glyphstrip FAQ button
Halo.bungie.org
glyphstrip
Frequently Asked Forum Questions
 Search the HBO News Archives

Any All Exact 
Search the Halo Updates DBs

Halo Halo2 
Search Older Posts on This Forum:
Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts


Reprise: Testing size limits on individual posts.
Posted By: Quirel <I_am_quirel@hotmail.com>Date: 6/5/11 2:53 a.m.

In Response To: Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With Narcogen (Narcogen)


Mkay, now I have time to get back to this.

Last time, I said that I would talk about what "The Prestige" has to say about storytelling. It's one of my favorite movies, because there's so much meaning to dig for beneath the surface.

"Are you watching closely?"

The first part of the movie

"Every magic trick consists of three parts, or acts. The first part is called "the pledge".
The magician shows you something ordinary. A deck of cards or a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course... it probably isn't."

"The second act is called "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled."

"You went half way around the world... you spent a fortune... you did terrible things... really terrible things Robert, and all for nothing."
"For nothing?"
"Yeah."
"You never understood, why we did this. The audience knows the truth: the world is simple. It's miserable, solid all the way through. But if you could fool them, even for a second, then you can make them wonder, and then you... then you got to see something really special... you really don't know?... it was... it was the look on their faces... "
That's the art of storytelling. The yarn you weave, the epic fantasy you carve from raw tropes, it's not real. It's fake. But you're seeing something magical. It's suspension of disbelief, the willingness humans have to accept a story on its own merits, evaluate it according to its own rules. That's the interface between the storyteller and the audience.

Suspension of disbelief is a funny thing. Like I said, people are willing to accept the oddest stuff, yet they get tripped up by internal inconsistencies. That's why the author's job is to try extra hard to weed these inconsistencies out. Like an engineer making sure that the bridge he is designing will survive the stresses it's expected to encounter. Be it character derailment, discontinuity, ass pulls, or just mentioning that a person has brown eyes when they've always been green, these harm suspension of disbelief because they break the rules that it relies on.
Of course, there's some medias that have negative continuity as one their rules. That's why "Garfield" and "Ren & Stimpy" don't have continuity problems, per se.

There's some techniques, some ways of writing that will preemptively disarm discontinuity. In Harry Potter, for example, the stairs move and the floorplan of Hogwarts shifts subtly over time. Rowling purposefully put that detail in, just in case she accidentally or intentionally changed the location of the classrooms. Another example would be ONI, even if their cover-ups are wearing thin.

: I don't agree with that at all.

You could have fooled me.

: I'll partially agree with that. I have not only played the games. I don't
: have every piece of additional material, but I have all the novels and
: have read them all at least once, the older ones more than that. I don't
: have the short story collection but I'll be getting it. I have the anime.
: No interest in the graphic novel. A few figurines. Do those count?

Hey, I don't own every bit of media either. I'm not interested in tracking down the figurines or the Megablocks or the ARGs.
The difference is that I accept that whatever tells a story, and was made with input by Bungie, is canon. You regard it as fanfiction.

Maybe that's too extreme of a statement, but I don't make it lightly.
Your position seems to be that expanded universe not created directly by Bungie is
A: Not permanent, as it can be nullified by later works.
B: Not what the original writers intended, as the Halo story is apparently too deep and complex to explain it to someone who isn't in the studio seven days a week.
C: Not something the original writers endorse, or ever intended to expand into.

I'll argue against each and every point here.
A: Yeah, we're going to argue until we're blue in the face over Staten's post, but I'll address that later.
B: It would be hard to argue author intent with Bungie for two reasons. First, there's been a lot of material pre-Halo CE indicating that Bungie didn't have the story nailed down themselves. Remember the Cortana Letters? At least Bungie has been forthright about the canonicity of those.
Second, Halo was a collaborative effort, a shared universe, from the get-go. It wasn't just one guy writing this all out. Each one had ideas, suggestions, and notions about what the story should be and what things should look like, and they had to make compromises.
When getting Nylund, Dietz, and Buckell ready to write those books,
C: There's a lot that the authors never intended. They probably never intended to make five games. They probably didn't intend to have a graphic novel made. Pre-Halo Success Story, it probably wouldn't have been feasible. But with Microsoft's franchise development behind them, and the opportunity arises... Why not take the chance to expand your universe?

