Alyeska: Now I'm Asking Why

For all your discussion of canon policies, evidentiary standards, and other meta-debate issues.

Discussion is to remain cordial at all times.
Post Reply
User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Alyeska: Now I'm Asking Why

Post by 2046 » Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:44 pm

Via Private Message, I asked Alyeska the following:
I was wondering if you had any public/private opinion on the canon thing these days.

Thanks in advance!
He replied with reference to the GCSN Holocron concept:
You mean things like ICS? Sadly canon. Although being a level under the movies themselves making it entirely possible to contradict elements of it on a case by case basis.

Trek canon is pretty stagnant.
(There was no mention of whether the statements were to be considered private as opposed to public, either, hence my use of them here. )

I replied:
I take it, then, that you reject the parallel universe concept espoused by Lucas in 2001, more strongly in 2002, and devastatingly in 2005, rejecting also the confirmatory statements by Sue Rostoni of Licensing and, in December, the Holocron's own Leland Chee (creator of the GCSN levels you reference) himself?

http://www.canonwars.com/SWCanon2-conde ... ml#III-B-2
Alyeska's response:
You asked my opinion, not if I cared to debate the issue.
. . . and mine:
No debate was requested . . . I was just making certain you were aware of those items and were rejecting them inasmuch as your opinion was concerned. I didn't ask why.
But now, I'm asking why.

I recognize you are busy on the board at the moment, Alyeska, but when the opportunity appears I would like to know your reasoning behind your rejections of the statements.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'll simply say that, in my mind, whereas the possibility still existed that my understanding was flawed in some way prior to the Starlog 2005 quote, in my opinion there has simply been no room for debate since that time. Chee's recognition (or re-recognition) in late 2006 of the dual continuities is the final nail in the coffin, to me, so I really fail to understand how one can dismiss the dual canon concept.

(Indeed, so far as I've seen, there's been absolutely no substantive response to the Starlog 2005 quote or Chee's 2006 two continuities quotes. (The closest one came was the so-called "Production Evasion".) SDN EU Completists have simply gone on believing EU Completism without any change whatsoever.)

Now, if I've misread you and you recognize the dual canons but simply choose to go with the Licensing one, then I apologize. But, I'd then still be curious to know why you do so. (SDN'ers have claimed that Chee suggests that the continuity inclusive of the EU is primary somehow, though I don't see where they're getting that either.)

Basically, I'm just looking for a straight answer from someone in the EU Completist camp, or at least someone who's a dual-canon Completist.

Take your time, and thanks in advance.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:59 pm

Do you think, it is OK to make public, what was said via Private Messages?

User avatar
l33telboi
Starship Captain
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Location: Finland

Post by l33telboi » Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:34 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:Do you think, it is OK to make public, what was said via Private Messages?
I'm with with WilGA on this. It's a reason it's called Private Messages. I hope you asked permission before posting that.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:56 pm

Yes, it should have remained private, unless Alyeska gave it a go to make it public.

Dragoon
Bridge Officer
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:26 am
Location: California
Contact:

Post by Dragoon » Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:43 pm

I must agree with everyone else. I generally regard private messages or IM conversations as private unless I've asked someone else if I can pass on their comments.

WolfRitter
Padawan
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:09 pm

Post by WolfRitter » Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:30 pm

Yeah... I'm sorry to tell you this... but your spin-doctoring is apparent to the world, you did say that the EU was not canon. Just like you spin-doctored the failure of your board, and you spin-doctored your bandwidth theft.
What remarks about the Expanded Universe are you referring to? The "Jedi Council" pages I've referenced seem to make it pretty clear that the EU is not canon. Without their being an "official" status created within any of the statements of Lucas or his authorized agents, that would seem to leave the Expanded Universe out. Nowhere is there any reference to an official category anywhere, and I don't just mean by name. I mean the concept of official...it doesn't exist. There are the levels of canon, but nowhere is the Expanded Universe given any weight, except in reference to other elements within the Expanded Universe. Lucas himself said that he isn't bound by it in his movie-making.
That’d be you… emphasis mine

Dragoon
Bridge Officer
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:26 am
Location: California
Contact:

Post by Dragoon » Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:43 pm

WolfRitter wrote:Yeah... I'm sorry to tell you this... but your spin-doctoring is apparent to the world, you did say that the EU was not canon. Just like you spin-doctored the failure of your board, and you spin-doctored your bandwidth theft.
Who said anything about spin-doctoring?

