Anyone not like the books?

[Viper61]

It's an excuse to try to make Forstchen's bad writing fit. You have to invent rationalizations for why a contradiction (phase shields/torpedoes were new in WC2, phase shields/torpedoes were new in 2634) is not actually a contradiction.

The rationalization exists without taking into account any of the novels, though; refer back to Viper's original post on the matter.

I'll save you the trouble, since you seem to have problems associating what post were talking about, even when its included in the quote (see below)

About the phase shields, all WC seems to be a seesaw of shield/fighter weapons strength: WC1 - fighter weapons penetrate shields, WC2 (ten years later) - phase shields impervious to fighter based energy weapons, WC3 (a few years later) - fighter weapons again can penetrate phase shields, WC4 (a few years later) - fighter weapons can penetrate most shields still, but the new top-of-the-line carrier (the Vesuvius) has shields strong enough it can withstand fighter weapon assaults [seesaw beginning to tip], Prophecy (7 years later) - all capships again impervious to fighter based weapons, with the exception of the plasma cannon [again seesaw beginning to tip].

I don't see anything contributed to Forstchen's writing in there at all . . . do you? I go on to comment that Forstchen's placement of impenatratable shields before WC1 follows the 'seesaw' we see in the games. No novels, no manuals.

So all the ads and articles I see written about "the latest" in RAM advancements/MP3 capacity/fighter/WLAN/printing or scanning definition technology means it is the very first RAM chip/MP3 player/fighter jet/wireless system/printer/scanner ever? That dog don't hunt.

Well?

Loaf includes "evidence", but much of the time it's simply irrelevant or doesn't make his point. He spent quite a bit of time explaining to everyone that it is in fact possible to prove a negative, posting "evidence" the whole time.

I wasn't remotely talking about the 'proving a negative' BS. I was refering to all the evidence of hundreds of planet/station-based fighters LOAF seems to be getting around to placing in one post.

C-ya

 

[Frosty]

LOL LOL LOLOLOLOLOL!! You say that a lot. Grow up.

I can't even imagine getting that worked up over the internet. Especially about a VIDEO GAME. GRRRR! LOL at you, tough guy.

I think you're confused. This is simply how I handle everyone I disagree with. I'm not worked up, I'm performing my default behavior. Ask anyone who's familiar with me if they actually think I'm "worked up" or just being myself. I'm having fun.

And what's with this LOL shit? I didn't think anyone seriously talked like that anymore. You try to appear intelligent in your posts, but then you throw in the cheesiest, decade-old web acronyms like it's nothing. That's a good way to drive the point home, allright!

Actually it's the other way around. There's no "truth" Frosty, because we happen to be discussing *fiction*, which is by definition, imaginary, or not true. These "events" that we call the Wing Commander Universe only take place in people's imaginations. They are therefore, a subjective experience.

Yeah, okay, you're being a little bitch again. I should have been smart enough to pick out your tactic the first time around, but I see now that all you're doing is engaging me in a semantics debate as a means of actually confronting my argument. To paraphrase: LOL at you, Mr. Evasive.

Well besides the fact that the manuals tell us that a Waterloo can carry 40 fighters, and we see one carrying Crossbow bombers, and about a billion other painfully obvious points that I shouldn't need to bring up an a room of self-professed WC experts, I guess there isn't much evidence.

Dodge and weave, friend, that's all you seem to be good at. Using your example of a Waterloo, we know it can carry 40 fighters, but 40 fighters != 40 bombers. The Crossbows using the Gettysburg for a test bed are certainly the exception, and not the rule. Cruisers carry fighters for their own defense and the defense of the ships they escort. In Wing Commander, you need more than just a parking space to be an effective carrier of strike craft.

I'd laugh if I got banned.

Me too.

And your sole piece of evidence is a quote that indirectly references said fighter force. That's it. Nothing else from the games or books suggests there are hundreds of fighters at every colony. In fact there is a lot to suggest their absence.

But that's not the sole piece of evidence. This whole thread is strewn with evidence. Interesting that you're requesting evidence from the books. I thought you dismissed the books because they don't fit you.

Compile for me, if you will, for this thread is long and inconvenient, your list of evidence which suggests the absence of these fighters.

...so it can be made fun of all at once.

Keep it up, cock-biter.

Yes, that is what you were replying to, saying it was stupid. I said I don't agree, but regardless, what about the scenario where we pit both forces against the same enemy (60 bombers) instead of each other? Your response ... uh dude 3 cruisers would never face 1 carrier.

