: Definition 4 is what applies to us.
That's what I said...we prefer this one. The subjective one, since there is no objective way to define "accepted principles or rules." The accepted ones are whichever ones we choose to accept. Subjective.
: Ah, but every story is different. There are many
: irregularities between both stories, and equally
: between the manuals and between they and the games,
: making them completely different objectives of the
: same picture. Was Fang-Grinder really so enormous? No.
: That's an interpretation.
Who says he wasn't so enormous? Do we ever see or hear any other mention of Fang-Grinder's size?
And I was stating this under the definition of "canon" as "works by a single author;" this definition makes no assumptions about that author's abilities to remain self-consistent.
: It does by de fault. There is no secondary mention
: disproving that MJ has such rights; in fact,
: everything we have points them being so empowered.
Again, I was stating this under the objective definition of "canon" as "works by a single author." Under the subjective definition, legalities enter into it if you happen to include them in the "approved rules." As you clearly do. But I need not.
: I do not; I often debate for the truth rather than my own
: oppinions.
: I have found reason: it is in our interests to work
: cooperatively. I have in fact compromised, as you can
: clearly see. It's extraordinarily reasonable. Your
: utter lack of desire, your complete oppinionation
: bending your objective point of view, to compromise
: borders on fanatic.
Were you interested in truth, you would not compromise. One does not calculate the gravitational constant by polling every physicist and averaging the results. The intellectually honest route is to define your starting assumptions and methodology and then stick to them. You are free to correct errors in your reasoning process or to alter your initial assumptions, but not to alter your theories to match other peoples' because it's easier that way.
--SiliconDream
