EU's officiality

[Darth Garden Gnome]

[quote="DarkStar]
My ass. One kiloton Jedi fighter weapons that we never saw fire, and which are 70 times more powerful than Wong's highest available estimates for X-Wing firepower? 600 gigajoule cannons on Slave I that had about the same effect as a grenade (i.e. about one and a half million times weaker than the ICS figure)? Let's not forget those eight megaton cannons on Slave I, which (using Wong's own calculator) only put out somewhere around 16 tons of effect, even if you assume that the entire ~15 meter asteroid was destroyed (which it wasn't ... only about half of it was), and that it was a nickel-iron body. [/quote]

I'd just like to make it clear I'm not here to argue the EU point, just this one little paragraph I thought needed to be addresed.

First off DarkStar, those ICS weapons yields are described as being max yields, after all theres no point in firing a weapon at max yield if a lower yield will do the job.

As for the Slave 1's 600 gigajoule weapons, if your reffering to the scene were Boba fires on Obi-Wan at Kamino (which I think is the only time we see them fire) it was obvious he wsn't firing them at full power, he didn't to vaporize his dad, so he used a low power shot. And I say again for the asteroid chase, we know that 8 megatons would be supreme overkill for a starfighter, so why waste energy? a lower power shot (X number of kilotons) will suffice.

[Vympel]

"Yes" Daala said, "We'll strike from orbit. All turbolasers batteries, full
strength. Fire at will, target any structures in the jungle."

(the last paragraph ) "Even from her place in the Knight Hammer, high above Yavin 4, she could already see the forests starting to burn."

"the jungle moon of Yavin 4 must be no more than a cinder" pp323
"Strips of the jungle were ripped up and incinerated where the powerful
turbolasers had sliced from orbit" pp 357
"Any sign of defences?"
"no apparent defences"
"None detected" pp 321

Darkstar, that doesn't seem very solid

1- "target ANY STRUCTURES in the jungle" i.e. this was not a BDZ
2- "she could already see the forests starting to burn"- i.e. the turbolaser bombardment started forest fires.
3- "strips of the jungle were ripped up and incinerated where the powerful turbolasers had sliced from orbit" how big were the strips? I don't see much of a contradiction.
4- Any sign of defences?- what is the relevance of this?
5- ""the jungle moon of Yavin 4 must be no more than a cinder"- context of this quote. Also, what is contradictory about Yavin 4 becoming a cinder? This was not a BDZ. Structures were targeted, and the forests burned.

I have not read this source myself so I am relying on your quotes. If you can expand them to provide evidence by all means do so.

On the weaponry is different/ similar point- i refer you to my previous post on this thread.

[His Divine Shadow]

I agree with you guys, but you must admit, GL's statement has impact. No I am not agreeing with DS, but it must play a factor.
GL does not view the EU as part of the singular universe, then we should consider our view. If it ain't a part, it ain't a part.

GL has said alot of things, including this:

After Star Wars was released, it became apparent that my story – however many films it took to tell – was only one of thousands that could be told about the characters who inhabit its galaxy. But these were not stories I was destined to tell. Instead they would spring from the imagination of other writers, inspired by the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided. Today it is an amazing, if unexpected, legacy of Star Wars that so many gifted writers are contributing new stories to the Saga.

[SPOOFE]

"Yes" Daala said, "We'll strike from orbit. All turbolasers batteries, full strength. Fire at will, target any structures in the jungle."

I thought we were talking about evidence that indicated that HTL's were nowhere as powerful as 200 gigatons. You described the events as saying that the turbolaser blasts just started forest fires. However, from the evidence, we can conclude that the presence of fires do not exclude the slagging of the planet at a later date.

So where's the beef, buckaroo? On the one hand, you imply that you have evidence to counter the "slagging the planet" thing, yet when you post it, I find a decided lack of such. Care to explain?

The rest of the base's homeworld was "evenly-cratered". Slagging the surface would leave the entire thing molten, if it were to occur in the ICS-type timeframe, and that would make it rather difficult for craters to exist.

Again, more hyperbole. Molten rock is hardly as viscuous as water. When the heat dissipates and the rock resolidifies, it can very well leave craters... especially when said craters are kilometers in diameter.

