It's all true. I looked through the thread and it's pretty long, but it's fucking hilarious the way RSA tries to start out by seeming quite reasonable but swiftly degenerates into his true self, because, well, he just can't help it.Mr. Wong--
I know your site is devoted to Star Wars, but your readers may get a kick
out of this thread. (I sent you the url in the first letter.)
_The Trek BBS: For Paula Block_
( http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat ... =7&fpart=1 )
Having learned earlier that Paula Block is the final authority on all things
canon in Trek publications -- after denying Trek writers and editors had the
authority to make pronouncements on the topic -- he started out with what
looked like a reasonable question about how canon in Trek worked. By the end he
was accusing a Pentecostal minister of trying to learn his identity for the
purpose of conveying death threats.
Along the way he told several Trek novelists, including Keith DeCandido,
Christopher Bennett, and Dayton Ward; former DS9 scriptwriter David Mack; Pocket
Books Executive Editor, Star Trek Division, Marco Palmieri; and Paula Block,
head honcho over protecting the Star Trek license at VIACOM that they not
only did not understand their own jobs but were incapable of constructing a
reasonable response to his posts.
Enjoy!
--Kevin
One of the writers actually said this to him:
And Paula Block said this:KevinK, Writer wrote:Your "rigorous analysis" is demonstrably predicated on the assumption that the statements of fact provided to you by the people in a position to know are false, either through their ignorance or deliberate misdirection. Your prejudice against facts with which you do not agree reduces your logic (reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity) to sophistry (deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning). It's my belief your persistence in this practice indicates deliberate behavior. That is not an accusation, that is an assessment based on your public actions.
And finally, all of the writers made a point of schooling RSA in the fact that they consider "continuity" and "canon" to be two different things. Canon is simply the films and TV shows, but the accepted Trek continuity is a different thing entirely, and may exclude parts of the canon, which is how they deal with contradictions in canon.pmblock wrote:Gene R. himself had a habit of decanonizing things. He didn't like the way the animated series turned out, so he proclaimed that it was NOT CANON. He also didn't like a lot of the movies. So he didn't much consider them canon either. And--okay, I'm really going to scare you with this one--after he got TNG going, he...well...he sort of decided that some of the Original Series wasn't canon either. I had a discussion with him once, where I cited a couple things that were very clearly canon in the Original Series, and he told me he didn't think that way anymore, and that he now thought of TNG as canon wherever there was conflict between the two. He admitted it was revisionist thinking, but so be it.
So, not only has he tried to argue with Lucasfilm employees about Lucasfilm policy, but he has basically tried the same thing with Paramount and Trek writers! Yessiree, boys and girls, RSA has gone into complete meltdown




