational discussion."

That means that I did not attempt to claim that your behavior had a bearing
on the truth value of your arguments (the definition of ad hominem) . . .
indeed, I indicated that I was about to reply to the arguments, in answer to
your statement "assuming that you pick up this challenge and continue this
debate" which appeared at the end of your first post.

Once again, I intend to reply to the on-topic matters. All else is

Advance summary (for any who feel my length and verbosity are overwhelming):

re: Canon Policy -
Lucas overrides LucasFilm. Lucasfilm overrides LucasBooks, Lucas Licensing,

1. Lucas says the EU is a parallel universe and outside his little universe.

2. Sansweet of LucasFilm correctly points out that nothing else but the
canon exists for Lucas.

3. Sansweet of LucasFilm directly quotes Chris Cerasi of LucasBooks in
regards to the fact that the only source for the real story of Star Wars is
Lucas's canon.

4. Rostoni of LucasBooks and Kausch of Lucas Licensing correctly identified
the canon, but commented that between them, much of the EU material is part
of a continuity.

5. Rostoni and Cerasi both speak of the in-house continuity of LucasBooks.


And now, the reply:

> > > [Quoted] I will focus on your so-called "Death Star chain-reaction
> > > theory".
> > "Superlaser Effect" is the accepted term.
> Accepted by whom?

The creator of the theory, certain members of your message board, and those
I have corresponded with via e-mail and website feedback on the subject.

> By the way, that's a red-herring nitpick.

It is a correction of your terminology. It does not imply or suggest a
claim about the truth-value of your argument, nor is it an effort to draw
attention away from the topic.

> > (Note: I refer to statements defining the Canon, Continuity, and
> > relationships between them as being part of the Canon Policy. In other
> > words, "Canon Policy" is a blanket term for official dictates of what
> > is and is not fact. You disagree with this definition here
> > (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html), but such terminology
> > is accepted, and I shall continue to use it.)
> Accepted by whom?

Myself, along with members of various message boards, ASVS, and so on.

> > > [Quoted] You conclude (in your preface) that "the Expanded Universe
> > > is NOT part of the official story of Star Wars".
> > Emphasis yours. Please be more careful.
> Red-herring nitpick. I thought you said you wanted a rational debate.

Misquotations have no place in rational debate. As before, it was a
correction, and not a claim as to the truth or falsehood of your arguments,
nor was it an attempt to divert attention from the topic at hand.

> > <snip Cerasi's quote about how only the films are "absolute canon",
> > with the novels coming in second>

No, I think it is important to have that quote readily available and in
one's mind, lest misunderstanding occur:

"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."
(Original emphasis his, in italics)

- Chris Cerasi, of LucasBooks, as quoted by Steve Sansweet, Fan Relations,

> > With Cerasi's comment that the novels should be regarded as very
> > accurate, I see no problem in placing them and their
> > Insider-stated-brethren in a sub-film Canon status, lesser than the
> > Absolute Canon.
> Red herring fallacy.

This third accusation of a red herring is also inaccurate. In this case, I
was explaining my position on intra-canonical relationships for the sake of
clarity, lest my position be misunderstood or open to misrepresentation.
Stating my position on the Canon Policy issue is not a red herring.

> Of COURSE the movie novelizations are secondary
> canon.

Actually, this is not readily apparent from the Cerasi quote, hence my brief
exposition. Remember, he said that "the real story of Star Wars" is the
Absolute Canon films, "and *only* the films".

Sansweet may have cleared this issue up a bit for Australian fans during a
convention there:

"Steven Sansweet said this at a convention in Australia: "In the canon
debate, it is important to notice that LucasFilm and Lucas are different
entities. The only canon source of Star Wars are the radio plays, the movie
novels and the movies themselves - in Lucas' mind, nothing else exists, and
no authorized LucasFilm novel will restrict his creativity in any way.""

> > However, I see no way for the non-canon Expanded Universe to squeeze
> > in under the gun. Cerasi makes the following comments regarding the
> > EU: 
> > "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." 
> > "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." 
> > Some have argued that Cerasi's analogy allows for the acceptance of
> > non-canon material in a manner consistent with the current accepted
> > doctrine, a "logical extrapolation by us" (*), wherein the data from
> > the Expanded Universe is considered 'canon unless contradicted'. (*
> > Source: Dalton, ASVS -
>(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D38B610.C1BC60E4%40daltonator.net&ou tput=gplain))
> Red herring fallacy.