: What I have reverence for is a primary work. Something that an individual or
: group of individuals put out. That's Halo, the game, made by Bungie.

Now here's where it gets interesting.
Where do you draw the line on 'Group of individuals'? Does Nylund get less say in the Haloverse than Peter O'Brien, because Mr. O'Brien happens to have been hired by Bungie? Note that Eric Nylund has been working with the Haloverse since the beginning, and O'Brien came in sometime around Halo 3. Both had access to the same material.

And O'Brien comes out on top, just because he's a Bungie employee?

: I am an exclusionist not because I think maintaining continuity is
: unimportant but rather because I do think it is important. If additional
: material does not illuminate the original work, and is not executed at the
: same level of quality than the original work, then it represents more of a
: risk of damage to continuity than it provides benefit, and deserves to be
: treated with some healthy skepticism. The further removed it is from
: Bungie's own influence and supervision, and the further afield it is from
: Halo's major settings, characters, and themes, the greater the skepticism.

I don't agree that the original work is the only metric by which a new entry must be judged. It is a strong one, but other works that fit in the cracks and work well enough as a stand alone story have their merits. This is ODST. This is Contact Harvest.

Contact Harvest had compelling (Covenant) characters, explored new ground, and shed light on the origins of the Covenant war against Humanity, which directly ties into the events surrounding the Halo Array. The Fall of Reach deconstructed what it took to make the protagonist of Halo: CE, and illuminated the plight of Humanity as of the opening cutscene of Halo: CE. Halo3: ODST followed some of the side characters, told a more human story against a background of destruction we hardly saw.

Halo Wars simply retread old ground, reused old formulas with uninteresting reflections of the trilogy characters. It contributed nothing to the Haloverse.
In a sense, I suppose you're right. The installment of the Halo franchise that least needed to be made was the one with the least connection to the main games.

: Thanks, I guess?

Would you rather be respected, or disrespected?
Currently, you fall under the first category.

I mean, I would love to hold an extended conversation with you over this, addressing each of your points as they come up. Alas, I have too many irons in the fire, and your ability to rapidly draft large posts with thoughtful content outstrips my own.

: I think original works deserve respect. I think that while an author's intent
: is not the only way to interpret a work, nor always the best, there is
: something to be said for placing the progenitors of a franchise in a
: special position.

: I am not against continuity; far from it. My objections are based only on the
: idea that Bungie should not retcon continuity added to the Haloverse by
: third parties-- that Microsoft's need to expand Halo into other markets
: and media should handcuff them to continuity they did not originate, and
: despite all the friendly language about cooperation and approval, probably
: had not nearly as much say in as the fans would have liked them to, simply
: because there aren't enough hours in a day.

I can see where you're coming from, but I can't agree with it. Not as it applies to Halo.
When you look at the books, you realize that Bungie really hadn't been boxed in by 'external canon'. Fan rewrites here on HBO have shown how the exact same game (Reach) could be redone with the same missions, and people, while still staying true to the novels and comics.

: Fictional universes benefit greatly from a sense of mystery that is evoked by
: feeling that the world has history beyond that which is visible. This
: effect is ruined by revealing that history completely, unless one then
: goes on to create further mystery (as Bear's novel has done).

Again, the novels generally created more history than they revealed. The Fall of Reach gave us the Human-Innie conflict, detailed what the war against the Covenant entailed, and introduced ONI. Ghosts of Onyx gave hints that humans knew more about the Forerunner than we thought, or at least had been picking around Forerunner ruins.

There's a difference between having mysteries and details to speculate about, and having nothing but wild mass guessing to go on.

: I think you've proven my point. On what basis does one allege that Bungie's
: retconning of third-party contributions to Halo canon are particularly
: egregious in a market where two older, more popular, and more successful
: science fiction franchises have arguably done a much, much worse job of
: maintaining continuity?

