Star Trek Canon

angrytarg · June 2016

I'd like to start this discussion to clarify something. Repeatedly confused and insecure posts are given, statingStar Trek canon is complicated or all over the place or what have you and that nobody even knows what is canon and what is not. This is factually wrong.

The current official definition of what Star Trek works are canonical wa given in 2007 by Paula Block, the person in charge of CBS licensing.

Paula Block wrote:

“Canon” in the sense that I use it is a very important tool. It only gets muddled when people try to incorporate licensed products into “canon”—and I know a lot of the fans really like to do that. Sorry, guys—not trying to rain on your parade. There’s a lot of bickering about it among fans, but in its purest sense, it’s really pretty simple: Canon is Star Trek continuity as presented on TV and Movie screens. Licensed products like books and comics aren’t part of that continuity, so they aren’t canon. And that’s that. Part of my job in licensing is to keep track of TV and Movie continuity, so I can help direct licensees in their creation of licensed products. It gets a little tricky because it’s constantly evolving, and over the years, Star Trek’s various producers and scriptwriters haven’t always kept track of/remembered/cared about what’s come before. Source: http://trekmovie.com/2007/07/22/dc-fontana-on-tas-canon-and-sybok/

The same information was also published via Startrek.com but has since been removed as the site underwent some updates throughout the years and archived material was lost. However, no new statement has ever been published. Which makes the following statements facts by the above given definition:

All works published by CBS and/or Paramount set in the Star Trek continuity that aired on the small screen or released on the big cinema screen make up the Star Trek canon.

This includes TAS. This includes all episodes one might not like. This includes the 2009 onward movie series first directed and now produced by JJ Abrams.

This excludes, by definition, everything else. Every game, book, fiction or promotional material, every script, every designer note is not canonical.

What does that mean?

Canonical material is what licensed products have to be based on, it is what makes the franchise we call "Star Trek". It sets the ground rules for all future works of Star Trek for example that Vulcans originate from Vulcan which is a planet currently member of the United Federation of Planets in what we call the "prime universe". The 2009 movie series is set in a "alternate universe" in which Vulcans also originate from the planet Vuulcan, but the planet has been destroyed. The planet still existing and the planet being destroyed are both canon. They are however in-universe continuity mutually exclusive as a planet cannot exist and be destroyed in the same reality which is why the Abrams movies were set in a parallel world where events happened differently.

This does not mean canon material is any way shape or form of a higher quality than licensed or even unlicensed material per se. This does not mean something you like is canon and something you don't like isn't.

This is not complicated, isn't it? When discussing anything Star Trek, the stories, the worlds, canon information is where everybody is "on the same page". This is what "is". If you diverge from that, interprete things or like to include licensed or unlicensed works into it you are creating "head canon" and that can and should very well be discussed, ideas exchanged, theories crafted. But it is non-canonical, not part of the official continuity and should be stated as such.

Now, if you like you can state which parts of canon you like or dislike and which additional sources you seem worthy of making up your own headcanon. But there should really be no basis to doubt what is or is not considered "Star Trek canon" at this point - until the person in charge redefines it.

jonsills · June 2016

That's why when the discussions of such things happen around here, I like to use "STO canon" instead. In STO canon, the Rihannsu novels of Diane Duane apparently happened - there's even a star system named for the House we followed in The Romulan Way. John M. Ford's The Final Reflection is part-canon, part-apocrypha, as the Klingon language and society are in line with Trek canon, but there is a mention of the game of klin zha in one mission. And of course there's rampant time travel in the early 25th century, sparking the Temporal War that will/did sweep up Archer's Enterprise in the eponymous series.

OTOH, my headcanon still excludes "The Omega Glory" from TOS, "Threshold" from VOY, "These Are the Voyages" from ENT, and Star Trek V.

gradii · June 2016

khan5000 · June 2016

What's wrong with The Omega Glory?

daveyny · June 2016

It gets even more complicated when material taken from the books and Tech Manuals, are every so often included in one of the shows and/or movies.

Does that then make the particular source used, Canon?

mirrorchaos · June 2016

angrytarg wrote: »

I'd like to start this discussion to clarify something. Repeatedly confused and insecure posts are given, stating Star Trek canon is complicated or all over the place or what have you and that nobody even knows what is canon and what is not. This is factually wrong.

that is your ignorant opinion.

angrytarg wrote: »

The current official definition of what Star Trek works are canonical was given in 2007 by Paula Block, the person in charge of CBS licensing.

