Saber Prime wrote:I hate that no post mode specified thing, it's driving me freaking nuts.
OK first off. I happen to be a paranoid nut, it's a mental illness some people are just born with. It doesn't matter what choices I make in life what universe you meet me in I'm allways going to be a paranoid nut. That's basically my perspective right there and that never changes.
I'm a bit that way too.
Saber Prime wrote:Life exsperiences change from universe to universe but how you percieve them does not. There is allways that constent. You have the potential from birth to go down any of the limitless number of paths up the tree. Even after you overcome an obsticle you can still wind up right back in the same situation as another universe self who never overcame it in the first place, Like a crossing branch. You in the right universe and in the wrong could still end up in the same situation and you'd both handle the situation the same way because you'd percive that situation the same way..
How you presive an event can change universe to universe just as it can be effected by simply feeling tired or scared or hungry or having low blood suger.If one universe version of me witness an event while fully rested he would presieve it one way while the other me that hasnt sleeped in a week would presieve it in an other.Preseption is a very felxable issue any amount of different things can effect it.
and the two different universe versions of me could end up in different situations becaus of the coices we made.One could have desides to stay in friday night and the other could have gone out and been raped.....or shot.....that would change my character for life and I may never leave the house again becoming a hut in.Even if the other me might have reacted the same way the event never happened so we are not two different characters.
Saber Prime wrote:People at a crime sceen don't percive the crime the same way simply because they're seeing differnt angles of the same crime. A cashier would see a lot more of the criminal pointing a gun at his head than someone else in the same room who is lieing face down on the floor or someone hinding beind a shelf trying not to get shot..
And what if both witneses are standing side by side.....there are many cases of people standing side by side...witnessing the same event but still telling different stories about what happened.I've lived trew just a situation with my wife and from the start we told completly different stories but mine was backed up by video tape.Talk to a pyikaertrest [spelling] about how a mind presives things while under stress and she/he will tell you why its posible for 2 people to have different accounts about events they both witness from the same angle.
Saber Prime wrote:About the twins thing, you gotta realize I'm 21 years old, I graduated high school 3 years ago. Everything I know about twins is what I learned in high school from teachers and students who actully were twins. whatever research you're finding on the internet might be old and outdated for all I know, unless new research was done within the last 3 years makeing everything I was tought in high school to be wrong..
I dont think this was dirrected at me cause I never mention research I did on the net about twins.....what I know of twins is from having twin daughters.One of witch is quite ill so were consatly looking into one helping the other medicaly.
Saber Prime wrote:And now going back to what is and isn't canon...
Two storys like the cartoon and live action series cotridicting eachother does not make one no canon. If that were the case than anything after the original series wouldn't even be canon. Parts of the original series itself wouldn't be canon. Kirk had a different middle name in one episode than all the others.
The true definition of canon is anything legally published. As long as Paramount is makeing money off of it, it's canon.
Just like with Transformers, anything created by Hasbro is canon.
It doesn't stop being canon just because it doesn't fit in with the events of the original series.
have been givin the rights by Paramont to wright the novels.
This is the definition of canon. Because of this they ARE canon..
The word canon has more then one definishion .And has been used in the world of publiscation to establish what works of fiction are part of a charactyers history and what is not.One definishion is as you sugessted the other is any writting considered to be "holy scripture" when it pretain to its self.....meening a story that is part of a pre-established world being part of that worlds history.
And I never stated that what is considered canon didnt contradic its self as well......I could bring up so many issues that your head would spin.
here is a youtube vider with a few....but the guy who made it made a few mistakes himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NwNrkzz4sSo the books may be offical but not canon.Witch also means that you cant use the novel your reading to try to define the characters of Locutos and Picard.Also the deffinision of the two characters was described in the Movie First Contact witch was canon.Paramont has stated its self that the novels are not canon....that is a fact.Wether it remains that way is anyones guess.And have you tryed asking anyone in the star Trek thread as I sugested????????
Here are more links on the topic of Star Trek canon
http://www.canonwars.com/STCanon.htmlhttp://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1061691And here are other deffinishions of the word canon
from websters online...
1 a: a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council b: a provision of canon law
2[Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin, from Latin, model] : the most solemn and unvarying part of the Mass including the consecration of the bread and wine
3[Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard] a: an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture b: the authentic works of a writer c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature>
4 a: an accepted principle or rule b: a criterion or standard of judgment c: a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms
5[Late Greek kanōn, from Greek, model] : a contrapuntal musical composition in which each successively entering voice presents the initial theme usually transformed in a strictly consistent way
And from Dictionary.com
1. an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope.
2. the body of ecclesiastical law.
3. the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art: the neoclassical canon.
4. a fundamental principle or general rule: the canons of good behavior.
5. a standard; criterion: the canons of taste.
6. the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine and inspired.
7. any officially recognized set of sacred books.
8. any comprehensive list of books within a field.
9. the works of an author that have been accepted as authentic: There are 37 plays in the Shakespeare canon. Compare apocrypha (def. 3).
10. a catalog or list, as of the saints acknowledged by the Church.
11. Liturgy. the part of the Mass between the Sanctus and the Communion.
12. Eastern Church. a liturgical sequence sung at matins, usually consisting of nine odes arranged in a fixed pattern.
13. Music. consistent, note-for-note imitation of one melodic line by another, in which the second line starts after the first.
14. Printing. a 48-point type.
Saber Prime wrote:BTW the links you put up says what is and isn't canon is "open for debate" why you put that up as proof one way or the other I have no idea.
I posted them cause I'm not afraid of a friendly debate
What it says is that, and I quote....
However, even this rule is not without its exception. Two Voyager novels written by Jeri Taylor, Mosaic and Pathways, were written early on in Voyager's run and detailed the background of the show's main characters.[1] These were meant to be canon, and to be used as references by the show's writers when fleshing out the characters. These two novels are sometimes named as exceptions to the "no book is canon" rule.[12] However, as some of the background information mentioned in those books was never referenced in an episode of Voyager, their status as canon is still open to debate.[1]Those two books have been considered canon but are now debatable.Also an other thing that some times make it hard to define whats canon in ST is the fact that some of the shows writters some times borrow ellements from the different novels and incorparate them into episodes.But even when they do they change them a bit.
Saber Prime wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:An other never became Batman at all.....tell me how there the same character?????
This looks fun. If you can't tell I some times like to answer questions with questions in an atempt to get you to answer your own question.
Just for a moment try to assume they are the same person..[ (even if you don't belive that).
Saber Prime wrote:Why did Bruce become Batman in the first place??
Depends on how you see it but basicly withnessing the death of his parents.
Saber Prime wrote:Why did this Bruce Wayne never became Batman.?
With the one I mention his parents never got killed.
Saber Prime wrote:What would happen if Batman's life had been the same as the normal Bruce Wayne's?
Whos to say...probly the same as the normal universe Batman...just because down deep there simular and may have made the same choices doesnt make them the same character.
There was an other universe Batman where he saw his parents die....but did not become Batman because he turned to the church and became a priest.How ever when he found out that it was the church that hirred Joe Chill to kill his parents he got pissed off and became batman.But he still was a priest by day.His character was different then our universe Batman because our batman isnt a relegus man.
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