Again more implication of exclusion, yet when challenged, no exclusion is noted.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Please argue with facts in the future.

Like your "facts", above? Maybe I got a concussion and went into a coma and missed the part where they redefined the word "fact", but usually, facts don't involve dishonesty or inaccuracy.

[His Divine Shadow]

So where's the beef, buckaroo? On the one hand, you imply that you have evidence to counter the "slagging the planet" thing, yet when you post it, I find a decided lack of such. Care to explain?

Also consider that DarkStars pathetic attempt to use his assumptious interpreptation not only fails to override the ICS because it is higher up, it fails because it's a stupid interpreptation of an event that can easily be taken to agree with the ICS, and even so, other EU material goes against DarkStars wrong interpreptation like the Hutt Gambit.

Pg 29 Essential Chronology:
"As a public-relation stunt, [Moff] Shild was authorized to blockade Nal
Hutta and turn the smuggler's moon into molten slag."

Wich was going to be done by 3 Dreadnoughts, 4 Bulk Cruisers, 2 Carrack and 16 Guardian customs corvettes, in 15 minutes.

[DarkStar]

The Ubiqtorate wrote:

... and I've already responded to, but sure, go ahead:

In general address:

According to Ben Harper, of Lucasfilm, Ltd, in Star Wars Gamer #3:

quote:

Good question! We have never disavowed the existence of Marvel comics. We have, whenever feasible, included important events and characters from the Marvel comics in our other products. Some of the Marvel storylines before anyone knew what would happen in The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Obviously, in many places, those films contradicted what had happened in the comics. Which ones are more important? The films, of course. However, Lucasfilm recognizes the creativity and diversity within the Marvel comics, and feels that there is a place within the Star Wars universe for non-continuity events. You’ll notice that books recognized as Star Wars canon are marked with Era symbols (so you’ll know where they fall within the Star Wars timeline). The non-continuity books (at this point, the Dark Horse Star Wars Tales and Infinities: A New Hope comics) will soon be marked with a non-continuity symbol. Elements from Marvel which do not tread upon that which has been established in the films, novels, comics, et cetera, are being integrated into official Star Wars canon because we like them, they’re cool, the aliens will be fun to use in the RPG, and, well, we were just feeling a bit nostalgic. After all, it’s been over 20 years!

As you can see, this is one of those situations where the term "canon" is thrown about quite loosely, as per Cerasi's quote. After all, the books are recognized by no one as canon, and yet this Harper fellow just tried to pass off anything with an era symbol as canon.

Mr Harper states that those books which are officially considered to be Star Wars canon are now being labelled with “Era symbols,” and that non-continuity (which his usage suggests to be synonymous with “non-canon”) are labelled with the “Infinities” symbol. Note further that Mr Harper states that elements from the Marvel Comics Group Star Wars comic series which do not contradict the established “facts” of the Expanded Universe are being “integrated into official Star Wars canon,” thus implicitly stating that the “films, novels, comics, et cetera” constitute “official Star Wars canon.”

Illogical, and a conclusion contrary to even warsie interpretations of canonicity.

In summary, Mr Harper’s statement does not in any way support the contention that the Expanded Universe lacks the status of being accurate, valid, and correct; in fact, it stands in direct contradiction to this contention, as Mr Harper considers the “facts” (such as it were) established by the “novels, comics, et cetera” to be on the same level as those established by the films – and for that reason, he lists the two categories together.

No, what is clear is that Harper misused the term "canon" to refer to the EU's internal consistency which Rostoni and her superior decided to try to maintain when the publishing of EU materials first began. This is the EU Continuity I speak of.

According to Sue Rostoni, of Lucas Licensing, in Star Wars Gamer #6:

quote:

Canon refers to an authoritative list of books that the Lucas Licensing editors consider an authentic part of the official Star Wars history. Our goal is to present a continuous and unified history of the Star Wars galaxy, insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of Mr. Lucas’s Star Wars saga of films and screenplays.

And yet, strangely, this leaves out the most telling part of her quote: " Things that Lucas Licensing does not consider official parts of the continuous Star Wars history show an Infinities logo or are contained in Star Wars Tales. Everything else is considered canon."