Paula Block wrote:

“Canon” IN THE SENSE THAT I USE IT is a very important tool. It only gets muddled when people try to incorporate licensed products into “canon”—and I know a lot of the fans really like to do that. Sorry, guys—not trying to rain on your parade. There’s a lot of bickering about it among fans, but in its purest sense, it’s really pretty simple: Canon is Star Trek continuity as presented on TV and Movie screens. Licensed products like books and comics aren’t part of that continuity, so they aren’t canon. And that’s that. Part of my job in licensing is to keep track of TV and Movie continuity, so I can help direct licensees in their creation of licensed products. It gets a little tricky because it’s constantly evolving, and over the years, Star Trek’s various producers and scriptwriters haven’t always kept track of/remembered/cared about what’s come before. Source: http://trekmovie.com/2007/07/22/dc-fontana-on-tas-canon-and-sybok/

Notice that in capitals and blocks, this is her opinion of the product, so in that sense she is no different from the rest of us. that hardly proves your case. find a concrete point, not full of if, and or but.

angrytarg wrote: »

The same information was also published via Startrek.com but has since been removed as the site underwent some updates throughout the years and archived material was lost. However, no new statement has ever been published. Which makes the following statements facts by the above given definition:

All works published by CBS and/or Paramount set in the Star Trek continuity that aired on the small screen or released on the big cinema screen make up the Star Trek canon.

This includes TAS. This includes all episodes one might not like. This includes the 2009 onward movie series first directed and now produced by JJ Abrams.

This excludes, by definition, everything else. Every game, book, fiction or promotional material, every script, every designer note is not canonical.

That is also your ignorant opinion until you find something to back up this lack of a statement.

i already pointed out to you on another thread which you continued to this one, hard canon is a fact until cbs or paramount decides otherwise, due to films or series they control. bottom line.

angrytarg wrote: »

What does that mean?

Canonical material is what licensed products have to be based on, it is what makes the franchise we call "Star Trek". It sets the ground rules for all future works of Star Trek for example that Vulcans originate from Vulcan which is a planet currently member of the United Federation of Planets in what we call the "prime universe". The 2009 movie series is set in a "alternate universe" in which Vulcans also originate from the planet Vulcan, but the planet has been destroyed. The planet still existing and the planet being destroyed are both canon. They are however in-universe continuity mutually exclusive as a planet cannot exist and be destroyed in the same reality which is why the Abrams movies were set in a parallel world where events happened differently.

This does not mean canon material is any way shape or form of a higher quality than licensed or even unlicensed material per se. This does not mean something you like is canon and something you don't like isn't.

This is not complicated, isn't it? When discussing anything Star Trek, the stories, the worlds, canon information is where everybody is "on the same page". This is what "is". If you diverge from that, interprete things or like to include licensed or unlicensed works into it you are creating "head canon" and that can and should very well be discussed, ideas exchanged, theories crafted. But it is non-canonical, not part of the official continuity and should be stated as such.

Now, if you like you can state which parts of canon you like or dislike and which additional sources you seem worthy of making up your own headcanon. But there should really be no basis to doubt what is or is not considered "Star Trek canon" at this point - until the person in charge redefines it.

starting a new flame war? what is this?

markhawkman · June 2016

mirrorchaos wrote: »

angrytarg wrote: »

The same information was also published via Startrek.com but has since been removed as the site underwent some updates throughout the years and archived material was lost. However, no new statement has ever been published. Which makes the following statements facts by the above given definition:

All works published by CBS and/or Paramount set in the Star Trek continuity that aired on the small screen or released on the big cinema screen make up the Star Trek canon.

This includes TAS. This includes all episodes one might not like. This includes the 2009 onward movie series first directed and now produced by JJ Abrams.

This excludes, by definition, everything else. Every game, book, fiction or promotional material, every script, every designer note is not canonical.

That is also your ignorant opinion until you find something to back up this lack of a statement.

i already pointed out to you on another thread which you continued to this one, hard canon is a fact until cbs or paramount decides otherwise, due to films or series they control. bottom line.

I'm sure you already know the flaw in your argument. thus you don't need me to remind you of it, but I will do so to make sure that others are not confused. There is no current official definition of "hard canon". As Mr. Bacon pointed out, the only official source was deleted almost ten years ago. I find it hard to believe it was an accident. After all, they've had a DECADE to notice and fix it. As much as Trekkies like to argue about the topic, I'm sure they started getting asked about it within a month of the deletion.

khan5000 wrote: »

What's wrong with The Omega Glory?

