Wong Debate

Round 5

Canon

Guardian


"Michael Wong" <mike@stardestroyer.net> wrote in message
news:3DA8BE23.4060306@stardestroyer.net...
> RSA Debate
>
> Round 5, Part 2a (EU Inclusion)
>
> Robert, since you decided to take 5 days instead of 4 to post the full
> 2-part answer to the previous post, I decided to start the 4-day clock
> ticking from the day you uploaded the second part.


What a gloriously arbitrary way to try to excuse the fact that you were
around 20 hours late with your fifth post, just as you'd been late with the
first. Unlike you, however, I will not waste an entire paragraph harping on
your posting-time in an effort to score some sort of points, just as I
didn't the first time.


> And please, don't pretend you posted on the fourth day

Both parts were posted in a timely manner, but one did not show up for some
reason . . . as noted to you within the successfully-sent second post and
via e-mail, my first attempt to post the Death Star segment met with some
sort of error. The next morning, it sat in my outbox doing absolutely
nothing of value, at which point I sent again. Your pretense that nothing
of the sort occurred is delightfully flimsy.

At any rate, we'll now move to the on-topic section, and I will snip out
irrelevancies as per prior statements.


> > Further, you continue to argue that Sansweet's use of the term
> > "mind" ...
>
> Strawman. This is not about semantics;


Funny you should say that. A couple of posts ago, you said "Steven Sansweet
is not qualified to testify about Lucas' thoughts," and that " . . . Steven
Sansweet is not qualified to testify about the state of "Lucas' mind"." One
post ago, you claimed that I had refused to admit "that Sansweet is not
qualified to say what enters George Lucas' mind during his writing process".

Meanwhile, I told you in my third post that Sansweet "is telling the
audience what Lucas does and does not consider fact," which is precisely
what is meant by the phrasing used.

And yet, you seem wrapped up in mind, thought, neurological issues, and so
on. I find your position to be severely semantics-based, and to an utterly
absurd degree. Sansweet is not claiming intimate knowledge of the contents
of Lucas's mind, or the neural firings of his brain.


> it is about the fact that Sansweet cannot testify about that
> which he does not know, and he does not know how George Lucas
> thinks when he writes Star Wars.


Absurd! You seem to think Sansweet *must* have pulled this out of thin air
. . . that he and Lucas *never* had a conversation on such matters, ever,
and/or that Sansweet was *never* apprised of the facts relevant to his job
as content manager and fan-relations director.

Even in our less-formal setting, you would be perfectly qualified to state
that the non-canon doesn't exist in my mind when analyzing and comparing
Star Trek and Star Wars, Mike.


> He is merely speculating, hence the term "hearsay" (which you agreed
> to be an appropriate description).


"Hence"? Back up, Mike. I refer to it as hearsay because it does not
come *directly* from Sansweet to us, but instead from Sansweet via a
convention-goer. I *do not* refer to it as hearsay because of any
agreement with your peculiar notion that Sansweet was speculating, pulling
ideas from thin air.


> > Regarding Lucas's TV Guide and Cinescape quotes, you continue to
> > attempt to dismiss them by claiming that verbal interviews are not
> > as carefully composed as articles written for publication.
>
> Strawman. I do not dismiss them; I merely dismiss your semantic
> interpretations thereof.


. . . and that requires you to dismiss them entirely, since they cannot
mean what you wish them to mean, as demonstrated previously and repeatedly.


> > It is not a false dilemma to employ the same dilemma placed on us
> > by the facts. In other words, when we are given only two choices,
> > you cannot claim a false dilemma because you'd prefer a third. 
> Sorry, but if a third option can be shown to be viable, then
> you must include it.


Illogical. We are given two choices . . . 1 and 0. Just because you
would like .5 or consider it viable in spite of the evidence does not make
it a valid choice.

You think my "interpretations" of policy statements by use of logic are
invalid on that basis . . . that interpretation via logic is imprecise and
unreliable. That is an absurd claim. It is true that certain uses of
language do not always lend themselves to such analysis (e.g. sarcastic
comments), but you are attempting to deny that words and sentences have a
meaning that can be determined through reason.

Cerasi, via Sansweet, has already made it clear that the real story of Star
Wars is *only* the films, and Lucas has placed the EU outside his universe.
It is not a false dilemma . . . it's the dilemma placed on us by those in
charge of dictating canonicity.

For instance, if I now say "I find your position absurd", I am not agreeing
with you, nor am I making some sort of comment about how you sit before your
computer or something. I am informing you that I find your belief
ridiculously unreasonable.