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:56 am

My response to this distraction:

I asked for his opinion, public or private. I saw no indication that Alyeska was saying anything he might consider privileged . . . he merely replied, saying the same sort of things he's said before. He had the opporutunity to specify but he didn't.

If I PM you and say, "what is your position, publicly or privately, about Subject X?" and you reply with your position but make no statement as to whether you want the comments to remain private, then it's reasonable to assume you have given a position applicable to both.

Had I not already asked how the comments were to be treated, I would've assumed a default position of private, hence privacy. But I did ask.

So, back to the purpose of the thread, if you please. Thanks, and sorry for any confusion.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:22 am

WolfRitter wrote:Yeah... I'm sorry to tell you this... but your spin-doctoring is apparent to the world, you did say that the EU was not canon.
This is true, but you act as if I've denied it. I haven't. Indeed, in the thread with Wayne to which I assume you refer, I say the following:
Thus the 2003 page was largely a rejection of Licensing's use of the term "canon", and all the confusion I thought it caused. However, I still quite happily acknowledged that they had their own continuity.
So how am I spin-doctoring? Have you read what I wrote at all?
Just like you spin-doctored the failure of your board
How do you define failure, other than the fact that I closed it? It was too freaking popular for my bandwidth allowance, and was too much work (thanks in no small degree due to invasion, though largely due to it being a zero-prep, spur of the moment experiment).

On the other hand, it seems to have inspired others . . . but then I suppose the hugely-successful-but-now-closed STrek forums were a failure in your mind, too?
, and you spin-doctored your bandwidth theft.
That old lie?

First, let's take a look at hotlinking: http://www.eccentrix.com/members/chewman/hnb.html

(In short (for those of you unfamiliar with the nuances of the web), hotlinking involves putting something . . . especially a picture . . . right there on your page as if it were your material on your server, and not someone else's material on their server. For example, if the "Starfleet Jedi" banner on the top of your screen were on another server besides JMS's, he would have hotlinked it. )

All the pictures on the old Death Star page in question were created by me, and existed on my server. Those pictures were created, however, from Wong's .AVI of the scene. At the end of the page, in the credits section, I gave Mike Wong full credit for being the source of the .AVI from which my pics were created, gave a link to his site, and also linked to the .AVI itself. That is as close as I came to hotlinking. Any other links to his site from any page of mine were either to individual pages or the main site address.

But of course, to you Wong is not the spin-doctor. Nor is he immoral or cowardly for using that silly claim as an excuse to redirect links from my site to his to porno.com.

To each their own, I suppose.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:39 am

I care not to reply or take part in this.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:54 am

Alyeska wrote:I care not to reply or take part in this.
Very well. Thanks for your attention.

Any EU Completist (or Dual-Canon Completist) is invited to answer instead.

User avatar
SailorSaturn13
Bridge Officer
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:45 am

Post by SailorSaturn13 » Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:56 am

SDN always defines everything in the broadest and stupidest way - be it resources or canon...

User avatar
Trinoya
Security Officer
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am

Post by Trinoya » Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:42 am

*nods* as much as I believe that a PM should be considered private by default... He did put that little bit there... so... a bit lower on the moral chart, but perfectly legal.

Plus I don't think the material here actually pretains to anything terribly important or private... otherwise I'm fairly certain Alyesska would be within rights to have the thread removed or deleated. Alyesska made no complaint (my hat off to you, btw) and everyone has apparently remained civil in the matter... so... I'd say that since the two reached a mutual end (to not discuss it), the fact it was private is a moot point.

HOWEVER: Utilizing a PM to 'obtain' something even an answer, is where my 'low moral' thing comes into play...

Sorry man...

:(

Post Reply