Are you really that stupid? Seriously, are you? That's not at all what his response meant. The point he was trying to get across is that the carrier's CAP would spot the cruisers long before they got close enough to exchange broadsides with the carrier, and either see to it that the cruisers bit the dust, or the carrier got the fuck out of Dodge.

It would take an unimaginably dire cascade of errors to actually pit a carrier against three enemy cruisers.

It's an excuse to try to make Forstchen's bad writing fit. You have to invent rationalizations for why a contradiction (phase shields/torpedoes were new in WC2, phase shields/torpedoes were new in 2634) is not actually a contradiction.

We have to invent rationalizations? As opposed to some other magical fairy-land kind that comes into existence without the aid of human thought?

How are our "rationalizations" any less valid than yours? You don't even cite games and novels, you just make up figures in your head, declare them "generous," and call it a day.

So let me guess. When Thrakhath's face comes out all messed up in that scene in SO1, that's NOT a glitch. He's SUPPOSED to look like that.

Don't be a dipshit.

The "argument" would effectively be OVER if the response had been "well I disagree because of X,Y,Z but I can see where you're coming from."

The same could be said in reverse. Here's a clue: We're enjoying ourselves - why would we want to end this?

The thing is some posters on here seem to take deadly offense to the idea that "their" Wing Commander is not the TRUE Wing Commander -- like some kind of a crazy cult.

So you're the one who sees fit to dismiss novels and rate canon so as to warp the established back-story to "fit" himself better, but we're the ones with the problem?

Do you think you're presenting original ideas? Do you think you're saying anything or behaving any differently from every other newbie who's spouted some bullshit about how he doesn't like [insert Wing Commander product] because [insert perceived conflict] and then insisted on acting incredibly self-righteous about it? Because you're not.

Keep it coming.

 

[jedi2187]

I think you're confused. This is simply how I handle everyone I disagree with. I'm not worked up, I'm performing my default behavior. Ask anyone who's familiar with me if they actually think I'm "worked up" or just being myself. I'm having fun.

Man if this is your idea of fun, I'd hate to see you having a good time.

And what's with this LOL shit? I didn't think anyone seriously talked like that anymore. You try to appear intelligent in your posts, but then you throw in the cheesiest, decade-old web acronyms like it's nothing. That's a good way to drive the point home, allright!Yeah, okay, you're being a little bitch again.

Great, now he thinks he's a shock-jock. Let me guess, you still make prank phone calls to Dominoes to drop off 30 large pizzas on your neighbor's doorstep.

How are our "rationalizations" any less valid than yours? You don't even cite games and novels, you just make up figures in your head, declare them "generous," and call it a day.Don't be a dipshit.The same could be said in reverse. Here's a clue: We're enjoying ourselves - why would we want to end this?

Do you think you're presenting original ideas? Do you think you're saying anything or behaving any differently from every other newbie who's spouted some bullshit about how he doesn't like [insert Wing Commander product] because [insert perceived conflict] and then insisted on acting incredibly self-righteous about it? Because you're not.
Keep it coming.

I swear, if you were a woman, you'd be having a period every time you looked at this topic. Here's something you can use (if you can tear yourself away from your computer for one minute): Fresh air and sunlight.

 

[LeHah]

Is there a way to properly emphasize not to provoke Frosty or willingly call his wrath down upon you? If there is, dear God, let it be said here and you to go about your life without being a complete fool.

 

[jedi2187]

Is there a way to properly emphasize not to provoke Frosty or willingly call his wrath down upon you? If there is, dear God, let it be said here and you to go about your life without being a complete fool.

God saw that Jedi is a fool, and it was good.
The Wrath of Frosty: Bad Star Trek title, or the title for the next Wing Commander movie (coming August 2015!).
Besides, what's he going to do? Have his mom call me and give me the mother of all swirlies? I'd rather be stuck in the brig with Maniac prattling on about his victory kills than listen to another snide comment from Frosty.

 

[ace]

Dear jedi2187,

I don't think you're contributing to the current debate on which this thread is centered. Constantly calling out that Frosty is a silly little boy and menstrates like a girl does not make you look either mature or intelligent. Please stop existing so this exciting debate can continue untainted.

With love,
ace-1

 

[Bandit LOAF]

So... people like Frosty, dislike Frosty, what? I'm not clear on the Frosty situation.