Even beyond the absurdity of it, there is the matter of your implicit
confession that you have to ignore what words and sentences mean in order to
arrive at and defend your EU beliefs:


> Your deliberately narrow semantic INTERPRETATION of their statements.

In other words, you have no counterargument, except to claim that I'm
intentionally being too narrow by accepting statements for what they say and
what they mean, instead of wild assumptions of some hidden extra meaning
that the words do not and cannot carry.


> > More or less true. Cerasi referred to the in-house continuity of
> > LucasBooks, and the diligent work to keep the Expanded Universe
> > 'cohesive and uniform' (in spite of the amount of interpretation and
> > speculation that comes the further one branches from the movies), and
> > his *analogy* regarding that is that every piece of EU fiction is a
> > window into the 'real' Star Wars universe . . . some foggy, some
> > abstract, but each with a nugget of truth.
>
> Before this debate, you flatly stated that the EU is "NOT part of the
> story of Star Wars", and now you admit that it is a window, albeit
> imperfect, into the real Star Wars universe.


I've never denied that Cerasi referred to it as a window . . . I'm the one
who first quoted him on that, if you'll recall. I have, however,
consistently argued against your attempted maneuver, wherein the "window"
comment is used to override Cerasi's logically exclusive statement that, to
use the logical argument you snipped, the "Real Story of Star Wars = *Only*
the Films". Further, I have argued against your implicit claim that the
window itself is a part of the other universe.

As has been consistently stated by me, the only nuggets of truth you can
hope to find in the EU are those elements taken directly from the canon, and
not abused by the "interpretation and speculation" Cerasi refers to.


> > Cerasi's 'nuggets of truth' in the EU can only be those elements
> > derived from the canon (which is the only source for the real story
> > of Star Wars), unless (in keeping with one of your efforts with the
> > Lucas quote) we should take one part and override the rest, instead
> > of understanding the statement as a cohesive, non-contradictory whole.
>
> Your opinion. Nothing more.


Your utter lack of counterargument noted.

Your attempt to hide in a subjective world without objective fact noted.

(I really hate that kind of thing, too. It's such a childish debate tactic
. . . the desperate effort to escape from objective reality by saying "well,
that's just your opinion".)

I have demonstrated the logical necessity of my "opinion", and the
internally-contradictory nature of your counter-claim. For future
reference, it would behoove you to actually respond to someone else's points
in a debate.


> > As per Cerasi and the logical exclusivity of his statement.
>
> Your deliberately narrow semantic INTERPRETATION of his statement.


"When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn
to the films themselves - and *only* the films."

Absolute Canon = Real Story of Star Wars

Absolute Canon = *Only* the Films

Therefore: *Only* the Films = Real Story of Star Wars
Or: Real Story of Star Wars = *Only* the Films

You argue that:

*Only* the Films /= Real Story of Star Wars
or
Real Story of Star Wars /= *Only* the Films

However, that claim is absurdly illogical. If A = B and A = C, then B = C.

You can claim all day that I'm being "deliberately narrow", or engaging in a
"semantic" interpretation. But, whether you choose a logical
interpretation or your more haphazard variety, there's still the fact that
he emphasized the films (and *only* the films) so strongly.

You have given no evidence or counterargument capable of overriding such
facts.


> >> 2. You cite Sansweet, who says that EU does not exist in Lucas' mind
> >> when he makes the films but who also said that the EU is
> >> "quasi-canon". 
> > And both of these can be given low weight . . . the first is hearsay,
> > the second is overridden by Lucas, later Sansweet, etc.
>
> Overriden only by your deliberately narrow semantic INTERPRETATION of
> their statements (or in the case of Lucas, a sentence FRAGMENT from his
> statement).


1. Your utter lack of counterargument noted.

2. Your continuing lie regarding the Lucas quotes noted, with displeasure.


> > I understand the fact that you desperately need the quote from the
> > foreward of the Star Wars Encyclopedia to be approved by LucasFilm
> > and presently valid, in order for your claims of positional validity
> > to have any weight.
>
> My need for that quote is no greater than your need to ignore it.


Not correct. It is the only quote which even remotely supports your
position (at least in any rationally valid way). That is why you assign
such extraordinary weight to it.


> However, since the quote is in a Lucasfilm-sanctioned publication

Misleading. LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing publications, while theoretically
sanctioned by LucasFilm by 'familial' extension, are not given carte blanche
to override Lucas/LFL statements on Canon Policy.


> while your OPINIONS on that quote are worthless, I win.

Once again, the utter lack of counterargument, denial of objective reality,
and now you mix it with a declaration of victory. How quaint.