Because half the retcons we've seen (Mostly in Halo Reach) have been completely unnecessary.
This gets into why Staten's post cost him a couple of respect points from me. It's flippant. It approaches the issue irreverently. It's an easy out that doesn't engender trust in the readers. Going against the story and concepts you've been building for your readers should be treated as nothing less than "Yesh, I just screwed up, and I want to fix it."

Furthermore, it's a fundamentally broken system. I can understand not wanting to treat advertisement material as canon (Such as the 800-Colonies thing that Bungie has been vocally against) because it might not be created with input from Bungie, or the need to advertise might get in the way of storytelling.
But, as a sort of automatic process, it elevates genuine mistakes to the level of canon, without a process for weeding them out. Take the 900-meter range of the XBR-55 in Contact Harvest. It's a pretty good figure for a designated marksman rifle. Now take the Halo Encyclopedia. Range is stated to be ~285 meters, less than that of a decently-made AK-47.

By Staten's system, that 285 meter figure is now canon, even though it makes no sense. It's like a recording replacing a genuine person on the help hotline (And not a person from India). There's been times when someone got ahold of Nylund to ask him about a mistake or retcon in his books, and he was able to say "Yeah, that's a mistake."

: What examples would be better?

Personally, I've got the Known Space Universe in mind. Cthulhu Mythos is a little too disorganized, not a whole lot of other multi-media franchises I can think of off the top of my head.

What I'm arguing is the following, I guess.
A: The retcons in Reach were entirely unnecessary.
B: The Halo franchise has the potential to be something special here, because of who created it and how well it was maintained.
C: That the Halo EU is Expanded, but neither ancillary nor of less importance.

:What absolute standard, rather than a relative
: one, would one apply, and who would be its arbiter?

: I think you misapprehend a lot. I think you overestimate Bungie's
: "clout" prior to Halo's release. I think you misapprehend the
: release of a tie-in novel (which took a lot less time to create than the
: game) as an intent by Bungie (rather than MS) to make a "multi-media
: franchise" instead of a "video game with a tie-in novel"
: because tie-ins make extra revenue and promote your primary products-- in
: this case, the Xbox and Halo.

I think you misapprehend a lot as well. I think you underestimate other people's ability to contribute to what Bungie started. I think you misapprehend lack of original intent with 'Don't want it, never will.' I think you misapprehend financial interest for an integrally bad thing.

Look at the works of the Reniassance. Many of the statues and paintings of biblical figures were designed with the visage of the patrons. E.g, the guys with the checkbook, the merchant class of Italy. And yet these artists were able to rise above petty financial motivations to create genuine works of art.

Even if Bungie was forced to work with Nylund to produce tie-in novels, they had the opportunity to rise above the forced nature of the partnership and create true extensions of the Haloverse that the fans could enjoy.

From what I read, they took that path.

: I'm honestly not sure I see the value in such a thing, to be brutally honest.
: Perhaps this is a nascent form I'm simply not giving enough credit to, but
: it's been my experience that many works that are good in their original
: form are rarely as good when adapted to another, and very few, if any at
: all, actually survive the process of being adapted to many different
: formats-- to say nothing of having many parallel "creators" of
: different contributions working quasi-independently.

The value is, the story of Halo becomes a sprawling epic, made with the varied strengths of many people, and more than what a single author could craft in a lifetime.

: Merely adapting from book to film or the reverse is often a minefield.

Wait, what kind of logical fallacy is this? False dichotomy? Don't quite think so...
Merely adapting the story of a book into a film, or novelizing a movie, is often a minefield, though the latter is easier than the former.
We saw this at work with the novelization of Halo: CE.

However, aside from the Motion Comics and The Flood, there have been no direct cross-media adaptations. So, your assertion here is a bit of a red herring. Or worse...
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, if Sergeant Johnson lives on Harvest, then you must acquit! It does not make sense!"