 

[LeHah]

God saw that Jedi is a fool, and it was good.
The Wrath of Frosty: Bad Star Trek title, or the title for the next Wing Commander movie (coming August 2015!).
Besides, what's he going to do? Have his mom call me and give me the mother of all swirlies? I'd rather be stuck in the brig with Maniac prattling on about his victory kills than listen to another snide comment from Frosty.

 

[Dundradal]

God saw that Jedi is a fool, and it was good.
The Wrath of Frosty: Bad Star Trek title, or the title for the next Wing Commander movie (coming August 2015!).
Besides, what's he going to do? Have his mom call me and give me the mother of all swirlies? I'd rather be stuck in the brig with Maniac prattling on about his victory kills than listen to another snide comment from Frosty.

"Does Wayne Brady need to slap a bitch?"

 

[Nemesis]

The truth is, that there is no truth. As the WC-Universe is fictional and if Origin isn't helping us out with the details, a discussion like this can last forever.

No. I mean, I understand the sentiment you’re trying to get across in what preceded this quote, but as regards this conclusion or summary, no.

What people new to this forum sometimes miss (and I don’t know if this applies to you, but I can only take your statement at face value) is that canon itself is a game. The basic rule is: what the author says, goes; in other words, no statement by the author may be dismissed simply because it conflicts with another statement by the author, or for that matter with anyone’s “common sense”. And the basic objective is: come up with the most plausible explanation possible to reconcile any and all inconsistencies.

Many people find this type of game fun to play. Some people like it because it’s a form of puzzle-solving. Others are attracted because it fosters a more consistent and ever richer lore for the particular fictional world being discussed. And it’s also a time-honored form of gaming. Goes back long before there were video games (even television). Has been played and enjoyed by the likes of Tom Wolfe and Isaac Asimov, for example. And it’s common today for any number of fictional subjects. Also, it should go without saying that those who play it naturally take it seriously. As seriously as any gamer does with any game he or she likes playing.

So in this context, someone who likes WC has two ways to go as regards canon. He can choose to take EA/Origin’s conception and products seriously and try to contribute, jointly with everyone else, to a single, authoritative history, or he can choose to believe and imagine whatever pleases his ego, in which case, what he’s really doing is playing an exclusively personal game that runs along the lines of: “Now if I had been EA/Origin, or Chris Roberts, or William Forstchen, I would have . . .”

Of course, there’s no reason why someone can’t choose both, as long as he keeps them separate. There are certainly people here who take EA/Origin at its word when it comes to questions of canon, but have also tried their hand at fan fiction and have posted their work at this site.

The only time there’s really a problem, as I’ve suggested, is when someone confuses the two. Or when someone thinks that what would really be “fun” is to trash other people’s fun. (Kind of like trying to play a baseball game where the pitcher insists on throwing a basketball, and when you kindly point out that only a baseball may be used, just keeps on saying he should be allowed to use whatever kind of ball he likes.)

 

[Fruitcake]

No. I mean, I understand the sentiment you’re trying to get across in what preceded this quote, but as regards this conclusion or summary, no.

You disunderstood me. I'm saying that everything in the games and novels is canon, but there are things simply never described in them. Take LOAF's example of the 100,000 fighter force. It sounds probable, but is there proof? No.

The point I was actually trying to get across: leave the gaps and inconsistencies in the games for everyone's imagination to fill in.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Here's a bit of evidence to support the idea of reserve and home defense fighter wings.

* The Wing Commander 2 style space stations have a fighter complement of 400, per the Kilrathi Saga manual. (Before going off on yet another 'how is Blair 17? that proves manuals don't exist!' tantrum, please note that this is also the only source for the Fralthra's 40 fighter complement that has been the center of your arguments since page one.)

* Privateer bartender conversation: "Did you notice the increased militia and Confed patrols on your approach to {variable}? The Confed is losing hundreds of ships a day to the war. That means they need more metal for replacement ships... and they're stepping up protection of mining bases to keep raw material out of Kilrathi hands. I don't know about you, but I feel a lot safer because of it..."

* At the Battle of Terra the "Mars and Earth orbital bases" provided "three hundred additional fighters".

* In Action Stations there are "several hundred" fighters of all types based on the ground at Johnson's Island on McAuliffe.

* Home Defense squadrons, a concept from the Heart of the Tiger novel: "'There's a home defense squadron on Tamayo that flies Thunderbolts, sir,' Rollins said slowly. 'Strictly reservists, mostly rich kids who figured it was a good dodge to avoid active military service and still get to wear a pretty uniform and boast about being hot fighter pilots. The squadron was activated into Confed service when he cats moved into the system.'"