The bizarre idea that a similar planet would naturally have similar cultures. It displayed the aftermath of a war between Yankees and Communists on an alien planet. It went so far as to have the same flags and even an alien version of the US Pledge of Allegiance and US Constitution.

antonine3258 · June 2016

STO uses some stuff beyond it - Star Trek movies and future tv series, of course, have no obligation to observe anything in STO (shame, I'd like them to try and put our bloodthirsty kill-happy captains in. :P </sarcasm> )

But future tv shows and movies do try and hew to what's come before.

angrytarg · June 2016

jonsills wrote: »

That's why when the discussions of such things happen around here, I like to use "STO canon" instead. In STO canon, the Rihannsu novels of Diane Duane apparently happened - there's even a star system named for the House we followed in The Romulan Way. John M. Ford's The Final Reflection is part-canon, part-apocrypha, as the Klingon language and society are in line with Trek canon, but there is a mention of the game of klin zha in one mission. And of course there's rampant time travel in the early 25th century, sparking the Temporal War that will/did sweep up Archer's Enterprise in the eponymous series.

OTOH, my headcanon still excludes "The Omega Glory" from TOS, "Threshold" from VOY, "These Are the Voyages" from ENT, and Star Trek V.

STO incorporated some elments here and there, that's right. What I'm wondering though is why they don't go the whole hog with it, obviously they are allowed to use those references and a few names, but not characters or ships? If they had done so I think we had better stories than the rehash of show episodes we have now, after they abandoned any attempts of creating original stories.

My headcanon excludes a lot of stuff. I think there was a thread about that somewhere, basically I exclude most of the TNG movies as well as ENT and it's implications on the original continuity. However, as saddening as it is, I can't discuss those things away

daveyny wrote: »

It gets even more complicated when material taken from the books and Tech Manuals, are every so often included in one of the shows and/or movies.

Does that then make the particular source used, Canon?

I'd say no as Paula Block stated in her interview. Canon can't, by definition, be anything but shows or movies. So nothing written down can be "canonical" as it is not part of the shown continuity. Now, personally I consider the Tech Manuals "as good as" for the reason that the three (TNG, DS9 and VOY S1) are derived from the writer's guide and outlined technical circumstances before the shows were even written for the writers to refer to. Since they weren't required to do so some things aren't really well depicted, but as long as the shown canon doesn't actively reject what's written in the TM on the subject I'd take the TM information to fill the gaps. I would also do the same with scripts and production notes, personally.

mirrorchaos wrote: »

Notice that in capitals and blocks, this is her opinion of the product, so in that sense she is no different from the rest of us. that hardly proves your case. find a concrete point, not full of if, and or but.

If you read it again you'll also see that it is or was her job to keep track of "canon" at the time. So when she says "Continuity as shown on small and big screens period." it is the most reliable information at hoof.

i already pointed out to you on another thread which you continued to this one, hard canon is a fact until cbs or paramount decides otherwise, due to films or series they control. bottom line.

I fail to see how this statement applies to anything. Canon is a fact that licensed works need to respect before they tell their stories. Yes. That's what the thread is about.

markhawkman wrote: »

(...) I find it hard to believe it was an accident. After all, they've had a DECADE to notice and fix it. As much as Trekkies like to argue about the topic, I'm sure they started getting asked about it within a month of the deletion.(...)

In this case it's the question if the removal of the definition somehow undos it's existence in the first place. I'd say until new "laws" are made you go with those you had before. It doesn't make sense to let the question that you pointed out is of significance simply dissolve and let everything fall in disarray. Paula Block or whoever took over for her still does their job and that has to go by some guidelines.

antonine3258 wrote: »

STO uses some stuff beyond it - Star Trek movies and future tv series, of course, have no obligation to observe anything in STO (shame, I'd like them to try and put our bloodthirsty kill-happy captains in. :P </sarcasm> )

But future tv shows and movies do try and hew to what's come before.

Exactly. Unfortunately sometimes they simply ignore stuff which I think is due to writer's not being obliged to read up before their episode was accepted, so sometimes things are contradicting eah other. The canonicity of the events before however is still given and that's where the "debates" come from which I personally like. It just shows that the fans care and become creative

markhawkman · June 2016

angrytarg wrote: »

markhawkman wrote: »

(...) I find it hard to believe it was an accident. After all, they've had a DECADE to notice and fix it. As much as Trekkies like to argue about the topic, I'm sure they started getting asked about it within a month of the deletion.(...)