What you still don't seem to comprehend is that we cannot weigh the various
statements arbitrarily, as you seek to do. Indeed, you seem to assign that
quote the highest weight, and adjust or ignore all other quotes to fit
within the Encyclopedia paradigm.

1. "Quasi-canon" appears nowhere else in any statement of Canon Policy
anywhere, before or since.

(That is a point against giving it the high weight you assign it.)

2. It is contradicted by other statements, including those of Lucas,
Sansweet himself, Cerasi, and Rostoni, both before and after that
publication.

(That is another point against, and a severe one at that.)

3. Sansweet, as part of Specialty Marketing for Lucas Licensing, was hardly
in a position to illuminate LucasFilm canon policy. He is now in such a
position, and he certainly does not employ the term "quasi-canon", and (as
per #2) has effectively denied it.

(That is a point against, and again a severe one.)

4. Judging by the dates, LucasBooks would've been the approving party, not
LucasFilm.

(You've modified your claims slightly from saying that LucasFilm approved
it, but the fact remains that this is a LucasBooks work. This is another
point against weighing it above Lucas/LFL statements.)

At best, his position at the time was a method of compromise between
Lucas/LFL canon, and Rostoni's peculiar assignment of the term "canon" to
the contents of the EU. In any event, that comment cannot and does not
override Lucas, modern Sansweet, or Cerasi.


> All of your long-winded excuses for ignoring an OFFICIAL PUBLICATION
> are just that: excuses.


I do not ignore it. I simply weigh it according to its validity, in light
of the numerous statements before and since which are contrary to it, the
position of the author at the time, and so on.

You have given no counterargument to any of those facts, or the logic
applied to them.

***

Regarding the Lucas quotes:


> Of course I agree that the "parallel universe" quote means
> something; I just have a different interpretation than you do. You see,
> unlike you, I don't silently change "parallel" to "parallel AND
> EXCLUSIVE",


That's just ignorant, Mike. Parallel is a term of exclusion between the two
things which are parallel. Parallel lines do not meet. Parallel processors
do not exchange the data they are processing while they are processing it.


> nor do I make the even more absurd leap to believe he MUST
> have been describing a quantum-physics "many worlds" interpretation of
> the word "universe".


Straw man. I don't make that assumption, either. Instead, I assume that a
fellow who knows a thing or two about sci-fi (and who produced the movie
version of his friend's story about a parallel universe) probably has a good
idea of what a "parallel universe" is in that genre, whether or not quantum
physics is involved.


> When most people say "parallel", they simply mean two things which
> coexist simultaneously.


Parallel = Simultaneously, but separately.
(Alternately, it may only refer to similarities between two things . . . two
people could lead parallel lives, but they need not be contemporaries.)

"Parallel universe", however, has a specific meaning. Your argument hinges
on the notion that George Lucas utterly and completely misused it, intending
to say something utterly different than what was said.

However, given that he used the phrase "outside my little universe" in TV
Guide, and "parallel universe" and "other world" in Cinescape (all of which
fit well within the bounds of the standard meaning), I find your argument
strewn with gaping defects in logic.

***

Regarding the validity of the Special Editions compared to the invalidity of
the originals:


> No, it's historical revisionism.

Mike!?! I can't believe you said that. You just admitted that you refuse
to listen to Lucas about what is and isn't real Star Wars!

(That, in and of itself, is not surprising at all, given your position on
Canon Policy, but I find it astonishing that you would declare it so
brazenly.)

What's almost as entertaining is that you ignore the Encyclopedia quote you
so admire . . . nowhere are the originals mentioned. Only the Special
Editions are listed as canon.


> Greedo did NOT shoot first,

I don't like it either, but if we are to speak of the canon, he *did*. You
can choose to ignore whatever you don't like, but by the objective standard
of canon, Greedo shot first. That's how it is. Deal.


> An original is always better than a modified version.

Lucas disagrees. The Special Edition is closer to his vision.

> At the very least, we have two different Star Wars canons.

Absurd.

> >> 3. Your argument is a non sequitur. The continuity need not "control"
> >> the canon in order to include it. 
> > The in-house Continuity is left to accept the facts of the Canon
> > wholesale, and as per Rostoni attempts to avoid conflict with the
> > canon or undermining of its meaning. This is not inclusion into an
> > overall realm inclusive of the canon . . . this is subservience to
> > that canon.
>
> Yadda yadda yadda. Repeating your bizarre assumption that subservience =
> exclusion.

Straw man. Arguing against subservience = inclusion is not arguing that
subservience = exclusion.