* Re: a garrison at Blackmane Base, quote from the Heart of the Tiger novel: "That means Blackmane Base is being shut down. Everything's shifting to Vespus and Torgo. Anybody who can herd a boat will be needed to fly ships for the evacuation. I might be able to snag some fighters. They'll probably be glad to unload a few from their reserve stocks and save space for other outgoing cargo." The Victory picks up at least nine fighters, sight unseen. This is interesting not only because it proves that garrison forces exist specifically at a base where you said they did not, but also the existence of the 'fighters are cheap, pilots aren't' culture my initial claim supported.

* Fleet Action. The Landreich purchases ten squadrons of reserve Rapiers (150 planes) for local defense.

* Fleet Action. More units: the Landreich Colonial Air Guard, and the fact that Tolwyn claims that "local guard units" will remain in place to defend their homes during the final Kilrathi attack.

* Secret Ops. A series of bases not only replenish the Cerberus' fighter stocks, but they also assist in tandem strikes. Flying specifically with Casey: 21 fighters at Ella, 26 at Talos and 50 at Luyten.

* Wing Commander II. The game starts with your character flying alongside reservists at part of InSystem Security for the Gwynedd System - an organization complete with top of the line strike fighters (Sabres) and a large starbase.

* Wing Commander II. The fact that the Kilrathi hold the Heaven's Gate starbase means that the Confederation cannot retake the system. Presumably the bases value is in its massive fighter support capacity, not its single defensive flak cannon.

* Wing Commander III. Kilrathi planets are always defended by squadrons of fighters designed specifically for said purpose - Ekapshi.

* Privateer. The games seven-faction balancing system includes both a large number of Confederation patrols and an entire faction dedicated to fighter-based local missions - the Militia.

* Privateer - Adding up all possible unique encounters with Confed and Militia units gives you several thousand total ships... without considering that these encounters can be repeated more than once by the games engine.

* Freedom Flight, Spirit's fiance is a member of the defensive squadron assigned to Epsilon Station.

* The Secret Ops fiction article "Vearrier Quadrant Heats Up" talks about reserve squadrons engaging Nephilim forces.

* In End Run the Tarawa engages a force of fifty fighters bearing 'local camo' - this is sighted that evidence that Kilrathi carriers have not yet arrived to pursue them.

* You claimed that there was no evidence of security forces at Olympus Station. The first Ghorah Khar series of Secret Ops is evidence that this is not the case. In one mission, Blair and Hobbes train three pilots who will "command the Ghorah Khar squadrons" (Carfelli, Starr and Rhino". Two missions later, Blair rescues two Ghorah Khar pilots from a Kilrathi ambush (including "Colonel Marnier, the Ghorah Khar space forces commander"). As we've already mentioned ad naseum, the next series involves the loss of *fourteen* pilots defending the base (more than any other situation ever mentioned in a Wing Commander game).

 

[HammerHead]

My my my, words travel fast on this board.
I left for a few days and all hell broke loose.

oh well...
since I just have absolutly no chanse of catching up I'll just throw in my last remarks:

Quote:
Size\number of defended assetes - the larger it is, the harder it is to defend.


It's not that simple. Here, look at like Napster. One big file sharing thing. Easy to take down. Now look at the various peer-to-peer file sharing networks out there. Very difficult to stop because they are distributed. My argument is that the Fralthra/Waterloos need less defense because you can afford to lose a few of them without losing the battle, and the risk of losing all of them is less. You can't afford to lose the Hakaga.

(this is your answer to my last posting)
You can lose a few cruisers but not a Hakaga - true, but not in your case - 'cause you made your cruisers into a carrier! for each cruiser you loose - you strand 40 fighter pilots, so you loose 3 cruisers - you strand 120 pilots...
but you can afford to lose a few cruisers and not lose a Hakaga... well, and damn the pilots! - that a very kilrathi way of thinking.

Quote:
Also - the Hakaga is a superweapon for a simple reason - it was MORE then anything on the time it was built - bigger, better armored, better armed, three times the fighters load, it overcome the jump-size limit....etc.


