The Energon Pub

Saber Prime wrote:The difference between you in another universe leading a different life and a clone leading a different life is really verry simple.

You and your alternate universe self lead the same life in the same time line. I for example no matter what universe I went into would still be born March 6, 1986.

A clone does not lead your life at all. They are never born. Clones may have the memories of their original but they never actully lived any of thoughs events. Both William and Tom remember everything that happen to them from childhood to the moment of the teliporter accident but only ONE of them actully lived thoughs events. Tom's birthday is technically the day of the transporter accident and not the same as William's.

A person's birth date does not define their character life experiences do.The events in one's life ,ether for better or worce is what establishes what your character is and will become not your birth date.This statement contradick's what you said about twins earlyer statment that twins are different characters...let me quote you.....

Saber Prime wrote:Calling Tom the same character as William or Picard the same as his clone would be the equivilant of calling a pair of twins or a man and his son the same person. Just because they look alike doesn't mean they are the same.

If a twin is a different character from his twin then why is a altrenate universe version of you or me the same character.A twin and a alternate have the same birthdates....share the same DNA make up.....look alike.Both live their lives in the same time line.How to you define the differences between a twin and a alternate????

And again your think on a small scale.Why do you assume that " no matter what universe I went into would still be born March 6, 1986" and that a alternate version of you would live his life in the same time line????. There is absouletley no seientific reason to even think that useing your theroy on just what a alternate universe.Useing your exsample and asuming that your the first child your parents [I know you mention have a brother once but I'm not sure if hes older or younger] again ousing your exsample :lets say that it was your father of the right choice universe that concieved you around July or Augest of 1985 [assuming you were a 9 month baby] in time to have you on March 6, 1986.But what if in the wrong choice universe he desided to where a condom....or to not see your mother that day....or what if he couldnt preform that night....or got arrested because of a bad choice and held in jail till trial and didnt see his wife again for 2 years.Then when he got out he inpregnated your mother and you were born in 1988, two years later then the right choice universe version of you.
You also failed to answer my other questions.Just like in the exsample I provided for you about you.....the mainstream universe and mirror universe Ben Siskos had vastly different life experiences after birth because of choices other's made before he was born......and things continued to be different for him as an adult....mainstream universe Sisko had a son at about 22 to 26 years of age.....but by the age we meet his mirror universe counter part at about age 40+ he still had no children and he died before ever having any.

Useing my owen life for exsample....I had my first children at the age of 13.....you may for the purposes of this topic consider that event to be one of the wrong choices in my life due to the fact that I lied about my age to my girlfriend at the time ,she was almost 17 when we met and I was 12,What if I had not lied about my age....would we have ever hooked up back then????Would I have become a father so young????Would I have been forced to move out on my owen 4 days after my 13th birthday????I very much doubt it.The life I would have lead would be greatly different changing my character in so many ways that you wouldnt even reconise me by my actions.Even if me and that girl friend hooked up later and still had the twins they would be born on different dates.....changing them as well.

Falling back to comics.....there have been many exsamples of alternate universe versions of Batman and Superman....I will site 3 of each for my exsamples.
Earth 1 Superman: crashes on earth around 1955 is taken in by the Kent family,makes his first appearance as Superboy around 1968 and makes his first appearance as Superman around 1975 in universe time.Real name is Kal-EL comes from a Kryton where its people have normal human strenght.By age 26 cusin Supergirl reaches earth and by age 35 is still single.
Earth 2 Superman: crashes on earth around 1919 is taken in by the Kent family, no Superby adventers and makes his first appearance around 1939 in universe time fights in WW 2 works at the daily star new paper and marries Loisat around age 30.They both help to give his cusin Power Girl a home life when she reaches earth when he's about 45 years old.His true name is Kal-L and come from a Kryton that all the people had super human strenght but the planets heavyer gravity kept in check.
Superboy Earth Prime: Comes from a earth that has only one other costume hero in its history......he crashes on earth around 1970 is not is taken in by the Kent family he is put into a foster home and is unaware of any of his powers untill he is about 12 or 14 years old on Halloween.He then watches as his whole universe is destroyed.He later helps the other before mention Supermen to stop the antimoitor from destroing all the universes.He later lives in a limbo like dimention where time has no effect on his age watching a new universe and earth be born...a single universe with out a multiverse, all the while becoming disenchanted with his so called life and becoming what the kids today call "Emo Superboy".He later partakes in a plan to destroy the current universe and bring back the multiverse and kills sevral members of the Teen Titans,The Green Lantern Corp. and Superman of Earth 2....who was like a father to him.He is now considered the most dangerus vilien in the DC universe.