What I *am* arguing, as you should know by now, is that the EU's
canon-subservience does not equal an "overall continuity", or any other
"above-canon" inclusive concept.


> You completely ignored the rebuttal.

No, I replied to it. You have ignored the logic, and instead employed a
straw man. I'm not impressed.


> > I understand the concept you are arguing for just fine. Your position
> > is that of an EU fan . . . your "overall continuity" would be the
> > belief about Star Wars in the mind of a fan. However, this fan belief
> > has no basis in the Canon Policy, and is actually opposed to it.
>
> Your opinion. Nothing more (apart from an obvious appeal to motive
> fallacy, of course).


Appeal to motive? Referring to the fanboyish nature of your belief is not
an appeal to motive. I would have hoped that by the last message of the
debate, you'd have learned not to claim fallacies improperly.


> >> The Pacific War in WW2 was separate from and parallel to the European
> >> War in WW2 with very little overlap, yet both theatres of war were
> >> part of the same timeline. 
> > Another horrendous analogy. We are not talking about parallel events
> > in one universe . . . we are talking about parallel universes, with
> > the events of the parallel universe being explicitly outside the
> > 'real' universe. Nothing of consequence to the real universe can
> > occur in the parallel universe.
>
> Circular logic. Assuming the truth of your "separate and exclusive"
> conclusion in order to attack my analogy


No, I assumed the truth of the meanings of words and attacked your analogy
based on its gaping defects in basic logic.


> Challenge #1
>
> >> 1. Justify your belief that anything which is not guaranteed true
> >> should be discarded completely. 
> > We've already been over this territory, and I'm not going to repeat
> > myself, since that will merely bring us right back to your analogy
> > regarding history and science, the false and specious nature of that
> > analogy having already been demonstrated.
>
> In other words, you cannot justify it


No, we've already been over it, and you have failed to make a valid stand
against the respective counterarguments.


> and you will pretend that you've already dealt with it, even though
> you haven't.


A ridiculous claim!

I'll quote the relevant sections . . . you'll no doubt complain about the
length of this post, but the fault is your own:

From my first post:
"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.

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. (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."

From my second:
"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.
To, to allow EU speculation into one's evidence set wholesale invites error
in one's conclusions."

"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."

"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."

From my third:
"You cannot "rationalize a fictional universe" (as you stated in your
opening statement) with evidence obtained from a parallel, separate,
different universe."

. . . and so on.


> > Since we're talking about canon anyway, I will employ a religious
> > analogy:
> > You want to know pi to the fifth digit. You have several views of pi
> > available . . .
> > One is someone's confusion with e, thereby arguing pi to the fifth
> > digit is 2.71828.
> > One is a very rough estimate, exactly three. So, pi to the fifth
> > digit is 3.00000.
> > One is a very rough estimate, about three and a half. So, we'd end up
> > with 3.50000.
> > One is a fraction of 22/7, therefore some say that pi to the fifth
> > digit is 3.14285.
> > One is a confusion of the fraction, 27/2. And so, pi to the fifth
> > digit is 13.50000.
> > Another was handed down to you by God himself. He said that it is
> > actually 3.14159, and went on to give you more
> > 3.1415926535897932384626433832795
> > So, what to do to figure out pi?
>
> Derive it from geometry.


Utter failure to grasp the analogy noted.

> Only an idiot looks to heavenly authorities to tell him that which
> he can figure out for himself.


If we want canon knowledge, we look to the canon. In case you hadn't
figured it out (which it appears you didn't), the canon = "heavenly
authorities". The various non-heavenly figures above are the various
figures of the non-canon (ranging from ICS to Darksabre, in a manner of
speaking).


> Besides, how does any of this justify your false dilemma?

Do you really think that by repeating "false dilemma", you can make there be
one?

We have but two choices, and they are given to us by those who make the
Canon Policy. You cannot wish a third into existence that contradicts the
other two.


> >> Explain why you feel it is NOT a false dilemma fallacy to force us
> >> to choose between "guaranteed true" and "totally worthless", with
> >> no permissible middle ground. 
> > Because that is the choice given to us by the canon policy. The truth
> > is logically exclusive. It is not a false dilemma to employ the same
> > dilemma placed on us by the facts.
>
> Circular logic. Defending your conclusion ("the truth is logically
> exclusive") by simply stating it as a fact.


Oh please. That's not my conclusion, Mike . . . that's an axiomatic
statement in support of the conclusion that there is no false dilemma in
play. You can't claim fallacy in regards to an argument you don't
understand, Mike, and it's clear you either don't understand my argument, or
are ignoring it in order to make yet another erroneous claim of fallacy.