Well, we're back to square one again. Why is having all this in one ship so much better than in a few smaller ships (7 Fralthra, 3 heavy carriers)?

well, I can start giving more exsample -
- like if you would have read False Colors you would have known that a cruisers doesn't have a flag bridge - which severly limits the task group commanders ability to preform his job - and your 7 cruisers are a task group.

or I could simply quote miself again saying:

You need to understand that when writing about the future we are limited to what we know today. very few writers have manage to really invent the future. Babylon 5 and starwars both resemble the age of WW1 and the begining of WW2 when fighters were gaining the ability to kill naval ships, but the majority of ships sunked were still in ship to ship naval combat (the Bismark was disabled by a single Swordfish, but was sunked by British ships. the Grafshpei was sunk of the coast of Argentina buy a brithish cruiser squadron... and so on). StarTrek ressembales the start of the iron-clad age when, when ships were exploring the earth, and it was all about who had the bigger gun, the better armor, and who could manuver to a better firing postion. Wing commander is about WW2. That's why cruisers will remain cruisers and carriers will remain carriers.

all the answers I gave you up until today were base on the well knowen simularities between WCU and WWII.
why cruisers will remain cruisers and carriers will remain carriers? because of a certain man, who is known in religous circles of the Terran Confederation as... GOD!, and goes by the earthly name of Chris roberts. He decided whatever he decided base on ideas of his own fevering brain.

and on the same note, to Mekt-Hakkikt, who claimed both the GrafSpee and the Bismark were sunk by their crews... well, yes they did... after being pounded to a practical smoldering chunks of twisted metal by British naval elements, they prefered to scuttle thier own ships... how Kilrathi of them.

Loaf - I'm still reminding you about the WC Bible

Frosty: ease up kid. violence, Verbal OR phisical, is not the way to handle things, (and have a very small, if any, effect on an internet board). we are all here for a common interest - voilence against Kilrathi!!!

 

[vindicator]

Why is this still a debate, I am pretty sure LOAF's replies make it hard for the other side to have a legit argument. So, tell me, how is this still a topic of actual discussion?

-Rance-

 

[LeHah]

Frosty: ease up kid. violence, Verbal OR phisical, is not the way to handle things

The history of the world completely disagrees with that statement.

 

[Death]

Frosty: ease up kid. violence, Verbal OR phisical, is not the way to handle things, (and have a very small, if any, effect on an internet board).

Oh, I don't know about going that far. Violence applied properly, by the right person, can handle things on an internet board quite nicely. Most people just aren't the "right person" required.

I'm fortunate, here, that I don't have to worry about that issue.

 

[Mekt-Hakkikt]

(...)
and on the same note, to Mekt-Hakkikt, who claimed both the GrafSpee and the Bismark were sunk by their crews... well, yes they did... after being pounded to a practical smoldering chunks of twisted metal by British naval elements, they prefered to scuttle thier own ships... how Kilrathi of them.
(...)[/B][/U]

How cool you wrote that...

Anyway it was no simple claim it's the truth as you admit. And while it's true for the Bismarck that she was badly beaten up (as I wrote before) it's not that true for the Graf Spee. Still, no thread hijacking.

 

[Nemesis]

I'm saying that everything in the games and novels is canon, but there are things simply never described in them.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that we can’t reasonably extrapolate new possibilities from the canon. Now that’s not to say that a reasonable conjecture is canon, since only EA/Origin can decide that, but it is a valid “candidate” for canon.

Take LOAF's example of the 100,000 fighter force. It sounds probable, but . . .

Nothing wrong there. And as you say, it’s probable. The “game” of canon is not about absolute proof, nor is it about being able to convince everyone. It is about reasonable argument based on the canon. But because the canon is the hallmark or touchstone, one is not free to reimagine WC as he or she sees fit. In other words, reasonableness has bite.

The point I was actually trying to get across: leave the gaps and inconsistencies in the games for everyone's imagination to fill in.

You lose me here. People are always free to “rewrite” WC however they like in their own imaginations. But many of us here enjoy trying to “fill in the blanks” by applying reason and logic to the established canon, and have had great success in doing so. And the benefit, of course, apart from being fun, is that a more consistent and probable history for WC is fostered. That’s not to say that absolutely every inconsistency or “blank” can be resolved, or that there is always a single “best” solution, but many fine and “best” explanations have been produced.

Surely you’re not suggesting that’s a bad thing.

 

[HammerHead]

How cool you wrote that...

Anyway it was no simple claim it's the truth as you admit. And while it's true for the Bismarck that she was badly beaten up (as I wrote before) it's not that true for the Graf Spee. Still, no thread hijacking.