Again, we have this silly misunderstanding that everything is canon, which is simply not correct.

It is interesting to note that herein canon is defined to include those books which Lucas Licensing considers to be “factual” in Star Wars, insofar as it accurately reflects the films and screenplays of Mr Lucas. This is important, in that it demonstrates that it is the stated policy of Lucas Licensing that items are considered to be part of the official continuous and unified history of Star Wars as long as they are not overruled by the films themselves.

That is to say, it is the state policy of Lucas Licensing that Star Wars literature is true, valid, accurate and correct insofar as it is not contradicted – or, more properly, does not contradict – the films themselves.

And yet, canon is never stated to include that which is considered official. Strange, that. If one thought about it, one might conclude that her statement was mistaken.

According to Chris Cerasi, of LucasBooks, on starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc2001817.html:

quote:

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.

Bingo. This is the money-shot, kids.

When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves – and only the films. Even novelizations are interpretations of the film, and while they are largely true to George Lucas’ vision (he works quite closely with the novel authors), the method in which they are written does allow for some minor differences. The novelizations are written concurrently with the film’s production, so variations in detail do creep in from time to time. Nonetheless, they should be regarded as very accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies.

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.

Like I said... the EU maintains internal cohesiveness, known as the Continuity.

Not all artists draw Luke Skywalker the same way. Not all writers define the character in the same fashion. The particular attributes of individual media also come into lay. A comic book interpretation of an event will likely have less dialogue or different pacing than a novel version. A video game has to take an interactive approach that favors gameplay. So too must card and roleplaying games ascribe certain characteristics to characters and events in order to make them playable.

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. Like the great Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi said, ‘many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.’

And, as pointed out previously, these nuggets of truth need not be internal, but need only be derived from those canon elements which are included ... after all, canon is the highest truth available.

Returning to the question at hand. Yes, Star Wars Gamer is part of continuity, though as game material, there is room for interpretation. Only specific articles marked with the ‘Infinities’ logo within the magazine should be considered out of continuity.

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. Basically, if an event appears in Tales, it may not have necessarily happened in the rest of the expanded universe. For some stories, the distinction is largely inconsequential. For others, it’s the only way they could exist (for example, there’s a Darth Vader vs. Darth Maul comic coming soon).



Mr Cerasi’s statement is to the effect that it is the official policy of Lucasfilm, Ltd, that the films themselves constitute absolute canon, or completely correct representations of the “facts” of the Star Wars story. In addition to the films themselves are other material (designated “expanded universe” by Mr Cerasi), which are considered to be in continuity with the films, though of lesser “correctness” with regard to “facts” than the films themselves.

Because Mr Cerasi consistently uses the term “continuity,” it is clear that this is a specific use of the word, and not a vague generality.

It should be noted that this interpretation of a specific use of the term was hotly contested by warsies in prior discussions on the topic.

The term “continuity” is defined by the 1984 edition of the Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary as “the state or quality of being continuous”; “continuous” is therein defined as “extended or prolonged without break; uninterrupted.”

No one noticed the illogic of Ubiqtorate first claiming that 'continuity' was used very specifically, and then providing the most non-specific definition available by whipping out a dictionary.

In effect, Mr Cerasi has stated, then, that the expanded universe constitutes a continuous, uninterrupted part of the Star Wars saga. It is fully in union with the films themselves, and is without break from them; to relegate it to the status of inadmissible evidence due to non-canon status is to violate the stated policy of LucasBooks, and thence, of Lucasfilm Ltd, and implicitly of Mr Lucas himself.

Except for the little part where the specific use is then based on a dictionary definition, as opposed to looking at the use of the term by Cerasi and others and deciding from there what it means. Oh, oops, and there's that "another world" and "parallel universe" bit by Lucas.

According to George Lucas, in the introduction to the 1994 printing of Splinter of the Mind’s Eye:

quote:

After Star Wars was released, it became apparent that my story – however many films it took to tell – was only one of thousands that could be told about the characters who inhabit its galaxy. But these were not stories I was destined to tell. Instead they would spring from the imagination of other writers, inspired by the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided. Today it is an amazing, if unexpected, legacy of Star Wars that so many gifted writers are contributing new stories to the Saga.