Cerasi, via Sansweet, has already made it clear that the real story of Star
Wars is *only* the films, and Lucas has placed the EU outside his universe.
It is not a false dilemma . . . it's the dilemma placed on us by those in
charge of dictating canonicity.

Accept this fact, and move on.


> Challenge #2
>
> >> 2. Explain why you flatly insist on interpreting the phrase "real
> >> story" as "100% comprehensive; nothing else exists" rather than
> >> "known to be true" (as per the dictionary). 
> > "When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you
> > must turn to the films themselves - and *only* the films." The
> > Absolute Canon is the real story of Star Wars, and the only source
> > of that is the films.
>
> Completely ignoring the challenge.


No, I have given you the facts of the matter, and you continue to ignore
them, and you even went so far as to snip out the demonstration of your
peculiar, illogical reasoning:

Absolute Canon = Real Story of Star Wars

Absolute Canon = *Only* the Films

Therefore: *Only* the Films = Real Story of Star Wars
Or: Real Story of Star Wars = *Only* the Films

You argue that:

*Only* the Films /= Real Story of Star Wars
or
Real Story of Star Wars /= *Only* the Films

Or, alternately:

Real Story of Star Wars = NOT (*only* the films)

However, that claim is absurdly illogical.


> Challenge #3
>
> >> 3. Explain why you feel that the LFL "in-house continuity" should
> >> be ignored, 
> > Because it is not the LFL in-house Continuity, it is the in-house
> > Continuity of LB/LL.
>
> Red-herring nitpick, used as an excuse to ignore the challenge.



Red herring nitpick? LFL has no "in-house Continuity", Mike. That's
LucasBooks and Lucas Licensing. *Nothing they say* can override Lucas or
LFL statements. This should be self-evident.


> Challenge #4
>
> >> 4. Explain why you feel that the preface to the SWE should be either
> >> ignored or painted as irreconcilably opposed to the other statements,
> >> rather than trying to interpret them in a manner consistent with it
> >> (which IS possible, as I have demonstrated). 
> > You have demonstrated nothing of the sort.
> >
> > If you accept the Encyclopedia foreward as perfectly factual, you
> > assume that "Real Story of Star Wars /= *Only* the Films", though this
> > is contrary to Sansweet and Cerasi.
> >
> > If you accept the Encyclopedia foreward as perfectly factual, you
> > accept the dictates of Specialty Marketing and LucasBooks over Lucas
> > and LFL without any effort to weigh statements (this is just in
> > general, whether or not they agree).
> >
> > If you accept the Encyclopedia foreward as perfectly factual, you
> > must assume that Lucas was wrong when he placed the EU outside his
> > universe, and part of a parallel one.
> >
> > . . . Et cetera. I have detailed these and other reasons to you
> > previously.
>
> In other words, you continue to insist that the unequivocal, official
> preface to the SWE should be ignored,


False. I have never suggested we ignore it. I have suggested we weigh it
properly.


> Sorry, but unequivocal statements always trump deliberately narrow
> interpretations of equivocal statements.


Ah, more of this "there's no such thing as reality!" silliness again.

Y'know, if I wanted to play your games with quotes (claiming multiple
meanings from clear statements), I'd just whip out a dictionary entry for
"quasi-", picking and choosing possible meanings in a haphazard fashion,
depending solely on my whims. For example:

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=quasi

"Having a likeness to something; resembling: a quasi success."

(Actually, that's the sole definition in some dictionaries)

Hmmm . . . so, the EU simply looks like or resembles Star Wars. I like that
much better.

But, unlike you, I'm not going to claim that the sentence is equivocal and
therefore cannot be used at all. That's nuts.

Your wish to claim equivocation in other statements (such as Cerasi's, or
the two of Lucas) is insanely desperate. They are not equivocal in the
slightest . . . their meaning is clear. Just because you do not like the
statements does not mean they have multiple meanings.

I also note your ignorance of the quoted points made.


> Challenge #5
>
> >> 5. Explain why George Lucas' comment about the EU intruding on the
> >> world of Star Wars should be ignored. 
> > Contrary to your straw man efforts, I do not think it should be
> > ignored. I do, however, think it should be understood in context, and
> > not used to override and ignore the rest of his statements about the
> > content of the parallel universe.
>
> Don't lie.


You are the only one who has lied in this debate, Mike, and you have done so
repeatedly. This is evidently another example:


> By insisting that not one shred of EU should be taken seriously despite
> Lucas' statement that the EU intrudes on his timeline, you DO think it
> should be ignored.