Incorrect, for the fourth time (see below):

> We are currently debating the question of whether
> the EU material is valid, not how you think it should be analyzed.

We are not debating in a vacuum. The present beliefs on the EU are valid
segues toward understanding the Canon Policy as it should be understood, if
only as negative examples. It is not an argument on the manner of analysis,
but on the treatment of the data in regards to its perceived truth-value.

> Moreover, I am not responsible for arguments made by OTHER persons.

Nor was such a thing suggested in the quote of me provided above.

> While it is tempting to defend my colleagues from your gratuitous
> red-herring attacks, it is not relevant to this debate.

Similarly, claims against your opponent, such as "gratuitous red-herring
attacks", are also irrelevant, and have no place in what is ostensibly a
rational discussion.

> All you've accomplished with this Cerasi quote is to provide yet more
> evidence that the EU material is valid, albeit "foggy".

Incorrect: I have provided the quote and the analysis as to why it cannot
be used to suggest that the EU is valid, on the grounds that it cannot
accurately represent the real story of Star Wars, owing to the fact that it
is (a) not the real story of Star Wars and (b) capable of grave errors.

> And since the
> same could be said of all historical documents in real life, you have
> helped support my website's longstanding position that the EU material
> should be treated as "historical literature and narrative" (as written
> on my Canon page) rather than observation.

A. "Historical literature and narrative" is not generally considered a
valid primary source for such things as firepower estimates, materials
strength, and so on.

B. You may consider the following an ad hominem, and it is your right to do
so . . . I am about to point out that what is preached is not practiced.
You just mentioned your website . . . it contains the claim that the EU
materials are historical literature and are to be treated as such (including
considering them "highly suspect" works "written from the point of view of
the New Republic", possibly capable of being "coloured by the author's bias,
competence, and data-gathering limitations"(as stated here), and that it
cannot be analyzed as scientific data).

However, it cannot be left unsaid that this is not the observed approach on
your pages, or in Vs. Debates in general. For instance, in spite of canon
ANH novel quotes of the Empire having a million systems, you give them
twelve million inhabited systems, as per Dark Empire's non-canon figures
According to Dark Horse Comics
Dark Empire was only 10 years after ANH, in which case you're suggesting
that a million-system society suddenly decided to colonize 1.1 million
systems per year on average, during a time of civil war and the aftermath

Your page also includes the argument that the Empire is galaxy-wide, as per
"Behind the Magic" maps, whereas Kamino, canonically stated to be "beyond
the outer rim" in Episode II, is shown to be well within the galaxy, very
near or possibly within the core

> > I consider such an argument improper, on the following grounds:
> > First, "the real story of Star Wars" is the Absolute Canon of the
> > films, and *only* the films.
> Circular logic fallacy. Stating your conclusion as a premise, and then
> using it to justify your conclusion.

Incorrect: what you believe to be my conclusion is in fact the statement by
Cerasi and Sansweet, which I quoted again at the start of this post for just
this reason.

> > Second, acceptance of the non-canon EU must lead to error. A foggy or
> > abstract window will, like a fun-house mirror, produce distortions. If
> > we wish to look at any particular EU data point and ask "is this true
> > or false . . . right or wrong?", there is no answer.
> Black and white fallacy. Forcing us to choose between "gospel truth" and
> "totally useless".

I presume you refer to the fallacy of the false dilemma. Again, this is yet
another incorrect accusation of fallacy, for two reasons:

1. Cerasi uses the term "only", which is logically exclusive. If A is only
A, then it cannot also be not-A, nor can B, C, or D be allowed to try to
masquerade as A.

2. The practice of using the rule "canon unless contradicted" (or, in some
cases, "canon even if contradicted") is not a middle-ground position. EU
data is perceived and used as either true or false . . . the 'provisional'
truth-value does not affect the fact that it is considered true, and that EU
data points are offerred as canon statements of fact when not contradicted.

> By this "reasoning", all of real-life science and
> history are ALSO useless,

Incorrect anyway, but even if it were it would be irrelevant: "slippery
slope fallacy".

> since you can't look at any particular data
> point in science and have guaranteed assurance that it is absolutely
> accurate and correct; there could be measurement errors, researcher
> error, outright incompetence, dishonesty, etc. It is only through
> looking at larger patterns, consistency, independent repeatability, etc.
> that we gain some measure of reliability.