: My opinion was that the Dietz novel was not only awful, but completely
: unnecessary. A naked cash grab, nothing more, and I own it only for
: purposes of completeness.

And people call me cynical.
I honestly don't like it, though I couldn't quite say it's Dietz's worst book*. The characters are shallow, and the scenes borrowed from the movie are redundant and uninteresting. But can I call it a cash grab without being vindictive?

No. Not without knowing more of what went on behind the scenes.

: I'm intimately familiar with the content of that thread. None of those posts
: are by a Bungie employee current or former.

And therefore, he is obviously a liar who doesn't know what he's talking about, of course.
/Sarcasm.

: When Staten writes that "for better or worse, the novels are canon"
: that tells me that the descriptions of the interactions between Bungie--
: then wholly owned by Microsoft-- and Microsoft and subcontractors were not
: entirely voluntary, nor entirely to Bungie's satisfaction. That nothing
: substantive was said of this (which would be commercially harmful to the
: franchise) is not particularly surprising.

For better or for worse, the novels are canon.
Wait, what's that last bit in there?
"The novels are canon."

For better or for worse? Aside from a crappy newspaper comic strip that was mercifully ended recently, doesn't that basically mean "Even with the flaws, the novels are canon."

: I do not call the novels fanfic, and never have.

In such words? No. Somewhere else in this massive post, there exists my rebuttal to this.

: They are, however, of lesser
: canonical value, as well, generally speaking, of lesser aesthetic values
: when compared to examples of the form.

Oh, great, I get out of Philosophy 105 for this?
XD
Just kidding. I enjoyed the heck out of that class.

: To suggest otherwise is to suggest that "participation in brainstorming
: sessions, and approving outlines and drafts" is commensurate with
: authorship, which I don't accept.

What you're suggesting is that "Participation in brainstorming sessions and approving outlines and drafts" is commensurate with "the writer has no frickin' clue what Bungie wants."

: There is stuff made by Bungie, and there
: is everything else, and the chasm that stands between them yawns wide. Not
: all the extra stuff is bad, by any means, but it is simply that: extra.

Extra. Connected. Made with assistance by Bungie, fitting into and expanding the Haloverse.

: Wow. No, I don't admit that. That entire novel was a train wreck, and the
: time crystal nonsense was there to deliberately try to create enough time
: between the end of Halo 1 and the start of Halo 2 to have a significant
: encounter that turns out to be of no significance.

*Shrugs*
Whatever.

: [snip]
*Holds up rock*

: No, they didn't, at least not when they made Halo 1, in which "sniper
: sergeant" did not even have a name.

Hem-hem.
In the time that First Strike was written, and Halo 2 was being made, Bungie knew that they were bringing Johnson back. That, my friend, is when his survival was hammered out.

: Not having assigned any particular significance to a footnote in a novel that
: Bungie didn't deem worthy of inclusion in the game-- Johnson specifically
: refuses to explain his own survival in Halo 2--

"Hey, Sarge, when are ya going to tell me how you got off Halo?"
"Right now. Y'see, I'm secretly a Spartan I, with heightened combat reflexes and endurance. I managed to fight off the Flood (which you probably don't know about) and escape to safety, where I met up with an ODST, pilot, and ONI agent. From then on, we hooked up with the Chief here, captured the Covenant flagship, and did a whole bunch of crap that I can't get into right now, because the spooks just showed up."
...
"Hey, you asked."

: the existence of this
: retcon or its artfulness was of no particular signficance to me. If
: anything, this just makes the continuity messier-- better not to have
: addressed the question at all.

Your loss.

: I'm sorry-- but that's nonsense. There was never any legal question regarding
: ES access to the Halo Bible, nor could there have been. Bungie Studios was
: not a separate legal entity-- it was a department within Microsoft.
: Microsoft could hardly have assigned the development of a Halo RTS to
: another internal studio, Ensemble Studios, and had any questions at all
: about access to the Halo Bible.

You want to bet?
Straight from the dev blogs on the Halo Wars website.