No, I think your foolishly illogical interpretation should be ignored,
because it directly contradicts what Lucas is saying. There's a profound
difference between the reality of the situation and your beliefs about that
reality here, Mike.


> >> Explain what else he could have possibly meant by that statement, in
> >> a manner consistent with the other quotes. 
> > Perhaps he meant what he said . . . that the EU is part of a parallel
> > universe, the content of which is outside his universe, though the EU
> > has occasionally attempted to insert things between his time periods
> > of the films (albeit, logically, in the EU universe).
>
> And how does the EU "insert things" into Star Wars if it is not part of
> the story of Star Wars, as per your claim?


Did you even read what you replied to? Insertion of material into the
movie time period *in the EU parallel universe* does not suddenly, magically
make EU material have canonicity.


> > In other words, Lucas "owns" the movie time period blocks in both
> > universes (whether this should be understood as one fat one, two
> > smaller ones, or six slender ones is unclear). Your notion is that,
> > because temporal intrusion occurs in the EU universe, it is actually
> > the same universe . . . but this is absurd. We already know the EU is
> > outside the universe (as per TV Guide), and part of another world and
> > a parallel universe.
>
> "Temporal inclusions?" Oooh, you've been watching Voyager again, haven't
> you?


1. No, you're thinking of the "Year of Hell" temporal *incursions*. Your
ignorance of Trek canon, though quite illuminating, is not relevant to this
debate.
2. I didn't even say "inclusion", I said "intrusion". Again, please read
what you are replying to.


> > Temporal intrusion in one universe does not equal a crossing of the
> > boundary between universes.
>
> By the way, a "temporal intrusion" WOULD be a crossing of the boundary;
> the very concept of "intrusion" is ENTER something, ie- cross a
> boundary!


You have got to be kidding. I am almost astonished that you said that.

"Temporal intrusion", Mike . . . think about it for just one second. If
you had done so, you might've noticed that it refers to an intrusion in
*time*, just as Lucas said!

The sheer illogic of your efforts to argue against Lucas's words and totally
redraw their meaning is astounding.


> Challenge #6
>
> >> 6. In your last post, you claimed that "You cannot "rationalize a
> >> fictional universe" (as you stated in your opening statement) with
> >> evidence obtained from a parallel, separate, different universe."
> >> Justify this axiomatic statement (which relies upon an ultra-literal
> >> interpretation of the word "universe") in light of the fact that both
> >> have been stated by official LFL representatives to occupy the SAME
> >> timeline, ie- continuity. 
> > What? LFL representatives have not placed the EU in the same timeline.
> > Rostoni of *LucasBooks* has said that they hope to present a
> > continuous and unified history, but her goal and the statements of LFL
> > in regards to the EU are not compatible.
>
> I love the way you present a quote that damages your position


Bringing up every fact (even the ones which, erroneously, you believe to
damage my position) is called "honesty", Mike. I am addressing every fact .
. . not suppressing or ignoring them.


> and then insist that your overly narrow interpretation of OTHER
> quotes should be used to disregard it.


Rostoni is LucasBooks. LFL is higher in the food chain when it comes to
dictating canon policy, and they disagree with her. Deal with it.


> > You need to be more careful about confusing who (and what company)
> > says what. Because the EU universe is separate from Lucas's canon
> > universe, it is not a valid source of information regarding the canon
> > universe.
>
> For the umpteenth time, it is possible to be separate while remaining
> part of a larger whole.


What larger whole? There is no "larger whole", "overall continuity", or
whatever you want to call it today, Mike. This was addressed repeatedly.


> Your failure to address this simple point speaks volumes about the
> profound weakness of your argument.


I have addressed this simple point "umpteen" times, and have quoted myself
doing so. Your unwillingness to acknowledge counterarguments is what has
spoken volumes, Mike.


> Challenge #7
>
> >> 7. Explain why you feel that George Lucas' power to override or
> >> ignore the EU (or even the canon in some cases) should extend to YOU,
> >> even though he reserves it for himself and does not extend it to his
> >> own official authors. 
> > Absurdly stated. First, I do not think that I, personally, have the
> > power to override the EU or canon, objectively speaking, and my
> > position does not imply or require such a notion.
>
> Wow, that's an amazing lie.


Wow, that's an amazingly stupid accusation.

> You honestly thought you could say that you don't give yourself the
> power to override "the EU or canon"?


Yes, I did. That's because I am correct in doing so.

> Most of your arguments rely upon overriding the EU,

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/equiv.htm

Fallacy of Ambiguity: Equivocation in regards to "override". I'm trying to
decide if you're intentionally being deceptive here, or if you simply didn't
pay attention to what you'd already said.