False analogy: Science involves gathering the best, most reliable data
possible and formulating or testing hypotheses from that evidence. There is
no such thing as canon evidence to work with . . . there are no numbers,
figures, or formulas dropped into a scientist's lap from on high, except
those discovered by an objective, empirical analysis of nature.

In the case of the EU, we are told that there is error. "Some windows are a
bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract." In other words, over
and above measurement errors, researcher error, incompetence, or dishonesty
in reference to the facts contained in the EU, because some of *the facts
themselves* are errors and lies.

We are also told where to find the only "real story of Star Wars" . . . the
absolute canon of the films. That is the best, most reliable data possible.
So, to allow EU speculation into one's evidence set wholesale invites error
in one's conclusions.

> The situation is similar with
> historical documents, albeit with even greater potential inaccuracies.

And, in keeping with your statements that the EU should be treated as
historical documents, the EU is rendered a worse data set for use in
determining fact.

> Moreover, on a fundamental philosophical level, the lack of absolute
> certainty does NOT preclude investigation or analysis.

True. However, evidence which is known to be certain by definition is a
superior source than a historical document known to be riddled with error.

> > The maneuver commonly performed under the logical extrapolation
> > rule-set is to determine whether or not there are other EU examples
> > and attempt to rationalize them if possible, or discard the peculiar
> > data point if necessary. The highest EU example is generally
> > considered a minimum upper limit, and all data points which suggest
> > themselves as the maximum but fail to meet this minimum upper limit
> > are rationalized or discarded.
> Red herring fallacy. Not only have you tried to drag the issue of
> preferred EU analysis methods into this debate about whether the EU
> material is part of the overall continuity, but you are also attempting
> to introduce the issue of how upper and lower limits are addressed, in
> OTHER debates, regarding OTHER subjects, by OTHER debaters.

Incorrect, for the fifth time, on multiple counts. First, your own web
pages are an example, meaning I do not refer solely to any "OTHER"s.
Second, the way in which EU data is treated under current Canon Policy
misconceptions is a valid segue toward understanding how it should be

> > The problems with that maneuver are manifold. First, rationalization
> > efforts can lead to absurdities. Second, it includes as an assumption
> > the notion that the majority of the non-canon (or simply the EU with
> > the uppermost limits) will be more correct than some specific example.
> > Further, the fact that the non-canon is self-referential (and
> > therefore that the distorting windows stack as EU data continues to
> > expand in new EU works) is ignored. 
> > Nowhere is the concept of EU "majority rule" stated or implied in the
> > Canon Policy. The vast majority of the non-canon could mislead, and we
> > would be none the wiser. Similarly, nowhere is the concept of EU
> > "biggest is best" stated or implied in the Canon Policy. EU materials
> > with the largest tech figures could mislead, and we would be none the
> > wiser. All we are told is that there are "windows", some foggy, some
> > abstract, but each containing a nugget of truth.
> Once again, this "reasoning" could be equally applied to real-life
> scientific and historical documents, many of which are
> "self-referential", to use your term. Once again, you have used your
> bizarre "reasoning" to show that in your opinion, all of real-life
> science and history should be ignored.

Incorrect: your statement is based on a continuing false analogy, mixed
with a slippery slope fallacy.

Further, science is not self-referential in the way the EU is. The only
real story of Star Wars is the films . . . it is the best, most reliable
data from which to draw conclusions. The "historical literature" of the EU
does not limit itself to these facts, but instead creates its own and
references them frequently.

> > With the films constituting the "real story of Star Wars", I argue
> > that the nuggets of truth contained in the EU can only be what is
> > borrowed straight from the Canon. Why? We're trying to arrive at a
> > method to determine the accuracy of data points in a data set where
> > inaccuracies, some grotesque, are known to exist and have been stated
> > as existing. Unlike uncertainties in science, where, for example, a
> > carbon-14 dating effort might have an uncertainty (+/- X-thousand
> > years) attached, there is absolutely no way to determine the level of
> > possible error of a non-canon statement, except by referencing the
> > Canon.
> Non sequitur.

Incorrect: your claim of a non sequitur is based on misunderstanding,
caused by slicing through the argument in the middle of it.

> > Meanwhile, we have a separate data set, the Canon, which is, by
> > definition, virtually free from error. Thus, to include the EU
> > according to current common doctrine is not only to flagrantly ignore
> > Cerasi's caveat that *only* the films are the real story of Star Wars,
> > but it is also to allow "interpretation and speculation" and
> > distortions of the Canon to enter into one's thinking. To allow such
> > distortions to guide one's efforts unless those distortions are
> > contradicted by Canon is of questionable intellectual honesty.
> Quasi-religious mentality.