"First thing we always do is start gathering as much reference material as we can find; downloading screenshots from the internet, getting marketing material from Microsoft, and the most obvious one, asking Bungie for all their art files. That last one seems like a no brainer right? After all we are both part of Microsoft and they own everything, right? Nope. As it turns out itís really hard to get in contact with someone at another studio to provide assistance, when that company was behind schedule on their latest installment of Halo AND we had no idea about the negotiations they were having with Microsoft about becoming an independent studio again. It didnít take long to realize that our concept department would be on their own in figuring out this art style. "

Emphasis added.

: If Bungie had no involvement it was likely because one or more of the
: following things were true: 1) Bungie had no interest in being involved
: 2) Bungie had no time or resources to be involved
: 3) MS did not want Bungie to be involved
: 4) Ensemble did not want Bungie to be involved

: 1) and 2) are largely self-explanatory, while 3) and 4) might be directly
: tied to the idea that you brought up-- that maintaining continuity might
: actually hurt the product as an independent work.

Having had sufficient time to ponder this subject, my answer has changed little from my initial impressions.
Ensemble. Didn't. Care.
Look at their track record. Look at their approaches to campaigns. It's never more than an excuse plot, a thin veneer of narrative slathered over typical RTS objective-missions. Look at the pathetic excuse of an MMO they were building. Having tracked down the blog of one of the people who worked on it, their whole business plan was to copy WoW, give it a Halo skin, and ship.

If anything, this says "Be careful about who you contract with" more than "Don't build a massive continuity."
It's about the same as getting J.J. Abrams to do the next Star Trek movie, or hiring Kevin J. Anderson to do a StarCraft novel (The less said about that, the better!). Some people have genuine contributions to make to the franchise. Other people will just drop their trousers and piss on it.

: It is difficult to
: assign significance to events that cannot touch your main plotline at any
: point; we've seen this as a difficulty in ODST, in Reach, and in Halo
: Wars.

I think that your problem (And Mr. Miller's problem) is that you evaluate the entries in the Halo Franchise solely on their relevance to the main trilogy. It's a decent metric, but not the only one.

: Please allow me to clarify.

: The details and their execution are indeed what raise Halo above the level of
: an elevator pitch, which is essentially what the summary above is.

Mkay.

: However, what is significant is that the details exist-- not the details
: themselves!

I once met an artist who had a... something he made in a back room of his apartment. It was a very abstract bit of art that took up the whole room, and to which he was gracious enough to part so I could check some electrical conduit.

He insisted that the art was there for the sake of art. It didn't matter if nobody saw it, it only mattered that it exists.
While I suppose a weak argument could be made for that, I still feel that the artwork could have been of greater value if it was shown to the world, and people were able to evaluate it and apply its meaning to their lives.

Not that it was a great piece of art, by any chance. I had no clue what it was supposed to be, but I imagine other people might.
I apologize for the tangent here. Fun little stuff that lets me ramble keeps me from being a complete jerk.

: What I mean is this. Look at some of the Halo manuals. They all have a lot of
: what would seem like extraneous details about the weapons, their history,
: and how they work, including specifications for ammunition.

: These are of no significance. By that, what I mean is that if the rounds for a
: particular gun were 7.64mm instead of 7.62mm, this does not change the
: outcome of the war. The existence of the detail is to build
: verisimilitude. The enemy of verisimilitude is discontinuity, and the
: proliferation of additional details in spinoff materials is what leads,
: inevitably, to an increase in discontinuity.

I can understand honest-to-God mistakes and misprints. I can understand that some things might be changed for gameplay (Because a Scorpion with the endurance of a real tank and a true High Velocity cannon would be overpowered) or for... 'artistic license' (I might not like some cases, I think that it's gone too far in a number of cases, but I UNDERSTAND it)

What I'm against are mistakes that have been done from carelessness and/or outright disregard for what has come before. That is not a problem of "Too much canon" (At least, not yet) but one of sloppiness and disrespect.

: What the specs show me is that the world has been thought-out; by their very
: existence. A conflict between two sources on those values-- or calendar
: dates, or timestamps, or any other detail-- is, to me, an error in
: transcription and nothing more, not an error in the work itself, which is
: separate from its implementation in any particular form.