Now for Batman
Batman Earth 1: born around 1955 watches his both parents die of gun shot woundsaround at the age of r and become Batman around 1975 never carried a gun and never kills.Joind by the first Robin around 1978 and the second Robin around 1985.Was still single with no kids by the end of his universe.
Batman Earth 2: Born around 1919 ,at the age of 8 watches as his father is shot to death and his mother dies of a heart attack.and makes his first appearance as Batman around 1940 in universe time, carries a gun and sometimes kills early in on.Is joined by the only Robin in 1942.They both fight in WW 2.Batman marries Catwoman around the 1952 and have a daughter a few years later.Catwoman would later be killed and Batman retires and becomes comisiner of Gotham police then Mayor....his daughter follows in his footsteps and become the Huntress.
Batman un-numbered Earth: Young Bruce never watches his parents get killed because Batman of earth 1 crosses over and saves them in 1985.Fascinated by this event,This earths Bruce Wayne would become the Batman to help people like someone once helped him and his family.

Now the dates I listed are just best estemets based on the dates the books first came out and the large events in the DC universe like WW 2 and Vietnam.These are just exsamples how different universe versions of knowen characters have vastly different birth dates.

Saber Prime wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Ramrider wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:Rhinox didn't "vounteer" to become Tankor. Megatron had allready exstracted Rhinox's spark by force some time before the whole chase sequence at the start of the first episode. Megatron didn't even know at that point he was ever going to make Tankor.

Still it doesn't matter what Tainkox said I still belive him to have been corrupted by the Tankor program.

Haven't seen BM in a while, but I could've sworn I remembered that Tankor said that unlike Silverbolt, he'd switched sides of his own accord...
Maybe I misinterpreted or misremembered, though...

I havnt see the show in a while ether but I dont remember that....but I do remember something simulr...after getting his memorys of Rinox back he chose to stay with Meg's instead of being reformated by Primal.

He didn't really "stay with megs" He was fighting agenst both sides. He thought Megatron had the right idea but he thought he should be the rightfull ruler of Cybertron not Megatron.

Thanks for the info.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:The difference between you in another universe leading a different life and a clone leading a different life is really verry simple.

You and your alternate universe self lead the same life in the same time line. I for example no matter what universe I went into would still be born March 6, 1986.

A clone does not lead your life at all. They are never born. Clones may have the memories of their original but they never actully lived any of thoughs events. Both William and Tom remember everything that happen to them from childhood to the moment of the teliporter accident but only ONE of them actully lived thoughs events. Tom's birthday is technically the day of the transporter accident and not the same as William's.

A person's birth date does not define their character life experiences do.The events in one's life ,ether for better or worce is what establishes what your character is and will become not your birth date.This statement contradick's what you said about twins earlyer statment that twins are different characters...let me quote you.....

Saber Prime wrote:Calling Tom the same character as William or Picard the same as his clone would be the equivilant of calling a pair of twins or a man and his son the same person. Just because they look alike doesn't mean they are the same.

If a twin is a different character from his twin then why is a altrenate universe version of you or me the same character.A twin and a alternate have the same birthdates....share the same DNA make up.....look alike.Both live their lives in the same time line.How to you define the differences between a twin and a alternate????

And again your think on a small scale.Why do you assume that " no matter what universe I went into would still be born March 6, 1986" and that a alternate version of you would live his life in the same time line????. There is absouletley no seientific reason to even think that useing your theroy on just what a alternate universe.Useing your exsample and asuming that your the first child your parents [I know you mention have a brother once but I'm not sure if hes older or younger] again ousing your exsample :lets say that it was your father of the right choice universe that concieved you around July or Augest of 1985 [assuming you were a 9 month baby] in time to have you on March 6, 1986.But what if in the wrong choice universe he desided to where a condom....or to not see your mother that day....or what if he couldnt preform that night....or got arrested because of a bad choice and held in jail till trial and didnt see his wife again for 2 years.Then when he got out he inpregnated your mother and you were born in 1988, two years later then the right choice universe version of you.
You also failed to answer my other questions.Just like in the exsample I provided for you about you.....the mainstream universe and mirror universe Ben Siskos had vastly different life experiences after birth because of choices other's made before he was born......and things continued to be different for him as an adult....mainstream universe Sisko had a son at about 22 to 26 years of age.....but by the age we meet his mirror universe counter part at about age 40+ he still had no children and he died before ever having any.