Prejudicial language is irrelevant, and given our opinions on religious
mentality, that's a thinly-veiled ad hominem.

Joke -> Of course, we *are* sitting here talking about canon-this and
canon-that. Let's just randomly pick 66 books of EU material, call it
divine, and be done with it. :)

> You seem to think it is possible to analyze
> something without "interpretation and speculation", hence their use
> invalidates any analysis.

Misrepresentation: I stated that "it is to allow 'interpretation and
speculation' and distortions of the Canon to enter into one's thinking."
Nowhere does that statement imply or require what you claim it does.

What the statement does imply and require is the fact that the
interpretation and speculation -- Cerasi's foggy windows -- place an
additional layer of potential error between the one doing analysis and the
Canon data to be analyzed. The EU distorts the Canon . . . nowhere is this
more evident than your own use of non-canon distance and time figures in
reference to Canon journeys.

> > (Rather like those who maintain that everything is legal, so long as
> > you don't get caught.) Though playing fast and loose with data in such
> > a manner may be be acceptable in some circles, I do not consider it
> > appropriate. I certainly find it highly inappropriate for our
> > purposes, where ostensibly we wish to choose the safest, most
> > reasonable course to determine fact.
> "Appeal to prejudice" fallacy. You are attempting to link those who
> would analyze the EU to shifty lawbreakers,

<snipe snipped>

No, I used an analogy in reference to the "questionable intellectual
honesty" sentence, where I discussed the practice of allowing the EU to
guide one's thinking. I expected the reader to have comprehended the
previous point that allowing the EU was to engage in the practice of
considering EU materials canon unless contradicted.

> > Further (now returning to the Insider quote), I do not consider a
> > statement prefaced with the phrase "between us" and including the term
> > "much" to constitute sufficient evidence for the claim that the entire
> > EU is formally considered official Star Wars fact according to the
> > Canon Policy. This is especially the case when it contradicts the fact
> > that the real story of Star Wars is the films, and only the films.
> Circular-logic fallacy. Yet again, you cite your conclusion as a premise
> (the "fact" that the story of Star Wars is limited to the films), which
> is then used to support the conclusion.

Incorrect: my statement is based on the Cerasi quote. Further, I note
that there is no response in regards to the insufficient evidence for formal
inclusion of the EU materials based on the Insider #23 quote.

Also, it is quite interesting that the previously unnamed individuals
phrased the Insider #23 quote that way. The two individuals were none other
than Sue Rostoni of the book department, and Allan Kausch of Lucas
Licensing. This adds an additional measure of certainty to the fact that
they referred to the in-house continuity that is an acknowledge part of the

> > Finally, there is definite uncertainty in regards to the single-use
> > term upon which your argument is based. "Overall continuity" appears
> > in no other statement of Canon Policy, nor in any statement relating
> > to it that I am aware of. Cerasi, via Sansweet, makes several
> > references to "continuity", but his use makes it apparent that he
> > refers to a judgement or dictate of LucasBooks personnel: 
> > (from
> > http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html)
> > "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." 
> > "In order to allow unlimited freedom of storytelling, the Infinities
> > label has been placed on the anthology series, Star Wars Tales. This
> > means that not only can the stories occur anywhere in the Star Wars
> > timeline, but stories can happen outside continuity ... <snip>
<snipe snipped>
> The term "overall continuity" is not important for my argument;

Then why use it in all-caps and assert that I deny its existence?

> a continuity of some sort must exist,

Correct: a continuity of some sort must exist if we are to assume that Star
Wars has a consistency and story that is to make sense.

> and it would still exist by any other name; we are debating the question
> of what is included in that continuity, and you have failed to present a
> shred of evidence that the EU is NOT included.

Contrary to fact: we know what the real story of Star Wars is . . . it is
the films, "and *only* the films"(Cerasi, quoted by Sansweet).

> Indeed, you have provided several more pieces of evidence that go
> directly AGAINST your case, such as the Cerasi "foggy window" quote and
> now this: "LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity".
> Case closed.

Illogical: LucasBooks' internal position on the EU's Continuity does not
override Lucas or LucasFilm.