Lucas's power to override the EU is based on his ability to create material
which, as per LucasBooks statements, supercedes the EU in authority . . .
and his apparent willingness to exercise that authority.

What you claim to be my "overriding" of the EU is based on my acceptance of
the fact that it has no merit in regards to dictating facts about Star Wars.
I therefore ignore it.

Do you not understand the completely separate meanings? Or do you think I
can make a film that will become part of Star Wars canon?


> > Third, your question belies an ignorance of the nature of the in-house
> > Continuity of LucasBooks. The entire point of EU authors is to
> > contribute to the EU, and it was decided by Wilson and Rostoni that a
> > continuity should be maintained within EU materials, to avoid
> > contradiction. Lucas has nothing to do with it.
>
> Actually, Lucas has had quite a bit of input into the books.


Irrelevant, and contrary to Lucas's own statements. Your question was in
regards to Lucas *not* granting EU authors the right to override EU
material. Lucas did not make that decision . . . Wilson and Rostoni did.

Again, you have missed the point.

(Also, you made an irrelevant and untrue statement regarding Chewbacca's
death . . . Lucas did not dictate it. It was decided at a LucasBooks
meeting . . . read the Salvatore interview at TheForce.Net.)


> Challenge #8
>
> >> 8. Try to defend all of these points without resorting to your
> >> ridiculous strawman distortion that by including the EU in the
> >> continuity, I am making it canon. 
> > I have never argued that you are making it canon. I have argued that
> > you are giving it canonicity. It's a subtle distinction you seem to
> > have missed (thereby leading to yet another of your false fallacy
> > accusations).
>
> It is such a subtle distinction that it does not exist.


Utter lack of meaningful response noted, as well as your snipping of the
explanation . . . I pointed out the distinction, and what it meant. You have
failed to acknowledge that distinction, or provide a meaningful statement to
the contrary, except 'unh-unh'.

Again, I'm not impressed.


> Summary
>
> > 1. Lucas says the EU is a parallel universe and outside his little
> > universe. (This you hope to override with the "intrude" nonsense)
>
> Not override; harmonize,


You cannot harmonize a sentence by demanding that Part A is completely
untrue or a misstatement by the speaker, whereas Part B is the one valid
truth. That is exactly what you are doing.

That is why I have acknowledged the validity of both Part A and Part B as
one whole, valid and non-contradictory throughout.


> since the "intrude" comment is HARDLY nonsense; it is George
> Lucas' own words!

Oh please . . . that's the most desperate effort to misconstrue my
statements that you've made in the past few minutes. *Your claims* about
the 'intrude' comment are nonsense, Mike.


> I can interpret his ENTIRE quote in a consistent fashion

You have not provided a consistent interpretation of the entire quote
throughout this debate. Instead, you demand that "intrude" overrides
"parallel universe" . . . that Lucas doesn't know what "parallel universe"
means, and so on. That's absurd, and is *not* a "consistent fashion".


> > 2. 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, and has been heard to say in public that only
> > the canon is relevant to Lucas. (The first of these you ignore the
> > meaning of, and the second you dismiss)
>
> Sansweet of Lucasfilm says the EU is "quasi-canon".


No, that's Sansweet of Lucas Licensing. Later Sansweet (of LucasFilm)
disagrees.


> > 3. 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. (This forms the bedrock of your
> > position that there's an overall continuity, in spite of #4.)
>
> And you have not even tried to address this in any way, other than
> arguing that this continuity is "in-house"


And what you continue to fail to understand is that LucasBooks' in-house
Continuity is not an "overall continuity" of Lucas or LFL . . . that,
indeed, there is no overall continuity superior to or inclusive of the canon
in any way.


> and then making a towering leap in logic to conclude that therefore,
> the fans should ignore it.

No, I suggest that it be ignored because LucasBooks does not dictate Star
Wars Canon Policy, and because Lucas and LFL (i.e. the ones who *do* dictate
that policy) have declared the EU part of a parallel universe, not a part of
the real story of Star Wars. What part of this do you not understand?


> > 4. Rostoni and Cerasi both speak of this in-house continuity of
> > LucasBooks/LL, which Wilson and Rostoni decided to create and maintain
> > in the publishing department. (These facts you simply ignore, choosing
> > not to relate them to the continuity which Rostoni and Kausch spoke
> > of, for no apparent reason.)
>
> How sad. You honestly believe that this "in-house = invalid" logic of
> yours is a real point, don't you?


Ah, so you now acknowledge that the Insider #23 quote refers to the LB/LL
in-house Continuity. Well, at least you acknowledged that at the end.