Here, I think you contradict yourself.
A: The details are important, because thought has been put into them.
B: They aren't important, because changing them does nothing.

If thought has been put into them, then the details are what they are for a reason. Even if the MA5C only uses 7.62 rounds because it's a common caliber today, there's a reason for it.
If they're important enough for that level of consideration, they are important enough to keep track of, both by fans and by writers.
After all, you never know what kind of details might by left to introduce mysteries... or purely as easter eggs.

: Until you can step inside that "representation" and travel faster
: than the speed of light, there is an important distinction to be made
: between representations and the things they represent-- even within the
: context of a fiction.

And now, back to my comments about suspension of disbelief.
Within reason, the illustrations and representations you give your audience are the images they are supposed to keep in mind, to associate with the objects and people in the story. I say 'within reason', because there are exemptions. When watching a play, you have to imagine that its King Lear in proper battle dress, and not some pimply 19-year-old in armor crudely constructed of cardboard and duct tape. Also, when you look at the cover of a book, you have to keep in mind that it was created by an artist who probably hasn't read the book, had little communication with the author, his agent, or his editor.

So, when you're building this character in the reader's mind, you're working with expectations. This is not to say that characters are static; there is character development and hidden character depth just as much as there is character derailment and ass pulls**. But there's those details that make the character. Luke Skywalker has blond hair and a green lightsaber, post ESB.

Anyway, when you're working with audience expectations, I guess there's just so much you can get away with changing. The Arbiter armor had a slightly different color in Halo 3, but was otherwise a faithful updating of the Halo 2 model. In Halo 2, the PoA model got a total screen time of one and a half seconds, not enough time or detail for people to notice the difference.
With the Halo: Reach cutscenes, I saw the difference on my second playthrough (once I wasn't overawed with accomplishment) as soon as the Pillar dropped out of slipspace.

Sometimes, it's unavoidable, like when the original actor for Dumbledore died. But when someone, who isn't even the guy who designed it in the first place, changes that much because they've got a hundredfold more polies to work with, that just doesn't wash.

: The PoA exists to fulfill its function. It is not a real object. It is a
: symbolic object. As such, very few of the attributes it has are of
: significance to the story if they do not contribute directly to that
: function. As long as it is recognizable-- which it is in Reach-- and the
: changed details do not prevent it from being recognized, or prevent it
: from fulfilling its function, then it is still the PoA.

Don't agree.The new model only increases the inside/outside problems, and where the Hell did those Bismark Turrets come from?

: Staten wrote that new takes precedence over old, and Bungie takes precedence
: over non-Bungie. I accept this, as I accept Bungie's general authority
: over their creation, and the events of Halo: Reach to be-- for better or
: worse-- the definitive version, overriding other versions where necessary.

Mkay. I get it. You're a Bungie fan.
Bungie bungie bungie bungie. So fun to say. But query what you're loyal to.
Are you loyal to the original guys who did Halo: CE, Myth, and Marathon? Are you loyal to someone who came in post Halo 2, and was therefore not around for the initial development of Halo? Are you loyal to the people used to work at Bungie, but moved on to other companies?

: You know a fictional universe has gone wrong when its fanbase diverges from
: its creator, as it has done, to some extent, with Lucas. I see nothing
: that justifies that here, in Reach or anywhere.

Politely, sir, I disagree.
Bungie at large hasn't pulled a Lucas. But I would very much like to know what went on behind the scenes on Reach.

*Insofar as I have read his books, that would be 'At Empire's Edge'.
Maybe it's supposed to by YA, maybe he needed the advance to pay the bills. But it was awful.
**Anakin Skywalker slowly succumbing to the Dark Side of the Force? It's alright, if a little wooden. If you haven't seen the original trilogy, there's enough foreshadowing to see it coming.
Artoo suddenly sprouting rockets to save the day. Open wide, Lucas. Put that Goatse guy to shame***.
***If you don't get this, don't look it up. No, I mean it. It's schmuck bait. You're wondering what the fuss is all about, and you figure you might as well look it up to satisfy your curiosity. But trust me, there are things you will be much happier not knowing.