His story would take several films to tell ... other stories, told about the characters who inhabit the galaxy of his stories and inspired by the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided, were not to be written by him.

Also, notice the use of the term "Saga". The only other time that is used in an official context is http://www.starwars.com/eu/, the Expanded Universe section's introduction on the website. They also say that if you only know the movies, you're only getting a fraction of the entire tale ... despite the fact that "the real story of Star Wars" is the films, and only the films, according to Cerasi.

If I were to pull an Ubiq, noting that the term is apparently used quite specifically and then looking up a general definition, I might note the fact that sagas can be mythological in nature, implying a low truth value. Instead, I'll take the word as used by those involved, and note that it would appear that the "Star Wars Saga" is a term expressly inclusive of the canon and non-canon.

Mr Lucas’s statement here is interesting in that it reveals that he considers the stories of the Expanded Universe to be equal parts of the Star Wars saga with his own part, the films themselves. This establishes that it is the opinion of the creator of the franchise that the Expanded Universe constitutes a valid part of the “factual” history of the saga.

He never referred to them as equal, nor have they ever been considered such. Indeed, the very fact that he refers to them as part of another world and a parallel universe would detract from that.

These statements by persons in positions of authority with regard to the official “facts” of the Star Wars saga are consistent in upholding that the Expanded Universe is a valid part of the saga, and fail in any way to support the contention that the Expanded Universe lacks the status of being accurate, valid and correct except when in direct conflict with the films themselves.

Of course, the fact that he used the quotes easiest to spin in that direction went unnoticed.

Until and unless an item within the Expanded Universe conflicts with the films, it is canonical; when a conflict occurs, the films’ evidence supersedes that of the Expanded Universe item.

This is a rephrasing of the warsie interpretation 'canonized' in the ASVS regulations, and treated as fact by Poe on his page, that in any case of disagreement, the EU material is only wrong "on that point", even if the meaning is undermined, as per Rostoni's quote that Ubiq uses. Thus, "a few" can be millions, and so on, because there is no numerical contradiction.

How silly.

The Ubiqtorate’s opinion is (or, more properly, would be) that to attempt to claim otherwise – viz., to claim that the Expanded Universe is neither canonical nor accurate, valid and correct, and therefor inadmissible as evidence – is not only contradictory of the stated policies of LucasBooks, Lucas Licensing, Lucasfilm, Ltd, and Mr Lucas, but is also wilfully misinterpretative of the various statements regarding canon and continuity.

However, this position, in whatever tense, would be illogical, contrary, and "wilfully" misinterpretive of the quotes used, and the many other statements in regards to canon which Ubi ignored.

Furthermore, the Ubiqtorate would suggest that any attempt to argue that the rules of evidence for Star Trek have any implication on the rules of evidence for Star Wars is a red herring; the rules of evidence for Star Trek are irrelevant to the rules of evidence for Star Wars.

(This paragraph was a result of Ubi listening to the warsies who had mistaken my intent in regards to treating how canon was determined in both universes in the same way. I wanted similar rules applied to how the determination was made, not the results of the determination.)

[DarkStar]

Want an example of a ST rationalization? Check this out: When Picard & Co. first met the Borg, they were told, by Q, that the Borg have no gender. Yet, later on, in Voyager and First Contact, we see quite obviously that there ARE genders in the Borg collective. Do we conclude that Q was simply wrong, thus disregarding his words, and the evidence he provides? Or do we rationalize, interpreting his words to mean "the Borg have no gender that matters... they don't undertake intercourse for procreation"?

A common error ... you mistake 'gender' for 'sex'. Gender refers to the perceptions people have (internally or externally) about the roles and qualities of the sexes, while sex refers to the actual physical characteristics. There is no evidence of gender differences between the various Borg drones.

The Queen would be the only exception... she's not only female, but acts it (to a greater or lesser degree, depending on your own experiences with women).

[DarkStar]

First off DarkStar, those ICS weapons yields are described as being max yields, after all theres no point in firing a weapon at max yield if a lower yield will do the job.

Exactly my point. Ossus claims, though, that what we see is consistent... it is not. There is no canon support for the firepower levels presented in the ICS, since all we see are lesser-power shots... or no shots at all.