Useing my owen life for exsample....I had my first children at the age of 13.....you may for the purposes of this topic consider that event to be one of the wrong choices in my life due to the fact that I lied about my age to my girlfriend at the time ,she was almost 17 when we met and I was 12,What if I had not lied about my age....would we have ever hooked up back then????Would I have become a father so young????Would I have been forced to move out on my owen 4 days after my 13th birthday????I very much doubt it.The life I would have lead would be greatly different changing my character in so many ways that you wouldnt even reconise me by my actions.Even if me and that girl friend hooked up later and still had the twins they would be born on different dates.....changing them as well.

Falling back to comics.....there have been many exsamples of alternate universe versions of Batman and Superman....I will site 3 of each for my exsamples.
Earth 1 Superman: crashes on earth around 1955 is taken in by the Kent family,makes his first appearance as Superboy around 1968 and makes his first appearance as Superman around 1975 in universe time.Real name is Kal-EL comes from a Kryton where its people have normal human strenght.By age 26 cusin Supergirl reaches earth and by age 35 is still single.
Earth 2 Superman: crashes on earth around 1919 is taken in by the Kent family, no Superby adventers and makes his first appearance around 1939 in universe time fights in WW 2 works at the daily star new paper and marries Loisat around age 30.They both help to give his cusin Power Girl a home life when she reaches earth when he's about 45 years old.His true name is Kal-L and come from a Kryton that all the people had super human strenght but the planets heavyer gravity kept in check.
Superboy Earth Prime: Comes from a earth that has only one other costume hero in its history......he crashes on earth around 1970 is not is taken in by the Kent family he is put into a foster home and is unaware of any of his powers untill he is about 12 or 14 years old on Halloween.He then watches as his whole universe is destroyed.He later helps the other before mention Supermen to stop the antimoitor from destroing all the universes.He later lives in a limbo like dimention where time has no effect on his age watching a new universe and earth be born...a single universe with out a multiverse, all the while becoming disenchanted with his so called life and becoming what the kids today call "Emo Superboy".He later partakes in a plan to destroy the current universe and bring back the multiverse and kills sevral members of the Teen Titans,The Green Lantern Corp. and Superman of Earth 2....who was like a father to him.He is now considered the most dangerus vilien in the DC universe.

Now for Batman
Batman Earth 1: born around 1955 watches his both parents die of gun shot woundsaround at the age of r and become Batman around 1975 never carried a gun and never kills.Joind by the first Robin around 1978 and the second Robin around 1985.Was still single with no kids by the end of his universe.
Batman Earth 2: Born around 1919 ,at the age of 8 watches as his father is shot to death and his mother dies of a heart attack.and makes his first appearance as Batman around 1940 in universe time, carries a gun and sometimes kills early in on.Is joined by the only Robin in 1942.They both fight in WW 2.Batman marries Catwoman around the 1952 and have a daughter a few years later.Catwoman would later be killed and Batman retires and becomes comisiner of Gotham police then Mayor....his daughter follows in his footsteps and become the Huntress.
Batman un-numbered Earth: Young Bruce never watches his parents get killed because Batman of earth 1 crosses over and saves them in 1985.Fascinated by this event,This earths Bruce Wayne would become the Batman to help people like someone once helped him and his family.

Now the dates I listed are just best estemets based on the dates the books first came out and the large events in the DC universe like WW 2 and Vietnam.These are just exsamples how different universe versions of knowen characters have vastly different birth dates.

Saber Prime wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Ramrider wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:Rhinox didn't "vounteer" to become Tankor. Megatron had allready exstracted Rhinox's spark by force some time before the whole chase sequence at the start of the first episode. Megatron didn't even know at that point he was ever going to make Tankor.

Still it doesn't matter what Tainkox said I still belive him to have been corrupted by the Tankor program.

Haven't seen BM in a while, but I could've sworn I remembered that Tankor said that unlike Silverbolt, he'd switched sides of his own accord...
Maybe I misinterpreted or misremembered, though...