************************
Your concluding remarks:

> In my last post, I issued 8 challenges. You failed them all, usually by
> evading the point.


A patently absurd claim, as anyone can see in the text above.

> I also issued a challenge for you to debate PROPERLY,

And that was done. Your complaints about the fact that I bother to quote
you are specious . . . your complaints about how I quote you are worse.
There is no logic in demanding that I quote your every word, without ever
interjecting fact in the middle of your faulty claims.


> I reiterated my demand that you respect your OWN
> debate stipulation about keeping it short, rather than consistently
> sending posts which are at LEAST twice the size of mine.


Imagine that . . . I quote your text, add my own, and the result is a piece
of text which is longer than yours! Astonishing!


> Amazingly, you insisted that it was IMPOSSIBLE for you to do so!

Between quoting you and the apparent necessity of 'holding your hand'
through the basics of fact and logic, your whining about length is just
silly, Mike.


> PS. Just for fun, check out
> http://theforce.net/jedicouncil/interview/saxton.shtml to see Curtis
> talking about how decisions on his official book had to be cleared
> through the Lucasfilm people who talked directly with Lucas, and how
> input from their side filtered into the film. The "boundary" between EU
> and canon is quite a bit more porous than you would like it to be.


Uh huh. Funny how he refers to LucasFilm book publishing (i.e. LucasBooks),
LucasFilm book editors (i.e. LucasBooks), and says that it was the
'LucasFilm Licensing' (as opposed to Lucas Licensing) people meeting with
Lucas.

Once again, you have attempted to blur the lines between who does and says
what, ignoring the basic facts.

The chain of Canon Policy command is Lucas, LFL, and LB/LL. The latter
maintain their own in-house Continuity anyway.

**********************
My concluding remarks:

You and I have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of Star Wars, who
gets to decide what that nature is, how such a thing should be determined,
and . . . even more fundamentally . . . a disagreement about the nature of
reality and whether anyone can know anything about it.

In the face of fact and logic, you declare everything an opinion. In the
face of words and sentences, you declare everything equivocal, not subject
to logical analysis to any degree. You seem to think that we should just
feel our way through a reading of something, never bothering to actually
think about what we're reading.

In the face of a series of quotes and facts, you assign weight to them
arbitrarily, depending on which best suits your position du jour.

I place Lucas at the top . . . Star Wars is his baby, and he gets to decide
what is and isn't real Star Wars, and he can add to it or change it at his
whim. He has informed us that the EU is outside his universe, and part of
a parallel one. He has revised his canon to be more in accord with his
vision of it.

You stand against his statements, and against his vision.

You choose to put LucasBooks and Lucas Licensing at the top, selectively.
You accept the statement in the Encyclopedia without question, and try to
"massage" other quotes into falling in line. In the case of Lucas quotes,
you either ignore them outright (as in the case of the TV Guide and Original
vs. SE quotes), or attempt to take a quote fragment and override the
remainder. Further, you claim that Lucas is an idiot who must've misused
the terms he applies in the remainder.

You claim that the LucasBooks in-house Continuity is inclusive of the Canon,
and assign it a superiority over that canon. You believe, in spite of
everything to the contrary and nothing in support of your view, that
LucasBooks can add to the Canon in this manner.

I place LucasFilm above LB and LL . . . your response is to try to confuse
them at every opportunity.

I accept that there is the Canon . . . it is the inviolable fact of Star
Wars. The real story of Star Wars is this canon fact . . . all else is
meaningless speculation, speculation that is part of a parallel universe.

When confronted with the logic of this position, you claim that it is all
opinion, based on narrow interpretation of words. You continue to claim a
false dilemma, arguing that your delightfully liberal interpretation allows
for a third option that must be considered, in spite of the logic of the
situation.

In your last message, you should've made your stand . . . instead, you have
confessed what was already known: your position is absurdly illogical.

****************************************
These facts remain:

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

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Rostoni and Cerasi both speak of the in-house continuity of LucasBooks.
There is no overall continuity.

*****************************************
Post-script:

I have led the proverbial horse to water. He seems unwilling to drink . . .
indeed, he and his cohorts seem more interested in peeing in the water (and
the well of discourse, for that matter). C'est la vie, I suppose.

"Unfortunately, it is not always possible to produce a rationally persuasive
argument for a true conclusion. The problem is that the rationally
persuasive and deductively valid argument, by its nature, is not uniformly
effective against all types of pernicious falsehood." - Richard Goode


Jump right in to the Superlaser Effect debate

Back to The Wong Debate

Back to STvSW