As for the Slave 1's 600 gigajoule weapons, if your reffering to the scene were Boba fires on Obi-Wan at Kamino (which I think is the only time we see them fire) it was obvious he wsn't firing them at full power, he didn't to vaporize his dad, so he used a low power shot.

Ridiculously low. His father was on the other side of the platform. Further, that belief revises the canon in favor of the non-canon, which is hardly appropriate.

And I say again for the asteroid chase, we know that 8 megatons would be supreme overkill for a starfighter, so why waste energy? a lower power shot (X number of kilotons) will suffice.

Illogical. Boba acted a bit surprised when, despite the high rate of fire, his father finally hit the fighter after many, many shots. A lesser number of more powerful blasts would have been superior, if warsie beliefs about targeting capability were accurate.

[SPOOFE]

A common error ... you mistake 'gender' for 'sex'. Gender refers to the perceptions people have (internally or externally) about the roles and qualities of the sexes, while sex refers to the actual physical characteristics.

Tell that to Merriam Webster. Gender and Sex (the adjective, not the verb) are synonyms.

There is no evidence of gender differences between the various Borg drones.

Uh... except for the fact that female Borg are slighter in build, have breasts, and (theoretically, given the Borg queens behavior towards Data) vaginas.

[DarkStar]

Darkstar, that doesn't seem very solid

Okay, if you say so. I'd call the fact that they were unable to melt the surface in an hour over the limited areas they were firing upon... at maximum power with all turbolasers... pretty interesting. After all, this is an SSD we're talking about.

1- "target ANY STRUCTURES in the jungle" i.e. this was not a BDZ

Actually, it was, if you go with the first use of the term from SWAJ. Besides, if full power turbolaser strikes with all the available emplacements of an SSD don't immediately reduce targeted areas to slag, the notion of an ISD doing it to an entire planet in an hour or so seems rather questionable.

2- "she could already see the forests starting to burn"- i.e. the turbolaser bombardment started forest fires.

Yup. Hardly a resounding slag-fest.

3- "strips of the jungle were ripped up and incinerated where the powerful turbolasers had sliced from orbit" how big were the strips? I don't see much of a contradiction.

IIRC, this quote describes what a person on the surface witnessed, suggesting that the strips weren't enormous. But, don't quote me on that, I'll have to check.

4- Any sign of defences?- what is the relevance of this?

People have made dumb comments about shields to me in the past... I was heading off that line of argument.

5- ""the jungle moon of Yavin 4 must be no more than a cinder"- context of this quote. Also, what is contradictory about Yavin 4 becoming a cinder? This was not a BDZ. Structures were targeted, and the forests burned.

Her orders were to reduce the planet to a cinder... which would obviously take a while if working toward her goal involved starting forest fires over the planet.

This is consistent with the SWTJ reference to reducing the surface of a planet to smoking debris... but that is ignored in more modern revisions of a BDZ.

[DarkStar]

"Yes" Daala said, "We'll strike from orbit. All turbolasers batteries, full strength. Fire at will, target any structures in the jungle."

I thought we were talking about evidence that indicated that HTL's were nowhere as powerful as 200 gigatons.

No, we were talking about conflicting EU representations of BDZ operations.

You described the events as saying that the turbolaser blasts just started forest fires. However, from the evidence, we can conclude that the presence of fires do not exclude the slagging of the planet at a later date.

It would take a helluva lot more than an hour if all she's doing with all turbolasers at maximum strength is starting forest fires.

So where's the beef, buckaroo? On the one hand, you imply that you have evidence to counter the "slagging the planet" thing, yet when you post it, I find a decided lack of such. Care to explain?

What, that you're ignoring prior canon representations of BDZs, and not recognizing the fact that forest fires do not equal slagging? No, I don't really care to explain that at all, since I have a feeling examining the psychology capable of that too closely would be hazardous to my own.

The rest of the base's homeworld was "evenly-cratered". Slagging the surface would leave the entire thing molten, if it were to occur in the ICS-type timeframe, and that would make it rather difficult for craters to exist.