> The fact that the "Infinities" label specifically marks a
> particular anthology outside continuity HARDLY implies or proves that
> the ENTIRE EU is outside continuity (in fact, the existence of a special
> label for non-continuity material implies the opposite; that everything
> not specifically marked as non-continuity is probably in the continuity).

And here we arrive at the peculiar notion that I have previously labelled
the "Continuity Whiplash Theory".

You say that the Infinities label does not imply EU non-canonicity, yet then
choose to assume the reverse, that the EU moves closer to canonicity because
it places some of its own works outside its own Continuity. This makes no

If A is A and X is X, then just because some former X is turned into not-X
does not make X A or closer to being A.

> > <snip many quotes used to show that LucasBooks has an internal
> > continuity which includes the EU with the exception of material with
> > the "Infinities logo" and "Star Wars Tales", which they sometimes
> > erroneously refer to as the "canon" but which is obviously the
> > "overall continuity" mentioned in SWI>
> > So, while we have no idea what the "overall continuity" referred to by
> > the unspecified Insider #23 personnel refers to, it would seem to bear
> > a striking resemblance to the in-house continuity of LucasBooks,
> > insofar as non-canon EU material is taken into account.
> Red herring fallacy. The fact that the "overall continuity" is the
> "in-house continuity of LucasBooks" has nothing to do with the fact that
> this continuity DOES exist, and that EU material (with a few clearly
> marked exceptions) is included in that continuity.

Your sixth incorrect accusation of a fallacy is joined by the admission that
LucasBooks' continuity is an in-house affair. LucasBooks *does not*
override Lucas or LucasFilm. Therefore, the existence or non-existence of
an in-house continuity by another group is irrelevant.

Further, it constitutes additional evidence that the EU is part of a
parallel universe, as per Lucas, since his canon universe is not obligated
to follow the EU stories or LucasBooks' policies in reference to them.

> > <snip defense of quote taken out of context in your canon page by
> > pointing out that you have the full quote on a separate, unrelated
> > page>

False: the "unrelated page" is part of the references section of that page,
referred to in the introduction to that page.

> > At no point have I done anything less than offer full disclosure on
> > the matter, your insinuations notwithstanding.
> I am not insinuating; I am stating fact.

No, you are not. You have been corrected on this point already.
Continuation of your attempt at a red herring is improper.

> You chose to analyze a SENTENCE FRAGMENT on your canon page rather than
> the full quote.

Blatantly, scandalously untrue.

You should have noted the introduction, wherein I make reference to the fact
that what follows is a compilation of various quotes, with references below
. . . that means that anyone can check the argument against the primary
sources if they so desire. At no point do I place quotation marks around
any particular sentence, because it is a compilation from the various
sources. Further, I not only make reference to Lucas's parallel universe
sentences, but I also comment on the sentences dealing with intrusion, which
continues to point out the flaw in your reasoning.

> The fact that
> the full quote is buried somewhere else on your website

Prejudicial language: the quote is directly linked from that page in the
references section, and the references section is referred to in the
introduction. You can't miss it.

> does not excuse
> this fallacious method. You employed the "quote taken out of context"
> fallacy and ignored Lucas' statement that the EU intrudes on his
> continuity despite its obvious relevance.

Another blatantly untrue statement.

"Recently, Lucas cleared up the messy issue by explaining that the books,
games, and comic books are part of a parallel universe, another world
created separately from his own (Lucas in Cinescape). By design, the
settings in time of the parallel universe do not intrude on his movie time
period, since LucasBooks disallows authors from playing with events and
periods of time that Lucas intends to use."

"This also explains why Lucas does not allow the parallel universe to
intrude on the time periods and events he wants to work with in his
universe. If someone retold his tales, these events of another world might
confuse Star Wars fans and violate the integrity of his work, and his vision
for his universe."


Google's Archive of the page (so as to avoid the potential for false
accusations that it was altered):

I suggest you drop your red herring accusation of dishonesty . . . it is
blatantly untrue.

> > <snip Lucas quote, which is already on previous message>
> > Lucas here refers to the EU as being another world, a parallel
> > universe separate from his own Absolute Canon of the films.
> You are ignoring the point. I already explained that the EU can be
> separate without necessarily being excluded from the continuity.

<snipe snipped>

That makes no sense whatsoever. If the EU is a parallel universe, it is not
only separate . . . it is different. This is demonstrated by the in-house
Continuity which the EU is expected to maintain.

