JPH>JPH>  Your whole argument is based on the idea that there is a
JPH>JPH> "Correct" Trek out there somewhere.  That they guy who said that
JPH>JPH> Riker
JPH>BN>Well, no, actually, Jay, it's not. :)
JPH>        Is too, is too, is too! :)  You prove it in the next statment.
Nope, I think not (I'm the one who's most familiar with my own
brain, after all. ) -- you missed the point I was making
again. ;)
JPH>BN>  Reason being, that there
JPH>BN>_are_ folks who will insist that the show can't be right because
JPH>BN>a novel contradicted it.  Now all logic tells us that that makes
JPH>BN><0 sense, no? ;)
JPH>        Logic tells me that it's all imaginary!  The TV show was dreamed
JPH> up the same way a novel was.  None of it makes any *real* sense.  It
JPH> all makes a certain amount of sense within the Trek Milleau.
Mucho thanks -- you see, you've proven my point for me. };)  Any
fictional mythos/milieu/whatever-term-we-want-to-use *must* make
sense internally; that's why the show itself has writers' guides,
after all -- to prevent contradictions & so everybody's playing
off the same sheet of music. ;)  However, that's not the point
here. ;)  All the above aside, & taking as one of the givens that
we [as in, SOME of us};)] can compartmentalize the show from the
novels, we come full circle back to the point you missed. 
That,
JPH>BN> there
JPH>BN>_are_ folks who will insist that the show can't be right because
JPH>BN>a novel contradicted it.  Now all logic tells us that that makes
What I said (verbatim ) & what I was speaking of is the frankly
unavoidable *real*-reality that "there _are_ folks" who will insist
that when the show & the novels don't agree, the novels are right &
the show's wrong.  That's a more-than-a-little parochial point of
view, which is 100% different from _my_ supposedly arguing that the
show is always right & the novels wrong.  My point wasn't about
show/novel contradictions, but about the fact that .some. folks can
compartmentalize & some cannot, & that when the two sides fetch up
against each other, conflict results; it's inevitable.  Pretty
simple, actually. :)
JPH> canon as a startng point.  But that's just a matter of convenience.  A
JPH> similar frame of logic tells us that since TNG disagrees with TOS then
JPH> TOS must be canon and TNG regarded as inaccurate and "non-canon".
There, you see?   Like Jim Kirk, "you proceed from a false
assumption." 
JPH>BN>Of course.   I'm not saying that there's a
JPH>BN>One True Trek  -- in fact I'm saying just the opposite.
JPH>        Me too.
I, er, rest my case. :)
JPH>BN>generation cousin (twice removed ) would have standing to
JPH>BN>dictate reality to the rest of the family is more than a little
JPH>BN>nonsensical. ;)
JPH>        A third generation cousin has no standing to dictate reality, by
JPH> neither does Gene Roddenberry.  Trek ISN'T REAL.  There is no reality
JPH> to dictate.
Actually there is; it's merely internal -- one simply has to
proceed from the POV that within the premise of the show, it must
make sense consistent with itself.  Same for the novels -- to be
credible, each one must make sense within *it*self.  If we accept
a certain item as a topic to discuss, we must by definition also
accept a certain amount of virtual reality that goes with that.
OTOH, if we proceed from the POV that none of it matters because
it's all fictional, we might as well not even talk of it at all,
since I could say that in _my_ fiction black is white & you could
say in yours that black is pink -- it'd totally obviate the point
of even talking about the show to begin with. 
JPH>        Yes, but over time and climbing this ol' staircase a number of
JPH> times I have come to realize that consistency to me is not the same as
JPH> consistency to you.  Canon+Jay P. Hailey =/ Canon+Bill Nichols.
JPH>        It's all a matter of opinion.
As well as missed points. 
---
 þ OLXWin 1.00b þ "A small confirmation of a known fact." -- # 2
---------------