Again, more hyperbole. Molten rock is hardly as viscuous as water. When the heat dissipates and the rock resolidifies, it can very well leave craters... especially when said craters are kilometers in diameter.

No, molten rock is not as viscous as water... but melting an entire planetary surface is not going to lead to rapid cooling, and you would certainly have nothing for TIE fighters to mop up.

For the moment, though, I'll concede that you might get remaining craters, but a simple description of nothing more than a cratered surface remains inconsistent with a BDZ crust melting.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Please argue with facts in the future.

Like your "facts", above? Maybe I got a concussion and went into a coma and missed the part where they redefined the word "fact", but usually, facts don't involve dishonesty or inaccuracy.

I'm neither dishonest nor inaccurate... you should try to meet such standards in the future.

[DarkStar]

Pg 29 Essential Chronology:
"As a public-relation stunt, [Moff] Shild was authorized to blockade Nal
Hutta and turn the smuggler's moon into molten slag."

Wich was going to be done by 3 Dreadnoughts, 4 Bulk Cruisers, 2 Carrack and 16 Guardian customs corvettes, in 15 minutes.

No, the tactical engagement (regarding the blockade) was to be over in fifteen minutes... Greelanx had to lose that part. The destruction of Nal Shaddaa was to occur as described in the Hutt Gambit (from which the Chronology should have derived its data) as follows:

My orders are to enter the Hutt system, execute Base Delta Zero upon the smuggler's moon Nar Shaddaa, and then blockade Nal Hutta and Nar Hekka until the Hutts agree to allow full customs inspections and a complete military presence on their worlds. The Moff doesn't want to cripple the Hutts too badly, but he wants Nar Shaddaa reduced to rubble.

Han swallowed, his mouth dry. Base Delta Zero was an order that called for the decimation of a world- all life, all vessels, all systems- even droids were to be captured and destroyed. His worst nightmare come true."- Hutt Gambit p223/224.

Rubble piles and the description of the order fit in quite nicely with earlier definitions of a BDZ. This was clearly rewritten by the Chronology, due to misunderstandings of the nature of a BDZ, which continued to grow.

[DarkStar]

A common error ... you mistake 'gender' for 'sex'. Gender refers to the perceptions people have (internally or externally) about the roles and qualities of the sexes, while sex refers to the actual physical characteristics.

Tell that to Merriam Webster. Gender and Sex (the adjective, not the verb) are synonyms.

Ah, yes, the simplicity of a dictionary. Like I said ... a common error. These should get you started on the right track:

http://www.sociology.ccsu.edu/hogan/Gen ... gender.htm

http://www.research.umbc.edu/~korenman/ ... ender.html

After all, you are trying to claim that we have to rationalize the quote anyway... why not rationalize it in a way that makes sense and doesn't require stupid mental gymnastics? Are you so desperate for an argument?

[Ender]

So you can't defend the officiality statement you made, so you change the topic? Wow. It suprised you would stoop so low. /sarcasm

http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... genumber=8

See the post 2/3rds down the page that refutes all of DS's points about Novels and ICS. Also see the Denning quote at the bottom indication ICS, as a guide, overrides novels.

[Ender]

Rubble piles and the description of the order fit in quite nicely with earlier definitions of a BDZ. This was clearly rewritten by the Chronology, due to misunderstandings of the nature of a BDZ, which continued to grow.

So does melting the surface. You are simply trying to substitute YOUR definition of what a BDZ is for what the actual one has now been shown to be.

At first I thought you were just dumb as all get out. Now it's been revealed you are a flat out liar. Good to know.

[Jack Lain]

Divine Shadow:
I also read that statement, but it must fall behind the other statement about the EU. GL feels free to trample the EU when necessary. NBD. Who fukn cares? But when he says it is an alternate time period or parallel universe, then we must sit up and listen. It is not a part of the story that he wrote. You cannot argue with him. It is his story. If no other thing is true; this is true, GL is the ultimate authority on SW.
This same fact is what killed ST for me, when Roddenbury said that TOS was not canon. If I must accept that BS for ST then I will accept it for SW. Fair is fair.