In this case it's the question if the removal of the definition somehow undos it's existence in the first place. I'd say until new "laws" are made you go with those you had before. It doesn't make sense to let the question that you pointed out is of significance simply dissolve and let everything fall in disarray. Paula Block or whoever took over for her still does their job and that has to go by some guidelines.

Yes, but.... that function can be fulfilled without ever sharing the guidelines with us.

For example: How does ID fit in?

We can make a reasonable conjecture, but do we have an official statement?

jonsills · June 2016

markhawkman wrote: »

The bizarre idea that a similar planet would naturally have similar cultures.

Not just similar (the one with its own version of the Roman Empire was similar, but projected into 20th-century technology), but identical. They didn't have "an alien version" of the Constitution of the United States; as proved by their reaction to Kirk's quoting it in its entirety, they had the exact same document. (Which, given the document's historical antecedents, means that they also had the city-state of Athens in their past, and somewhere there was a Magna Carta.)

That's not "parallel evolution". (Parallel evolution is the contention that certain life-forms might evolve along lines parallel to ours, giving them a humanoid shape even from an alien environment.) That's straight-out writer fiat, copying an entire culture word for word. And it's only slightly less lazy as a writing tool than, "And then the little boy fell out of bed and woke up."

angrytarg · June 2016

markhawkman wrote: »

Yes, but.... that function can be fulfilled without ever sharing the guidelines with us.

For example: How does ID fit in?

We can make a reasonable conjecture, but do we have an official statement?

I don't know if any is necessary. What about ID for isntance, why is it questionbale where it "fits in"? It's a movie and as such official continuity canon, but set in a parallel reality. So ID does not affect "prime" continuity (as this obviously went different) but what happens in ID and the alternate reality is canonical "fact".

dmt · June 2016

I'm in the position in which I like the non-canon Star Trek material currently being produced more than the canon material currently being produced.

However Star Trek introduced multiple universes in TOS: Mirror, Mirror and the concept featured heavily in TNG: Parallels. If it's non-canon it is just set in an alternate universe.

I wish Star Wars would do the same.

markhawkman · June 2016

angrytarg wrote: »

markhawkman wrote: »

Yes, but.... that function can be fulfilled without ever sharing the guidelines with us.

For example: How does ID fit in?

We can make a reasonable conjecture, but do we have an official statement?

I don't know if any is necessary. What about ID for isntance, why is it questionbale where it "fits in"? It's a movie and as such official continuity canon, but set in a parallel reality. So ID does not affect "prime" continuity (as this obviously went different) but what happens in ID and the alternate reality is canonical "fact".

I wasn't saying it was questionable, merely that there is no official explanation.

jonsills wrote: »

markhawkman wrote: »

The bizarre idea that a similar planet would naturally have similar cultures.

Not just similar (the one with its own version of the Roman Empire was similar, but projected into 20th-century technology), but identical. They didn't have "an alien version" of the Constitution of the United States; as proved by their reaction to Kirk's quoting it in its entirety, they had the exact same document. (Which, given the document's historical antecedents, means that they also had the city-state of Athens in their past, and somewhere there was a Magna Carta.)

That's not "parallel evolution". (Parallel evolution is the contention that certain life-forms might evolve along lines parallel to ours, giving them a humanoid shape even from an alien environment.) That's straight-out writer fiat, copying an entire culture word for word. And it's only slightly less lazy as a writing tool than, "And then the little boy fell out of bed and woke up."

Exactly! But it was one of at least THREEE examples in TOS! (The third one was Miri, she literally lived in a town that was identical to MAYBERRY!)

daveyny · June 2016

Now I'm trying to picture Barney either as a Onlie or a Grup.
He would have been terrible at "No Bonk, Bonk" though.
<chuckle>

artan42 · June 2016

Only odd numbered ST episodes are canon, except in TNG where it's only even ones, then DS9 switched it back again.

On the other hand this is a well thought out, well referenced, and nicely balanced thread. I think you need to fill it with a bit more rage and whining, followed by some very off topic discussions, and ending in personal flaming.

mustrumridcully0 · June 2016

artan42 wrote: »

Only odd numbered ST episodes are canon, except in TNG where it's only even ones, then DS9 switched it back again.

On the other hand this is a well thought out, well referenced, and nicely balanced thread. I think you need to fill it with a bit more rage and whining, followed by some very off topic discussions, and ending in personal flaming.