I havnt see the show in a while ether but I dont remember that....but I do remember something simulr...after getting his memorys of Rinox back he chose to stay with Meg's instead of being reformated by Primal.

He didn't really "stay with megs" He was fighting agenst both sides. He thought Megatron had the right idea but he thought he should be the rightfull ruler of Cybertron not Megatron.

Thanks for the info.

Twins aren't 100% identical and they do allmost lead the same life but still come out without different personalitys.

Think about it. A pair of twins grow up togeather in the same universe, exsperienceing all the same stuff. By your standards the twins should come out the same because they go through the same life exsperiences.

Now you on the other hand in a different universe may go through different life exsperiance and may act differently because of that but deep down underneath all that stuff he's still the same person you are.

BTW I'm reading a Star Trek book right now, I, Q. In the book Picard actully confronts Locutus from another universe where he was never freed from the Borg. There seems to be lots of room to speculated either way with the way they were talking to eachother about weather or not Picard and Locutus are the same person.

Allso they mentioned sto_vo_kor. I hadn't really paid much attention to the Klingon's before and didn't realize till today where you got your username from.

Anyway if you haven't read it you should. The book is wrighten from the perspective point of view of Q and actully wrighten by the actor who played Q in the series. Starts off kinda slow and boring though but it's starting to pick up for me. (allso it should be noted there are no chapter numbers. I have no idea what chapter I'm on in the book.)

If you have read it don't say anything to me about it because I haven't finished it yet.

Saber Prime wrote: Twins aren't 100% identical and they do allmost lead the same life but still come out without different personalitys..

Witch is no different then a alternate universe version of myself from a right choices universe and a wrong choices.The choices both of me made defined the corse of those lifes and shaped the 2 versions of my, personalitys.making both of them two different characters wether or not there are simularity's is irelivent...your personality is what defines your character and if both versions of me have different personalitys then were different characters.An other Star Trek exsample is Major Kira from the mainstream universe and her mirror universe counterpart The Intendent.Our Kira live her life as a Bajoren freedom fighter.She is hetrosexual ,peace full at heart, honorable and a good friend.On the hand the mirro universe version, The Intendent, is a cold hearted murrdering Bi-sexual who would back stab any one in the back.She runs a slave laber camp at Terac Nor.How are these the same character????

Saber Prime wrote:Think about it. A pair of twins grow up togeather in the same universe, exsperienceing all the same stuff. By your standards the twins should come out the same because they go through the same life exsperiences..

By no means have I been saying that....I know that they would still be different...what I have been saying is that if your theroy on how alternate universes versions of a character are the same character simply because they share the same birthday as you have suggest ,then it would inply that twins are the same character because they share the same b-day.

Saber Prime wrote:Now you on the other hand in a different universe may go through different life exsperiance and may act differently because of that but deep down underneath all that stuff he's still the same person you are..

Same person by DNA and nasme only......different life exsperiance's is what makes a persons character.I shutter at the thought of what I would have become if not for my grandmothers influnace over me.With all the thoughts I used to have in my head as a child its a wonder that I'm not locked up for life right now.And I know I would be a different person if I hadnt had any children.Being a father has defined who I am.With out them I would be a different character.
Now I got a question for you are G1 Prime and Energon or Rid Prime the same character?????

Saber Prime wrote:BTW I'm reading a Star Trek book right now, I, Q. In the book Picard actully confronts Locutus from another universe where he was never freed from the Borg. There seems to be lots of room to speculated either way with the way they were talking to eachother about weather or not Picard and Locutus are the same person..

I know of the book but have not read it.But you have to understand Star Trek novels and the stories from them are not considered canon.They are writtin from the prespective of the writter and him only.The only stories that are considered canon in Star Trek are the live action tv shows and movies.Not even the Star Trek cartoon from the 70's is canon.

Saber Prime wrote:Allso they mentioned sto_vo_kor. I hadn't really paid much attention to the Klingon's before and didn't realize till today where you got your username from..

Yep thats where I got it from.

Saber Prime wrote:Anyway if you haven't read it you should. The book is wrighten from the perspective point of view of Q and actully wrighten by the actor who played Q in the series. Starts off kinda slow and boring though but it's starting to pick up for me. (allso it should be noted there are no chapter numbers. I have no idea what chapter I'm on in the book.)

If you have read it don't say anything to me about it because I haven't finished it yet.