And as I said before. It simply does not matter. This entire thread is a bs fuck trap. Who fucking cares? So what? We outlaw EU in the debate. It simply doesn't matter. SW still trumps ST's ass. Who gives a fuck that we are only limited to the films, novelizations and radio play. Crap, at least in this instance we can pretend that the fucking christmas special never happened! :)
Jebus, but 80% of our evidence comes from ESB, so who could possibly give a shit that we cannot quote novels? Are you kidding me? Hell, most of the novels suck anyway!

-Jack "its late & I am tired, gn." Lain.

[LMSx]

No, I'm saying we don't know, and we can't know, unless we see examples of each and they gel well. Further, you miss the fact that there are numerous differences between the canon and non-canon . . . the origin of Anakin's non-human hand comes immediately to mind, but you can certainly choose any example you like

So your saying that each and every example of firepower must match perfectly with the film and the EU to be admissible. Too bad it's contradicted by Lucas employees. Refer to the "if it's got an era, it's canon" quote.

The Lucas quote can easily be re-interpreted, just as you have, so that the movies "set" the canon, and the EU then molds to fit it more precisely then before.

So, I see 0 contradictions so far. Mara Jade: "That's when Vader lost his hand." If he already had an artifical one, then that means that he must have lost the OTHER one. If she already knew that he had lost a hand, and then had an artificial one, he would effectively only have one "hand" left after Yavin, the left one. The beauty of this theory is that it can't be disproven, unless a bio of DV comes out which specifically states that he only had one hand left after Yavin.

Or, we can assume that the Emperor chopped off Vader's right hand again, as a sort of "punishment" which represented the loss of the Emperor's trust in him as a right hand man. This leads in rather nicely with the rise of Xizor into the Imperial Court. Canon supports canon, afterall.

Chop, Chop.

Second, as to the "Boba Fett AOTC" "error", I can easily point out that Boba Fett was removed as a Journeyman as a young man. Boba had to do SOMETHING until be became a bounty hunter, and he probably became so traumatized with the death of his dad he didn't join the profession until his position was removed.

So, you see, the EU is molded quite easily to fit the movies.

[LMSx]

No, I'm saying we don't know, and we can't know, unless we see examples of each and they gel well.

Nope.

You'll have to dance through some damn nasty verbal gymnastics to prove to me that two parallel universes are different in weapons yields without SPECIFIC evidence that they are different.

I'll assume that Han Solo's mother was female in both movie and EU continuity, but if we see a flashback of Han watching his female mother in the EU but no flashback in canon, then going by your logic, We Just Can't Know.

[Darth_Shinji]

The funny thing about this thread is that tech is the one thing I would expect to be the same, if we were to consider the EU an alterverse. people and places are expected to be different in some way in alterverse settings, but tech almost always stays the same. The majority of the universes are the same of all intents and purposes. Just a few differences. And if you wanted to say TL strenghts are different, you need proof.

Though to be quite frank, your views and attacks on SW weapon strenghts by discrediting the EU has been known to me for awhile now.

[Master of Ossus]

The funny thing about this thread is that tech is the one thing I would expect to be the same, if we were to consider the EU an alterverse. people and places are expected to be different in some way in alterverse settings, but tech almost always stays the same. The majority of the universes are the same of all intents and purposes. Just a few differences. And if you wanted to say TL strenghts are different, you need proof.

Though to be quite frank, your views and attacks on SW weapon strenghts by discrediting the EU has been known to me for awhile now.

Ask him if ICS comes from a different universe, seeing as how it clearly exists only within the movies. Ask him if those the book talks about are totally different from what we see on film.

[Darth_Shinji]

Ask him if ICS comes from a different universe, seeing as how it clearly exists only within the movies. Ask him if those the book talks about are totally different from what we see on film.

But thats the point. He does claim that the ICS is apart of the EU. And he also would say yes that the weapons are different. He has before.

Someone needs to back him up on the quote he found. I'm not saying GL didn't say anything, but its all a matter of interpertation. It may or may not dismiss the other quotes we have on cannonity. The rest of this thread is based on that quote.

My whole thing though is that without evidence you can't just say the weapons are different, even if it is a alterverse. Thats the meaning behind a alterverse, it is different in some ways, the same in others. And I have seen nothing that makes there weapons as one of those differenting points.