So, that's what you think, eh? You wouldn't know a Hydrospanner from a Self Sealing Stem Bolt, how would you be qualified to judge anything in this thread?

Mustrum "Did I do this right?" Ridcully

angrytarg · June 2016

markhawkman wrote: »

I wasn't saying it was questionable, merely that there is no official explanation.(...)

I see. However, I don't understand what you mean by official explanation. ID is the successor of 09, set in the same continuity. As the statement from 2007 that all shown continuity is canon still applies (I would think so), the same is true for ID. Or do we talk about different things?

mustrumridcully0 wrote: »

So, that's what you think, eh? You wouldn't know a Hydrospanner from a Self Sealing Stem Bolt, how would you be qualified to judge anything in this thread?

Mustrum "Did I do this right?" Ridcully

That was almost Tellarite in it's execution. I applaud you, Mustrum

markhawkman · June 2016

angrytarg wrote: »

markhawkman wrote: »

I wasn't saying it was questionable, merely that there is no official explanation.(...)

I see. However, I don't understand what you mean by official explanation. ID is the successor of 09, set in the same continuity. As the statement from 2007 that all shown continuity is canon still applies (I would think so), the same is true for ID. Or do we talk about different things?

The old canon policy was pretty specific, it was 2 pages long after all.

artan42 · June 2016

markhawkman wrote: »

For example: How does ID fit in?

We can make a reasonable conjecture, but do we have an official statement?

Paula Block wrote:

“Canon” in the sense that I use it is a very important tool. It only gets muddled when people try to incorporate licensed products into “canon”—and I know a lot of the fans really like to do that. Sorry, guys—not trying to rain on your parade. There’s a lot of bickering about it among fans, but in its purest sense, it’s really pretty simple: Canon is Star Trek continuity as presented on TV and Movie screens. Licensed products like books and comics aren’t part of that continuity, so they aren’t canon. And that’s that. Part of my job in licensing is to keep track of TV and Movie continuity, so I can help direct licensees in their creation of licensed products. It gets a little tricky because it’s constantly evolving, and over the years, Star Trek’s various producers and scriptwriters haven’t always kept track of/remembered/cared about what’s come before. Source: http://trekmovie.com/2007/07/22/dc-fontana-on-tas-canon-and-sybok/

ID was a feature film presented on a (sigh) 'movie screen'.

No conjecture needed.

marcusdkane · June 2016

artan42 wrote: »

Only odd numbered ST episodes are canon, except in TNG where it's only even ones, then DS9 switched it back again.

On the other hand this is a well thought out, well referenced, and nicely balanced thread. I think you need to fill it with a bit more rage and whining, followed by some very off topic discussions, and ending in personal flaming.

Anything directed/produced/looked at by JJ Abrams sucks*

Sharon Stone has liked posts I've put to her on facebook!

You're all a bunch of TRIBBLE!

*with the exception of Filofax (aka Taking Care of Business) "Here's to the Cubs winning the World Series... and to big t|ts!"

themadrigogs · June 2016

markhawkman wrote: »

angrytarg wrote: »

markhawkman wrote: »

(...) I find it hard to believe it was an accident. After all, they've had a DECADE to notice and fix it. As much as Trekkies like to argue about the topic, I'm sure they started getting asked about it within a month of the deletion.(...)

In this case it's the question if the removal of the definition somehow undos it's existence in the first place. I'd say until new "laws" are made you go with those you had before. It doesn't make sense to let the question that you pointed out is of significance simply dissolve and let everything fall in disarray. Paula Block or whoever took over for her still does their job and that has to go by some guidelines.

Yes, but.... that function can be fulfilled without ever sharing the guidelines with us.

For example: How does ID fit in?

We can make a reasonable conjecture, but do we have an official statement?

ID fits into the Enterprise continuity, where, as in Broken Bow, Qo'nos is ~1 ly from earth. I think you'll find this solves a lot of issues, and doesn't create new ones at all.

khan5000 · June 2016

I'm not sure why this is a discussion. I've always figured that canon was TV and Movies produced by CBS/Paramount. The other thing to remember is that the writers on TOS were making this up as they went so what is canon is fluid...Vulcans were once called Vulcanians, Spock refered to the human member of his family tree as an ancestor, Kirk's middle name in the pilot was not Tiberius....

starswordc · June 2016

Don't forget, TOS existed in an era when continuity was basically a foreign concept to TV. The idea of an ongoing series-wide arc really only started to take off in the '90s (Deep Space Nine and Babylon 5 were major innovators here). It was actually fairly common to have no defined episode sequence at all.