> > Some have argued that Lucas was not referring to the EU's *content* as
> > being part of another world and a parallel universe, but was instead
> > only referring to the various departments and divisions in his company
> > operating outside his movie-making universe. In other words, some say
> > Lucas was using very flowerly language to refer to real-world issues. 
> > However, that makes little sense, given that his "world", a.k.a.
> > "select period of time", a.k.a. "the movies" would therefore have to
> > be a space of time back in the late 70's/early 80's and a space of
> > time in the modern era. To argue that the licensing companies go
> > inactive or stop consulting him when he's making a movie is peculiar
> > to say the least. The first is definitely contrary to the knowledge of
> > anyone who goes to a toystore, bookstore, and so on around the time a
> > movie comes out. The second is contrary to statements of people such
> > as Saxton, recent writer of some EU materials.
> Red herring fallacy (or possibly strawman fallacy, depending on how one
> wishes to interpret your intent).

This seventh accusation of a red herring is as incorrect as the prior six.
Providing counterarguments for all possible misinterpretations of the quote
is not a red herring, nor is it a straw man. It is a pre-emptive strike,
designed to keep us from going down well-trodden paths toward the graves of
previously attempted counter-arguments.

<snipes snipped>
> you would have seen that I obviously think when Lucas says his movies
> occupy a "select period of time", he's referring to the fictional
> timeline of the Star Wars universe, not the real-life 1970's and 1980's
> in which he made the original trilogy.

This is also addressed:

> > Others argue that the "intrude on my world" comment overrides his
> > reference to other worlds and parallel universes. In other words, the
> > fact that they intrude is supposed to make us think that they are part
> > of the same universe. However, this argument also makes no sense,
> > especially in light of such recent licensing efforts as the Episode I
> > "Battle for Naboo" game, prior efforts such as the Marvel comic
> > adaptations of ANH, et cetera, et cetera. Those most assuredly
> > "intrude" on his world, his select period of time of the movies, and
> > the Marvel monthly comics are most assuredly considered part of the EU
> > continuity, as per Cerasi.
> Strawman. No one is saying that one comment "overrides" another.

Incorrect: you yourself are claiming that the "intrude" comment makes the
EU have a measure of canonicity, in spite of the fact that Lucas has
referred to the licensing world (EU included) as an "other world" and
"parallel universe".

> George
> Lucas is a human being, not a set of legal documents with varying
> precedence. The act of analyzing any SENTENCE FRAGMENT is inherently
> fallacious,

In which case your attempt to analyze the "intrude" fragment to override the
"other world" and "parallel universe" comment is inherently fallacious. My
argument is that the entire sentence is a cohesive whole.

> to say nothing of a sentence fragment from a verbal
> interview, in which he could not have chosen his words so carefully as
> to permit such semantic analysis.

Since he has used the "universe" comment on more than one occasion (TV Guide
and Cinescape), the logical implication is that he means it. Even if your
claim that we cannot analyze his comments is correct, it could only apply to
the new, ad-libbed parts . . . such as the "intrude" comment.

> One can only derive very general
> statements from such interviews, such as his clear statement that the EU
> and canon are separate, and that they cover different points in the same
> timeline.

Your interpretation contradicts the quote. A "parallel universe" is, by
definition, not part of the same timeline.

> Rather than trying to analyze PRECISELY what he means by
> "parallel universe" or "intrude", you should recognize that in a general
> sense, he obviously made it clear that the EU definitely has SOME
> validity,

Why? There is nothing in his quote to support your contention. He has
referred to the EU as "outside my little universe" and as a "parallel
universe". Your appeal to whatever "general sense" you're appealing to
makes no sense.

> which is more than enough to disprove your assertion that it
> should be completely ignored. If you are going to wrangle over its
> precise boundaries, then you are already implicitly accepting that it
> does have validity.

What? That is completely illogical. Please explain.


> > <snip> Further, this is not the first time Lucas has referred to the
> > EU in such a manner: 
> > "TVGuide: Yet novelists have written "Star Wars" sequels using the
> > same characters and extending their stories. 
> > George Lucas: Oh, sure. They're done outside my little universe. "Star
> > Wars" has had a lot of different lives that have been worked on by a
> > lot of different people. It works without me."- TV Guide Interview
> > with George Lucas, week of 11/19/01 
> > Again, we have Lucas placing EU content outside his "little universe",
> > which in spite of his modest phrasing is, in fact, the Absolute Canon
> > . . . the real story of Star Wars, which is *only* the films.
> Again, you analyze a SENTENCE FRAGMENT rather than the full quote.