I just might pick it up.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote: Twins aren't 100% identical and they do allmost lead the same life but still come out without different personalitys..

Witch is no different then a alternate universe version of myself from a right choices universe and a wrong choices.The choices both of me made defined the corse of those lifes and shaped the 2 versions of my, personalitys.making both of them two different characters wether or not there are simularity's is irelivent...your personality is what defines your character and if both versions of me have different personalitys then were different characters.An other Star Trek exsample is Major Kira from the mainstream universe and her mirror universe counterpart The Intendent.Our Kira live her life as a Bajoren freedom fighter.She is hetrosexual ,peace full at heart, honorable and a good friend.On the hand the mirro universe version, The Intendent, is a cold hearted murrdering Bi-sexual who would back stab any one in the back.She runs a slave laber camp at Terac Nor.How are these the same character????

Saber Prime wrote:Think about it. A pair of twins grow up togeather in the same universe, exsperienceing all the same stuff. By your standards the twins should come out the same because they go through the same life exsperiences..

By no means have I been saying that....I know that they would still be different...what I have been saying is that if your theroy on how alternate universes versions of a character are the same character simply because they share the same birthday as you have suggest ,then it would inply that twins are the same character because they share the same b-day.

Saber Prime wrote:Now you on the other hand in a different universe may go through different life exsperiance and may act differently because of that but deep down underneath all that stuff he's still the same person you are..

Same person by DNA and nasme only......different life exsperiance's is what makes a persons character.I shutter at the thought of what I would have become if not for my grandmothers influnace over me.With all the thoughts I used to have in my head as a child its a wonder that I'm not locked up for life right now.And I know I would be a different person if I hadnt had any children.Being a father has defined who I am.With out them I would be a different character.
Now I got a question for you are G1 Prime and Energon or Rid Prime the same character?????

Saber Prime wrote:BTW I'm reading a Star Trek book right now, I, Q. In the book Picard actully confronts Locutus from another universe where he was never freed from the Borg. There seems to be lots of room to speculated either way with the way they were talking to eachother about weather or not Picard and Locutus are the same person..

I know of the book but have not read it.But you have to understand Star Trek novels and the stories from them are not considered canon.They are writtin from the prespective of the writter and him only.The only stories that are considered canon in Star Trek are the live action tv shows and movies.Not even the Star Trek cartoon from the 70's is canon.

Saber Prime wrote:Allso they mentioned sto_vo_kor. I hadn't really paid much attention to the Klingon's before and didn't realize till today where you got your username from..

Yep thats where I got it from.

Saber Prime wrote:Anyway if you haven't read it you should. The book is wrighten from the perspective point of view of Q and actully wrighten by the actor who played Q in the series. Starts off kinda slow and boring though but it's starting to pick up for me. (allso it should be noted there are no chapter numbers. I have no idea what chapter I'm on in the book.)

If you have read it don't say anything to me about it because I haven't finished it yet.

I just might pick it up.

1. It's not just the life exsperience that define you. That's what I'm trying to point out with the whole twins thing. Because a Twin can exsperience every single life exsperience exactly the same as his brother or her sister and still end up with completly different personalitys. How can they have different personalities if their life exsperience define them and are the same?

You're really making no sence because with your whole "life exsperiences define you" therie you basically are saying twins should have the same personalities.

2. That's not true. It's all canon weather the fans "consider" it to be or not. That's just like when a Transformers fan says anything not G1 isn't canon. It is.

Fan fictions are not canon. everything else is.

3. The different versions of Optimus Prime do not exist on the same time line. Every Trasformers series (except the original movie and season 3 of G1) has been set in the current time of whenever that show was on.

That's like asking if the Bruce Wayne/Batman who was 30 years old in 1986 and the Bruce Wayne/Batman who is 30 years old now are the same person. They're not different versions from different universes they're just different versions from different wrighters/designers.

I'm not going to read everything you just wrote because you need to consider an important fact: identical twins have identical DNA.

Sledge wrote:I'm not going to read everything you just wrote because you need to consider an important fact: identical twins have identical DNA.

No they don't. Identical only refers to their looks.

There are several differences between twins DNA. Kids DNA after all are just a mix of their parrents. One twin might end up with his mom's allergies while the other might get his dads asma. Twins have two completly different sets of fingerprints. This all has to do with their seperate DNA.

