StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I wrote:I assure you -- as a LFL staff member -- that both we and our authors take scientific or logical continuity seriously

I apologize if I'm only fanning the fire, but isn't this very blog we are commenting on saying that science and logic aren't part of the mythical world (which would include Star Wars)? Whether this is the view of LFL or not is irrelevant, I think. Mr. Kaufman's point of view is clear. Again, I'm not trying to be insulting, but that part of your post seems contradictory with the blog.

RK wrote:No, it's not contradictory. We do take continuity very seriously. LFL's commitment is obvious-- my bookshelves are filled with examples.

I too take continuity very seriously. I spent a whole year defending and preserving it as Continuity Supervisor at LucasArts.

As I've said before, continuity is wonderful. It enriches the GFFA.

But holy wars over numbers and details distract from the big issues of Star Wars-- the things it can teach us about life and ourselves.

Yoda said "Luminous beings are we. Not this crude matter." It ain't about the body, it's about the soul.

Continuity Supervisor at LucasArts

RK wrote:But holy wars over numbers and details distract from the big issues of Star Wars-- the things it can teach us about life and ourselves.

Yoda said "Luminous beings are we. Not this crude matter." It ain't about the body, it's about the soul.

It's fun and all, but George can back the Subaru out at any moment and crush what you've done.

That's fine if Lucas does it. Its the parking valets who rummage through his car's ashtray for loose change that have to be watched. Many get delusions of grandeur and try to hop in the driver's seat, and change the stations on the radio to what they want to hear.

He'll only use that same quote against Saxton and you know it.

The Original Nex wrote:Where did I, or Bonnie for that matter, say anything about continuity? (although it's pretty clear he doesn't have a real grast on that concept either.) I spoke of science and logic, not continuity. What an arse.

TFN wrote:

Rayn_Kaufmann wrote: Ryan_Kaufman posted:

FTeik wrote:
(at least that is the impression i got of what Mr.Kaufmann did to Karen Travis, of whom i had such a high opinion until recently).

FTeik, burc'ya, if you're going to slag us off, at least spell our names correctly.

Kaufman with one n, and Traviss with two 's'.


Talk about not getting the details right.

Thank you for still being here.

Also thank you for spelling my name correctly (most people write it FTiek or Ftiek).

About attention to details, don't you think that there is a slight difference between missing a single letter in a name and the ignorance of previously established material (ITW:AOTC, ROTS:ICS, a whole bunch of comics, cartoons, the films themself)?

I've read your blog on sw.com about numbers and myths and i have to wonder: how can you talk this way about your own work?

You obviously put so much effort and thought (aside from the little detail we're discussing here the entire time) and then you basically tell us "it doesn't matter"?

Noble Ire wrote:and now Dark Moose has a personal vendetta against me.

Ender wrote:

Noble Ire wrote:and now Dark Moose has a personal vendetta against me.

So what, what is he gonna do, write nasty posts in his blog while you are busy fucking your girlfriend?

Ender wrote:What did you post there?

The Original Nex wrote:2) If Star Wars is a fantasy and such things as continuity and realism don't matter, then what is the point of the Incredible Cross Sections, Inside the Worlds and Visual Dictionaries, which attempt to quantify the GFFA, treat it as if it were real and come up with "big numbers"? If it doesn't matter, why go through the trouble and costs of publishing such things?

...

6) If Star Wars is a fantasy and such things as continuity and realism don't matter, why have EU in the first place? If we are meant to see only a philosophical message, we shouldn't need it to be expanded on, all it can do is create confusion. If nothing but philosophy matters, why bother?

Dark Moose wrote:And by the way - this statement - "Those who engage in such pursuits are silly and wasting their talent."

If you think I said that, you've misquoted it rather badly. I assume you are quoting someone else. My opinion was that the debate was silly. I can have opinions. I can comment on concepts. I don't, and haven't, called a person "silly." I have, however, said the approach was. Again, I assume that since that statement would be rather badly inaccurate if it referred to me, that it's actually not about me.

Ender wrote:

Noble Ire wrote:and now Dark Moose has a personal vendetta against me.

So what, what is he gonna do, write nasty posts in his blog while you are busy fucking your girlfriend?

Darth Servo wrote:

Dark Moose wrote:And by the way - this statement - "Those who engage in such pursuits are silly and wasting their talent."

If you think I said that, you've misquoted it rather badly. I assume you are quoting someone else. My opinion was that the debate was silly. I can have opinions. I can comment on concepts. I don't, and haven't, called a person "silly." I have, however, said the approach was. Again, I assume that since that statement would be rather badly inaccurate if it referred to me, that it's actually not about me.

Moose, whats the difference? If you say people are engaging in a "silly" activity then is that not saying they are wasting their time?

The fact that HE reacts to this even though Nex mentioned no names proves that he knows he's guilty.

Master of Ossus wrote:

Ender wrote:

Noble Ire wrote:and now Dark Moose has a personal vendetta against me.

So what, what is he gonna do, write nasty posts in his blog while you are busy fucking your girlfriend?

Dark Moose banned me at the drop of a hat after I accused him of misquoting me (with evidence, I might add). He's not above using the ban function in an effort to remove people who he doesn't like.