Message Index




Replies:

Why retcons don't bother me anymoreCody Miller 5/11/11 6:11 p.m.
     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreFrankie 5/11/11 6:16 p.m.
           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreCody Miller 5/11/11 6:20 p.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymorePhoenix_9286 5/11/11 6:54 p.m.
                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreQuirel 5/11/11 11:21 p.m.
                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymorePhoenix_9286 5/12/11 12:19 a.m.
                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreLurono 5/12/11 11:21 a.m.
                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreGeneral Vagueness 5/12/11 1:09 p.m.
                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreQuirel 5/12/11 1:20 p.m.
                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreGeneral Vagueness 5/12/11 3:24 p.m.
                                               i somewhat agreenomis78 5/16/11 4:21 p.m.
                                                     oh and marty on music *NM*nomis78 5/16/11 4:59 p.m.
           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymorepadraig08 5/11/11 6:22 p.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreAzo 'Galvat 5/11/11 9:54 p.m.
     tl;dr: "I grew up, and I like Ren & Stimpy" *NM*Pkmnrulz240 5/11/11 6:24 p.m.
     Are those really retcons?General Battuta 5/11/11 6:25 p.m.
           Re: Are those really retcons?Cody Miller 5/11/11 6:31 p.m.
                 Re: Are those really retcons?General Battuta 5/11/11 6:44 p.m.
                       Re: No, they're not.Ranger15S 5/11/11 7:15 p.m.
                       Re: Are those really retcons?General Vagueness 5/11/11 9:15 p.m.
                             Re: Are those really retcons?General Battuta 5/11/11 10:12 p.m.
                 Nope, it isn't.Narcogen 5/12/11 2:13 a.m.
     Retcons are Art *NM*NartFOpc 5/11/11 6:26 p.m.
     Ren and Stimpy why you should not care about canon *NM*ZaneZavin 5/11/11 6:31 p.m.
     Thank God *NM*RC Master 5/11/11 6:47 p.m.
     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/11/11 6:58 p.m.
           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreGeneral Vagueness 5/11/11 9:25 p.m.
     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreDarkS7G 5/11/11 7:36 p.m.
           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/11/11 9:32 p.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymorepadraig08 5/11/11 10:08 p.m.
                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/12/11 6:07 a.m.
                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreDEEP NNN 5/12/11 6:30 a.m.
                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/12/11 11:01 a.m.
                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreDEEP NNN 5/12/11 11:57 a.m.
                                               Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/12/11 2:54 p.m.
                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreRevenant1988 5/12/11 7:41 a.m.
                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreDMFanella 5/12/11 8:46 a.m.
                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreRevenant1988 5/12/11 9:08 a.m.
                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymorepadraig08 5/12/11 1:41 p.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreDMFanella 5/12/11 8:37 a.m.
                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreRevenant1988 5/12/11 9:15 a.m.
                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreDMFanella 5/12/11 9:37 a.m.
                                   Fanella playing HW *IMG*Revenant1988 5/12/11 10:54 a.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreDarkS7G 5/12/11 2:29 p.m.
                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/12/11 3:02 p.m.
     The Roto-Rooter man finally gets a break. *NM*Captain Spark 5/11/11 7:40 p.m.
     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreFlynn J Taggart 5/11/11 7:45 p.m.
     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreGeneral Vagueness 5/11/11 9:09 p.m.
     I disagree on many pointsuberfoop 5/11/11 10:36 p.m.
           To clarify.uberfoop 5/11/11 11:10 p.m.
           Re: I disagree on many pointsscarab 5/12/11 3:05 a.m.
     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreSimpsons Rule 5/11/11 10:38 p.m.
           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreCody Miller 5/11/11 11:13 p.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/12/11 2:13 a.m.
                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreCody Miller 5/12/11 12:05 p.m.
                             Cautious skepticism.Narcogen 5/13/11 1:38 a.m.
                                   Re: Cautious skepticism.Cody Miller 5/13/11 11:14 a.m.
                                         Re: Cautious skepticism.Quirel 5/13/11 7:04 p.m.