If twins had the same DNA it would be completly impossible to tell them apart. It's difficult as it is but not impossible. And I've known at least 3 sets of identicle twins in my life time to know all this. (and one set of fertunal twins but we're not talking about them right now.)

No, identical twins do have identical DNA. Their genotypes are the same, it's the phenotypes that are different.

Yeah, identical twins are the result of one egg being fertilised, but splitting into two embryoes. I don't want to seem rude, Saber, but if you're going to discuss this sort of thing, you might want to do some basic research first.

Sledge wrote:Yeah, identical twins are the result of one egg being fertilised, but splitting into two embryoes. I don't want to seem rude, Saber, but if you're going to discuss this sort of thing, you might want to do some basic research first.

Two agenst one Sledge. Maybe it's you who needs to do the research. I've not only done the research but I have (as I said before and you obviously didn't read) personally known 3 different sets of Identical twins.

Belive us, both Leonardo and I.

Yes that is how twins are formed but that's the only thing you're right about and does not mean they have identical DNA.

You're missing the fact that no two people can ever have the exact same DNA. If they did they'd allso have the same fingerprints. No two people, even twins, have identicle fingerprints.

First off, I think you'll find Leonardo is agreeing with me. Secondly, please direct me to a source that confirms what you're saying. 'Cos I've been searching the net and I can't find anything that agrees with you.

Sledge wrote:First off, I think you'll find Leonardo is agreeing with me. Secondly, please direct me to a source that confirms what you're saying. 'Cos I've been searching the net and I can't find anything that agrees with you.

Go to your local high school and pick up a science book.

You got the basic idea right on how they're formed but that doesn't mean same DNA.

Heck you can even go to a Police station and ask them about fingerprints. No two people have intenticle fingerprints, not even identicle twins.

Again, give me a source. A website would be nice, as it's easily checked, but if you could find a book that supports you, you could copy out the relevant paragraph. See, unless the human body has changed since I studied biology, and everyone else in the world is wrong, identical twins have the same DNA. Clicky

And while you're at it, perhaps you can explain how one zygote can split into two embryoes, and yet the embryoes have different DNA? Where does the different DNA come from?

Saber Prime wrote:1. It's not just the life exsperience that define you. That's what I'm trying to point out with the whole twins thing. Because a Twin can exsperience every single life exsperience exactly the same as his brother or her sister and still end up with completly different personalitys. How can they have different personalities if their life exsperience define them and are the same?

You're really making no sence because with your whole "life exsperiences define you" therie you basically are saying twins should have the same personalities..

You right its not just life exsperience that define you its prespective on those life exsperience's.One's prespective or frame of mind on those events is what define's the person you would or could be.Prespective or frame of mind on events in life would enable twins or alternate versions or one-self's to have the same life exsperiences and still have different personalities.So thing about it the you that made all the right choices has one prespective on life's events and the you from the wrong choices universe could be a paranoid nut with a every one's out to get me prespective on lifes events.Even if you can assume that both versions of you could have devoloped the same traits under simular condisions it does not defer from the fact that both of you now have two different personalities and are now different characters.Prespective also explains how two eyewitnesses to a crime can have two different versions of the facts of the crime.
Now remember I have twins daughters.....I know that its not just the same exsperience's that define their personalities...its how they precive those exsperience's that help to define their personalities and character.

You obviously have little knowledge on how its believed that a persons psychi is formed.Thats not ment as an insult just some thing I'm getting from your posts.

Also if your claim is true and the defining facter in the differences between a clone and its DNA doner is the clones birthday then how would you define a clones character if more then one of those clones were made at the same time and born at the same time.would all those clones be the same character??????????

Saber Prime wrote:2. That's not true. It's all canon weather the fans "consider" it to be or not. That's just like when a Transformers fan says anything not G1 isn't canon. It is.

Fan fictions are not canon. everything else is..