Well, you said no thread hijacking... never the less...
I knew that 3 british cruisers had pounded the GrafSpee very badly, off the coast of Argentina. She took such a pounding that that her captein tried to escape into an argentinian port (don't remember which) but when the argentinians refused and sent him back to sea, and he was one again coming up against those british cruisers, he gave the order to scuttle the GrafSpee.
If you can give the better take on the story, I'd love to hear it

and about the voilance : Come on guys! we all know violance solves nothing... that is excactly why I walk around with a 9 mili in my belt

 

[sea_monkey]

I think you're confused. This is simply how I handle everyone I disagree with. I'm not worked up, I'm performing my default behavior. Ask anyone who's familiar with me if they actually think I'm "worked up" or just being myself. I'm having fun.

So what you're saying is your miserable "real" life causes you to create a perpetually pissed-off persona on an internet message board where you try to delve some satisfaction out of existence by hurling insults annonymously over the internet? Gee who would have guessed that? LOL

And what's with this LOL shit? I didn't think anyone seriously talked like that anymore. You try to appear intelligent in your posts, but then you throw in the cheesiest, decade-old web acronyms like it's nothing. That's a good way to drive the point home, allright!

LOL

Yeah, okay, you're being a little bitch again. I should have been smart enough to pick out your tactic the first time around, but I see now that all you're doing is engaging me in a semantics debate as a means of actually confronting my argument. To paraphrase: LOL at you, Mr. Evasive.

Exactly, you've got no answer. Because you're whole argument is based on proving what is "true" in a fictional world, which is probably the most ridiculous thing imaginable, next to actually getting mad over such matters. Haha.

Dodge and weave, friend, that's all you seem to be good at. Using your example of a Waterloo, we know it can carry 40 fighters, but 40 fighters != 40 bombers. The Crossbows using the Gettysburg for a test bed are certainly the exception, and not the rule. Cruisers carry fighters for their own defense and the defense of the ships they escort. In Wing Commander, you need more than just a parking space to be an effective carrier of strike craft.

You asked me to prove cruisers and destroyers were capable of carrying fighters and bombers, which I did. Destroyers can carry fighters and cruisers (specifically the Waterloo) CAN carry fighters and bombers. CASE CLOSED.

Compile for me, if you will, for this thread is long and inconvenient, your list of evidence which suggests the absence of these fighters.

The fact that, while you visit several orbital bases and even serve on some during the games, you never see or hear of hundreds of fighters scrambling from bases. Ever. Nor do you ever hear of this being an option. In fact, several plot elements throughout the games make no sense if these stations carry hundreds of fighters all the time.

Gwynedd: Why does Blair have to run down from the commo room, change into his flight gear and get into a fighter in order to save the Concordia, when there should be 398 fighters sitting around or in space already to defend the Concordia. This only makes sense if there's not a lot of fighters aboard.

Olympus in WC2: Comes under attack by enemy fighters, requests your assistance. Afterward, you/Hobbes "saved" Olympus. If there were 400 fighters aboard, why were you even necessary in the first place ... let alone did you "save" the station?

Olympus in SO1: They lost 14 pilots after the 1st wave and all they've got left is 2 Sabres and a Ferret? So they lost 397 planes, of which 96% managed to eject on time and were recovered safely?

Blackmane: Why is a light carrier with like 60 fighters on it being called to defend a station with over six times that many? Where are these fighters while you're being swarmed by Paktahns in that mission, anyway?

How are our "rationalizations" any less valid than yours? You don't even cite games and novels, you just make up figures in your head, declare them "generous," and call it a day.

They aren't ... but then again that's NEVER been my argument.

When you get done with this week's edition of "Reading Rainbow", try actually reading what I actually said.

So you're the one who sees fit to dismiss novels and rate canon so as to warp the established back-story to "fit" himself better, but we're the ones with the problem?

Yet again my literacy-challenged friend -- I have never argued "what is canon?" I don't care. That's for geeks like you who want to be the holder of the sole truth of the Church of Wing Commander.

Do you think you're presenting original ideas? Do you think you're saying anything or behaving any differently from every other newbie who's spouted some bullshit about how he doesn't like [insert Wing Commander product] because [insert perceived conflict] and then insisted on acting incredibly self-righteous about it? Because you're not.

LOL @ newbies. So every time someone DARES to question the Church of Wing Commander, the heathen must be excommunicated?

You're silly.