Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
Original Universe versus Prime et al.
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dukhat: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Why would internal production company stuff need to be portrayed onscreen? Why would novels or comics have to override show or film details for their stated canonicity to be confirmed? Why would I need a special press release on corporate letterhead (will Shari's signature in regular autopen suffice or does it need to be handwritten in blood?), but you don't?[/QUOTE]You're the one making the argument that novels and comics are now canon, so the burden of proof is on you to show me that this is actually happening. [/QUOTE][/qb] So, handwritten in blood, then. Can she write small? She's not a large individual . . . I don't want her to pass out halfway down the page. I'm guessing that although you asked for office stuff onscreen, in the first question you are seeking incidents of book stuff hitting the screen. Would that include David Mack's Control that Beyer claimed as inspiration, perhaps a.k.a. "software agents" from a 2006 novel and Malcolm Reed's thoughts? Or Mack's chimerium cloaks? Or Picard as a "night shift science officer" from the Goodman autobiography? There are lists made by people who are interested in the books and Discovery. However, I don't actually need to provide that to you, because it isn't relevant. Kurtzman said what he repeatedly said. It's even on video. Even Goldsman acknowledges they can mine from the novels now, even as he (and seemingly he alone) calls them non-canon. When it comes to Kurtzman's words, which we can call Part I of my overall argument, it is well-proven. The burden is now on you to actually provide counterevidence, not moved goalposts. I mean, the fact no one hired a skywriting plane and scrawled it over your house doesn't make it untrue. If you want to disprove Kurtzman's words and their clear meaning, find a contrary quote by him, or demonstrate a misunderstanding of his repeated view. Note that I didn't move any goalposts on you, there. [qb] [QUOTE] You are clearly deluded, [/qb][/QUOTE]That may be an exact quote from my previous detractors who swore the Star Wars EU was canon. They fought tooth and nail to ignore the words of George Lucas when he clearly wasn't following the Lucas Licensing canon policy twenty years ago. They'd reimagine what he said, strip the context, try to pull in lower-ranking folk to claim I was wrong, insult and harass, move goalposts, make up nonsense examples "proving {me} wrong", ad nauseum, ad absurdum . . . it was crazy. Needless to say, folks telling me I'm delusional, dishonest, and blah-blah-blah . . . it's old hat, and never once did it disprove a single word I said. There may even be a few holdouts among them, even as the rest of the world figured out I was right. Why, I had to laugh a few years back when the guy they tried to direct against me back in the day just tossed out an explanation of the way things had been then that was virtually identical to mine of the time, right down to "separate" and "universe", which he'd protested before. Back to "resist angrily", though ... I understood the origin of their resistance. They needed the EU to be true to maintain their fantasies. I don't get the origin of yours. You're all "this sucks, but I must have it as inarguable canon at all costs!" That perplexes me. Doesn't it perplex you, introspectively? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3