Now I know that you obviously have no knowledge on whats Star Trek canon and you must not have read many ST novels in your life time.You should have researched your facts before making this statment.Every Treki knows that the novels [exsept for two of them and even that up for debate]and the cartoon and the comics arent canon in the Star Trek universe.If they were then First Contact the movie would would be not canon because it would contradic a story told in the 70's cartoon about first contact with the Vulcans.....the name of Cocrans ship ship in the movie was the Phonix but in the toon it was the U.S.S Bonaventure, seen in "Time Trap" of The Animated Series.
The events that followed the serach for Spock in the Comics arent canon because that would meen that Kirk was reduced to Captain and givin comand of the Exseior then promoted to Admiril again, exsiled to Vulcan for some other reason with his crew again and reduced in rank once again to captain of the Enterprise A.
Also if what you say is true then the events in what has been dubbed "the Shatnerverse] are all true and Kirk was brought back to life by the Borg/Romulan alliance.That he has a no-sex child with a genetically engineered woman from a race with DNA from Human,Vulcan,Kligon and Romulan.

There is also a novel called "Q-Squared" written by Peter David with in my opinion is one of the Better Trek writters, In this book it is reveeled that Trelane fron ST TOS episode "The Squire of Gothos" is in fact a member of the "Q" and the illigitimate son of the first "Q" that we meet in TNG episode "encounter at Farpoint" but if thats canon then it flys in the face of the Star Trek Voyager episode "The Q and the Grey" where Q tryed to have a baby with Janeway because the Q have not had children since the time that they evolved in to the Q.....and the Peter david book would also contradic an other Novel that makes the claim that Trelane is a member of the race that gave Charlie X [from TOS episode of the same name] his powers The Thasian's.

Also The DC comics Star Trek universe made claim that Kligons with smoth heads and those with bumpy heads were 2 different races much like they say we were different from the neantherol [caveman] [spelling].That would meen that all the Kligons we met in the first Star Trek were from that other race....Then we have the episode of DS9 "Blood Oth" where we see the 3 Kligon captains from Kirks day with bumpy heads.Then theres the episode of Enterprise " Affliction" where we learn that it is the "Augment Virus" that created the smoth headed Kligons not that they were two races.

I can bring up a million exsamples but I would be here all day.Paramonts offical policy on canon is if its not in the live action show or movie its not canon.
Even Wiki who isint all ways right has it stated at the begining of its page on the topic of Star Trek novels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon

There is a Star Trek Thread here on the GD forums...if you dont believe me ask the trekies over there.
http://www.seibertron.com/forums/viewto ... 19032&sid=
Or got to the Star Trek.com forums and ask the same question
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/c ... ssage.html

Star Trek isnt the only tv show to have a carton,comic and books done on its characters.
Buffy comes to mind and most the novels based on her and the shows characters arent canon ether.
The Indiana Jones novels and comics have no influance over the live action movies so there not part of that characters canon.
The Nightmare on elm ST or Friday the 13th comics are not canon a far as the the movies are conserend.Heck even the Nightmare on Elm st. tv show isnt officaly part of Freaddys canon.
Star Wars novel's and comics are about the only stories that are part of live action canon even when the stories contradic the movies....Lucus just explains it away by saying that the stories that contradic are lies that the character was telling.

P.S.In star Trek the only difference between fanfic and the novels is that the writters of the novels get paid and have been givin the rights by Paramont to wright the novels.They are not canon.


Next time you may want to re-think trying to Debate me on Star Trek issues with out at least doing some research on the topic first....unless you just like proving your ignorance on the topic of Star Trek.

Saber Prime wrote:3. The different versions of Optimus Prime do not exist on the same time line. Every Trasformers series (except the original movie and season 3 of G1) has been set in the current time of whenever that show was on..

Not compleaty true....althou you are right with the exsamples I gave you there have been different universe versions of Optimus Prime that existed in the same time line.But the characters were very simular.

Saber Prime wrote:That's like asking if the Bruce Wayne/Batman who was 30 years old in 1986 and the Bruce Wayne/Batman who is 30 years old now are the same person. They're not different versions from different universes they're just different versions from different wrighters/designers.

And what about the different versions of Bruce Wayne that exsist of the 52 different earths in the DC universe right now.Some of them have completly different personalitys from the main one.One of them is a Vampire.An other never became Batman at all.....tell me how there the same character?????

Saber Prime wrote:

Sledge wrote:I'm not going to read everything you just wrote because you need to consider an important fact: identical twins have identical DNA.

No they don't. Identical only refers to their looks.

There are several differences between twins DNA. Kids DNA after all are just a mix of their parrents. One twin might end up with his mom's allergies while the other might get his dads asma. Twins have two completly different sets of fingerprints. This all has to do with their seperate DNA.

