1) Unca George doesn't say what's canon anymore (Disney does), and if the canon policy doesn't even mention the special edition, remastered version, etc, etc. If Unca George thinks the original version will "be gone in 100 years", that's his problem: they happened, people saw them, and he doesn't get to say what is or isn't canon anymore. I'm just fine with "eight released Star Wars theatrical feature films" including the images used. If you have a
Disney Star Wars canon policy source that
outright disclaims the original theatrical release, bring it. Lucas saying so doesn't fly.
2) We weren't shown the interaction on Scarif's shield, I already addressed the editing of this scene (back on page 2?): beam passes by ships
above shield in orbit/cut/beam slices through top of facility tower
under shield -
we aren't shown where the beam interacts with the shield at all. Also: what the fuck does this have to do with Alderaan?
3) A "single event" is grounds for that thing happening, enough to outright dismiss a claim of "never happened!"
4) The
images are firm evidence, an event that happened. The conclusion drawn from them is not "without firm evidence". So, sure, "speculation" (you introduced the term)
isn't the right term for my position, since I'm using evidence as a foundation for my position.
5)
Ad hominem is "your idea is smelly, because
you're smelly!" Ridicule is fine here: read the standards. Since I provided a definition of
Disney Star Wars canon (that did
not disclaim the original theatrical release of 1977), I'm not attempting to undermine any valid argument by mocking you with "goofy voice" - especially since the manner in which I countered your position is right there. Metaphor: as long as there's cake, the frosting is irrelevant. And again: Lucas doesn't define Star Wars canon anymore, so
vindicated by my own link.
6) This is a quote:
texanmarauder wrote:you did quote me
This isn't:
"I'm going to waffle back and forth on whether the original 1977 release (before explicit mention of planetary shields, so I
guess they didn't exist yet in-universe) is going to be the source of my counter-argument or the later, revised versions (released after planetary shields are a thing and thus
supporting your position, actually): I'm eating my cake and still having it."
There are very particular rules about honesty in debate here, and the second doesn't violate it, since it is an interpretation of your blatherings. Altering the first (without calling it out) would be a violation of the honesty standards.
You aren't arguing the same issue I am:
- I am arguing for film evidence of a shield on Alderaan. I brought pictures.
- You are arguing against... well, you
seem to think I said "my opinion is canon". Who are we kidding: you outright said that:
[quote="texanmarauder']its not worth arguing with somebody who counts opinion and "common sense" as canon proof.[/quote]
You aren't arguing against my conclusion, you are arguing against a strawman of my
attitude.
7) And, you have already conceded. For someone who was going to "let it go", "not argue anymore", thinks "it would be stupid to continue", you sure don't know how to let it go, not argue anymore, or recognize how stupid you look after saying you would be stupid to keep going.