No, I analyzed the entire sentence, and the rest of the quote along with it.
Your claim to the contrary is false.

> Again, you make a daring leap in logic from "EU is outside canon" to
> "there is no continuity outside canon".

Blatantly untrue. This is directly contradictory to my position. Remember,
the EU has an in-house continuity . . . you agreed with me about this

> George does NOT say that his
> "little universe" (ie- canon) is the TOTALITY of Star Wars continuity;

George puts the EU outside his universe and into a parallel one, and
Sansweet (quoting Cerasi) assert that George's universe is the only source
for the real story of Star Wars. I do not understand the basis of your
claim to the contrary.

<snipe snipped>

> When any one of his quotes is viewed in full, it is
> obvious that he's saying precisely the OPPOSITE of what you're saying;
> he's saying that Star Wars is larger than his "little universe" of the
> canon.

"Star Wars" is larger than his "little universe", but his universe is the
only true version of Star Wars. The parallel universes of Star Wars, and
any in-house LucasBooks assertions about those universes, are irrelevant.

> > No, I'm afraid that cannot be seen at all. According to LucasBooks' EU
> > continuity, even that which intrudes on his select period of time is
> > acceptable as reference. That, in concert with the fact that Lucas is
> > not at all bound by the "continuous and unified" "official Star Wars
> > history", demonstrates rather clearly that Lucas's EU parallel
> > universe comments are the law of the land, and rightly so.
> Non sequitur.


> So Lucas is not "bound" by the EU; how does it follow that
> the EU is worthless?

It means that Lucas's canon universe is not in any way shaped or bound by
the EU parallel universe. That, along with the fact that the canon is the
only source for the real story of Star Wars, should be more than sufficient.

> Star Trek's writers routinely ignored precedent set
> by previous episodes or series; does that make previous series
> worthless?

Red herring, and incorrect. Unlike the Lucas/LFL Canon Policy, Star Trek's
canon policy clearly places the previous series within the realm of canon

> He and his licensing firm have publicly stated that the EU is
> included in the continuity.

Your statement is incorrect: Lucas has made no such comment and has stated
the inverse. LucasFilm's Sansweet has stated (quoting LucasBooks' Cerasi)
that only the films constitute the real story of Star Wars.

> Worse yet, you contradict yourself by inadvertently providing quotes
> such as Cerasi's "foggy windows" quote which show that the EU is valid,
> albeit imperfect, and then you pile logical fallacies on top of that
> mistake by employing "black and white" fallacies to argue that "valid
> but imperfect" is the same as being totally excluded!

Incorrect on multiple counts:

1. No self-contradiction has occurred. The quotes do not show the EU is
valid . . . indeed, they show the reverse.
2. No logical fallacies have been employed by me, despite claims to the
3. I have not argued that the EU is valid but imperfect. That is a straw

> By admitting that
> the EU represents a window onto the Star Wars universe according to
> LucasBooks (and failing to provide anything more subtantive than a Lucas
> sentence FRAGMENT to contradict them),

Incorrect: sentence FRAGMENTS were not employed, but instead THE ENTIRE

> you have admitted that you were
> wrong about the EU not being a part of the story at all.

Flagrantly untrue.

> You are
> attempting to cover for this concession

Flagrantly untrue.

> by making the utterly outlandish
> argument that imperfection makes useful analysis impossible,

It is one of many reasons the EU is improper as a source of data.

> but that
> does not change the fact that you quietly conceded the point.

Still flagrantly untrue.

> Are you capable of admitting this?

I do not admit what is not true.


To sum up:

re: Canon Policy -
Lucas overrides LucasFilm. Lucasfilm overrides LucasBooks, Lucas Licensing,

1. Lucas says the EU is a parallel universe and outside his little universe.

2. Sansweet of LucasFilm correctly points out that nothing else but the
canon exists for Lucas.

3. Sansweet of LucasFilm directly quotes Chris Cerasi of LucasBooks in
regards to the fact that the only source for the real story of Star Wars is
Lucas's canon.

4. Rostoni of LucasBooks and Kausch of Lucas Licensing correctly identified
the canon, but commented that between them, much of the EU material is part
of a continuity.

5. Rostoni and Cerasi both speak of the in-house continuity of LucasBooks.


I really don't understand why the disagreement continues.


On to Round Three

Back to The Wong Debate

Back to STvSW