If twins had the same DNA it would be completly impossible to tell them apart. It's difficult as it is but not impossible. And I've known at least 3 sets of identicle twins in my life time to know all this. (and one set of fertunal twins but we're not talking about them right now.)

How a twins Finger prints are formed has nothing to do with their DNA......if it were then clones would have the same prints and Doly the clone sheep had different prints then its DNA doner.your prints are formed by just how your skin streches.
And wether or not twins have the same DNA differes from case to case......it also depende when in the gestional prosses that the twins were formed.Wether or not the twins were two fertilised eges or a cell that split in 2 by other means.

Saber Prime wrote:

Sledge wrote:First off, I think you'll find Leonardo is agreeing with me. Secondly, please direct me to a source that confirms what you're saying. 'Cos I've been searching the net and I can't find anything that agrees with you.

Go to your local high school and pick up a science book.

You got the basic idea right on how they're formed but that doesn't mean same DNA.

Heck you can even go to a Police station and ask them about fingerprints. No two people have intenticle fingerprints, not even identicle twins.

From the May 2005 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN on how fingerprints are formed

"Fetuses develop smooth volar pads -- raised pads on the fingers, palms and feet -- because of swelling mesenchymal tissue, which is a precursor of blood vessels and connective tissues. Around week 10, the volar pads stop growing but the hand continues to grow. As a result, over the next few weeks, the volar pad is absorbed back into the hand. During this critical stage, the first signs of ridges begin to appear on the skin of the volar pads. The shape of the volar pads at the time the first ridges appear will dictate the general pattern that develops."

So in effect the differences in blood presors of the fetuses is what determins different fingerprints not wether or not the DNA is different at some level.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And now to copy this damn thing so I don't loose it again.

have been givin the rights by Paramont to wright the novels.

This is the definition of canon. Because of this they ARE canon.

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.

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)

Why did Bruce become Batman in the first place?

Why did this Bruce Wayne never became Batman.

What would happen if Batman's life had been the same as the normal Bruce Wayne's?

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)

Why did Bruce become Batman in the first place?

Why did this Bruce Wayne never became Batman.

What would happen if Batman's life had been the same as the normal Bruce Wayne's?

give me a sec I'm trying to reply

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=55NwNrkzz4s

So 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.html
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1061691

And 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.

An other thing I would go as far as saying that the Batman in the comics is a different character then any of the Batman's that have made it to film.Even when were talking about how the books were coming out at the same time as the movies.The biggest factor in my point is this.
In the Batman movies batman kills.
In the comics Batman does not kill.

To me that alone is a major difference in their characters.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:An other thing I would go as far as saying that the Batman in the comics is a different character then any of the Batman's that have made it to film.Even when were talking about how the books were coming out at the same time as the movies.The biggest factor in my point is this.
In the Batman movies batman kills.
In the comics Batman does not kill.

To me that alone is a major difference in their characters.

In the animated series, Batman doesnt kill either.

Deadpool. wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:An other thing I would go as far as saying that the Batman in the comics is a different character then any of the Batman's that have made it to film.Even when were talking about how the books were coming out at the same time as the movies.The biggest factor in my point is this.
In the Batman movies batman kills.
In the comics Batman does not kill.

To me that alone is a major difference in their characters.

In the animated series, Batman doesnt kill either.

Thank you I seem to have forgoten that show....quess I was stuck on Trek.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Deadpool. wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:An other thing I would go as far as saying that the Batman in the comics is a different character then any of the Batman's that have made it to film.Even when were talking about how the books were coming out at the same time as the movies.The biggest factor in my point is this.
In the Batman movies batman kills.
In the comics Batman does not kill.

To me that alone is a major difference in their characters.

In the animated series, Batman doesnt kill either.

Thank you I seem to have forgoten that show....quess I was stuck on Trek.

Speaking of which, Batman TAS was really good...

Deadpool. wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Deadpool. wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:An other thing I would go as far as saying that the Batman in the comics is a different character then any of the Batman's that have made it to film.Even when were talking about how the books were coming out at the same time as the movies.The biggest factor in my point is this.
In the Batman movies batman kills.
In the comics Batman does not kill.

To me that alone is a major difference in their characters.

In the animated series, Batman doesnt kill either.

Thank you I seem to have forgoten that show....quess I was stuck on Trek.

Speaking of which, Batman TAS was really good...

I would say one of the best interpatations of the character ever made.