[Master of Ossus]

I know that DarkStar is an idiot. I nicknamed him "DumbShit." It is because he repeatedly says nonsensical things like the ICS is part of the EU, even though it clearly follows the movies. He also repeatedly falls for the fallacy that if he eliminates a source he can eliminate the ability, even if it is still implied or shown in the movies. He also repeatedly posts the same points while ignoring rebuttals. That is why he is a Village Idiot.

ICS is clearly not a part of the EU, as it strictly deals with ships and their abilities that were shown in the movies. It tends to be very accurate (all of them), and almost all of what we see in the ICS is confirmed by the movies. Essentially, DumbShit's argument is this: "I know that the ships in ICS are the same size, look the same, and their observed capabilities are similar to what we see in the movie, but they aren't the same because they belong to some alternate universe in which the technology is similar because of the similarities in design, but the weapons in the EU are clearly much different and more powerful, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. That is a completely nonsensical argument. Are all of the design similarities purely coincidental? Remember that similar technology creates similarity in design (ref. Skunk Works coming up with a very similar stealth bomber design to the one built by their competitors, etc.). In order for the designs to be so similar as they are between ICS and Episode II, there MUST be technological parity, or rough parity. Aircraft are designed to have excellent balances between a number of factors like speed, protection, maneuverability, and firepower. Other weapons are built the same way. It is therefore impossible to have such similar designs without technological parity, and if we have technological parity, we also have parity in firepower. DorkStar's claims are completely bogus and crappy.

[Darth_Shinji]

Agreed.

[DarkStar]

Rubble piles and the description of the order fit in quite nicely with earlier definitions of a BDZ. This was clearly rewritten by the Chronology, due to misunderstandings of the nature of a BDZ, which continued to grow.

So does melting the surface. You are simply trying to substitute YOUR definition of what a BDZ is for what the actual one has now been shown to be.

At first I thought you were just dumb as all get out. Now it's been revealed you are a flat out liar. Good to know.

One of these things is not like the other:

A. "My orders are to enter the Hutt system, execute Base Delta Zero upon the smuggler's moon Nar Shaddaa, and then blockade Nal Hutta and Nar Hekka until the Hutts agree to allow full customs inspections and a complete military presence on their worlds. The Moff doesn't want to cripple the Hutts too badly, but he wants Nar Shaddaa reduced to rubble.

Han swallowed, his mouth dry. Base Delta Zero was an order that called for the decimation of a world- all life, all vessels, all systems- even droids were to be captured and destroyed. His worst nightmare come true."- Hutt Gambit p223/224.

B. "Sir, what about bombardment? Is there a stage for that?"
"Blasting a planet from orbit is easy -- you don't need me to tell you how to do that. Limited orbital strikes would occur during the invasion stage. Just hope you are never given a Base Delta Zero order, lieutenant. Ah, yes, another question?"
"Sir, what's the Base Delta Zero order?"
"Base Delta Zero is the Imperial code order to destroy all population centres and resources, including industry, natural resources and cities. All other Imperial codes are subject to change, as you well know, but this code is always the same to prevent any confusion when the order is given. Base Delta Zero is rarely issued. ...."
-- "A World to Conquer"

C. (an amalgam from Wong's BDZ page, since I don't have ICS handy): This operation has been referred to as reducing "a civilized world to slag" ... {melting the surface} in a period of an hour or less.

Figure it out.

[DarkStar]

No, I'm saying we don't know, and we can't know, unless we see examples of each and they gel well. Further, you miss the fact that there are numerous differences between the canon and non-canon . . . the origin of Anakin's non-human hand comes immediately to mind, but you can certainly choose any example you like

So your saying that each and every example of firepower must match perfectly with the film and the EU to be admissible. Too bad it's contradicted by Lucas employees. Refer to the "if it's got an era, it's canon" quote.

If we accept every single quote about canonicity with open arms, we will never make any sense of everything, since Rostoni's quote that you refer to is contradictory to Lucas, Cerasi, Sansweet, et cetera.

The Lucas quote can easily be re-interpreted, just as you have, so that the movies "set" the canon, and the EU then molds to fit it more precisely then before.

"other world"... "parallel universe" ... I don't see how that fits what you said.