mirrorchaos · June 2016

markhawkman wrote: »

I'm sure you already know the flaw in your argument. thus you don't need me to remind you of it, but I will do so to make sure that others are not confused. There is no current official definition of "hard canon". As Mr. Bacon pointed out, the only official source was deleted almost ten years ago. I find it hard to believe it was an accident. After all, they've had a DECADE to notice and fix it. As much as Trekkies like to argue about the topic, I'm sure they started getting asked about it within a month of the deletion.

that is your opinion and that doesnt prove i am wrong either. thats your flaw in this point.

angrytarg wrote: »

mirrorchaos wrote: »

Notice that in capitals and blocks, this is her opinion of the product, so in that sense she is no different from the rest of us. that hardly proves your case. find a concrete point, not full of if, and or but.

If you read it again you'll also see that it is or was her job to keep track of "canon" at the time. So when she says "Continuity as shown on small and big screens period." it is the most reliable information at hoof.

i already pointed out to you on another thread which you continued to this one, hard canon is a fact until cbs or paramount decides otherwise, due to films or series they control. bottom line.

I fail to see how this statement applies to anything. Canon is a fact that licensed works need to respect before they tell their stories. Yes. That's what the thread is about.

what she said is full of conjecture, and you still have not proven to my point that you can find a solid lead.

as for the last bit are you planning on providing something useful to counter or are you playing ignorant, again?

markhawkman · June 2016

mirrorchaos wrote: »

markhawkman wrote: »

I'm sure you already know the flaw in your argument. thus you don't need me to remind you of it, but I will do so to make sure that others are not confused. There is no current official definition of "hard canon". As Mr. Bacon pointed out, the only official source was deleted almost ten years ago. I find it hard to believe it was an accident. After all, they've had a DECADE to notice and fix it. As much as Trekkies like to argue about the topic, I'm sure they started getting asked about it within a month of the deletion.

that is your opinion and that doesnt prove i am wrong either. thats your flaw in this point.

And how is your... perspective any different?

angrytarg · June 2016

mirrorchaos wrote: »

what she said is full of conjecture, and you still have not proven to my point that you can find a solid lead.

as for the last bit are you planning on providing something useful to counter or are you playing ignorant, again?

I literally don't get your point. I do not comprehend what your intention it, please rephrase it.

Because right now what I make of your two statements is that you ask for proof that Star Trek canon is just the TV and movie continuity. Paula Block, whose work it is or was in 2007 to keep track of said continuity and to license works that wish to use the IP said that this is the case. What proof do you ask for? Which person would you like to repeat that statement? There has been no new definition or information on "canon" since then, that's true, but what basis do we have to assume that anything about this has changed?

And on your second part I unfortunately just have to pass. I don't understand it. Yes, canon is a fact until CBS changes their definition. This is true, this is part of what I wrote in my OP statement. That's a... point for you. I guess?

artan42 · June 2016

angrytarg wrote: »

mirrorchaos wrote: »

what she said is full of conjecture, and you still have not proven to my point that you can find a solid lead.

as for the last bit are you planning on providing something useful to counter or are you playing ignorant, again?

I literally don't get your point. I do not comprehend what your intention it, please rephrase it.

Because right now what I make of your two statements is that you ask for proof that Star Trek canon is just the TV and movie continuity. Paula Block, whose work it is or was in 2007 to keep track of said continuity and to license works that wish to use the IP said that this is the case. What proof do you ask for? Which person would you like to repeat that statement? There has been no new definition or information on "canon" since then, that's true, but what basis do we have to assume that anything about this has changed?

And on your second part I unfortunately just have to pass. I don't understand it. Yes, canon is a fact until CBS changes their definition. This is true, this is part of what I wrote in my OP statement. That's a... point for you. I guess?

Relax, they've just gone back to the old mirrorchaos we all know and love.

angrytarg · June 2016

artan42 wrote: »

Relax, they've just gone back to the old mirrorchaos we all know and love.

I am relaxed. If I'd relax some more I'd leave a puddle. I can deal with the passive aggression and subtle hostility, but I just would like to understand where it's coming from. But right now it really comes out of nowhere and goes straight over my back spikes.

markhawkman · June 2016

I'm guessing we violated one of his pet peeves and will never know which one.

azniadeet · June 2016

I don't recognize Paula Brock's authority to declare canon.

Star Trek Canon

Comments