                                               Re: Cautious skepticism.scarab 5/14/11 1:59 a.m.
                                                     Re: Cautious skepticism.resplendentvole 5/14/11 10:08 a.m.
                                                     Re: Cautious skepticism.Quirel 5/14/11 3:24 p.m.
                                         Re: Cautious skepticism.Narcogen 5/15/11 10:52 p.m.
                                   Re: Cautious skepticism.Quirel 5/27/11 2:26 p.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreSimpsons Rule 5/15/11 11:58 p.m.
     And another sees the lightPsychoRaven 5/11/11 10:49 p.m.
           Although I still disagreePsychoRaven 5/11/11 10:52 p.m.
     I'll just be bothered for you then... *NM*The Loot 5/11/11 11:23 p.m.
     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreQuirel 5/11/11 11:26 p.m.
     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/12/11 2:08 a.m.
           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreCody Miller 5/12/11 11:14 a.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreArteenEsben 5/12/11 4:50 p.m.
                       I'm picking upkidtsunami 5/12/11 5:19 p.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreGeneral Vagueness 5/13/11 1:36 a.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/13/11 2:16 a.m.
                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreCody Miller 5/13/11 11:26 a.m.
                             Wait a minute.uberfoop 5/13/11 4:04 p.m.
                                   Re: Wait a minute.Cody Miller 5/13/11 4:31 p.m.
                                         Re: Wait a minute.uberfoop 5/13/11 6:34 p.m.
                                               Wait, did I really just...?uberfoop 5/13/11 6:48 p.m.
                                               Re: Wait a minute.Cody Miller 5/13/11 6:59 p.m.
                                                     Re: Wait a minute.Quirel 5/13/11 7:51 p.m.
                                                     Re: Wait a minute.Hawaiian Pig 5/14/11 6:13 p.m.
                                               Not about Limbo.Narcogen 5/15/11 11:06 p.m.
                                         Re: Wait a minute.General Vagueness 5/14/11 2:27 p.m.
                                         Re: Wait a minute.Narcogen 5/15/11 10:57 p.m.
                                               Re: Wait a minute.Cody Miller 5/15/11 11:13 p.m.
                                                     Re: Wait a minute.Hoovaloov 5/16/11 5:47 a.m.
                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/15/11 10:55 p.m.
     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreArchilen 5/12/11 2:56 a.m.
           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/12/11 6:08 a.m.
     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreHawaiian Pig 5/12/11 9:54 a.m.
     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreEvil Otto 5/12/11 12:51 p.m.
           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreEvil Otto 5/12/11 12:57 p.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreAvateur 5/12/11 12:59 p.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreFyreWulff 5/12/11 1:08 p.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreHawaiian Pig 5/12/11 3:39 p.m.
                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/12/11 4:27 p.m.
                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreCody Miller 5/12/11 5:45 p.m.
                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreQuirel 5/12/11 6:00 p.m.
                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreCody Miller 5/12/11 6:31 p.m.
                                               Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreQuirel 5/12/11 7:06 p.m.
                                                     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreCody Miller 5/12/11 8:28 p.m.
                                                           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/12/11 9:27 p.m.
                                                           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreQuirel 5/12/11 10:11 p.m.
                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreEvil Otto 5/12/11 4:31 p.m.
                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreQuirel 5/12/11 5:42 p.m.
                                   My thoughts exactly ^ *NM*Hawaiian Pig 5/13/11 1:08 a.m.
                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreCody Miller 5/13/11 11:20 a.m.
                                         Are you playing Devil's advocate? *NM*scarab 5/13/11 12:49 p.m.
                                               Re: Are you playing Devil's advocate?Hawaiian Pig 5/14/11 6:20 p.m.
                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreuberfoop 5/13/11 4:36 p.m.
                                               Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreCody Miller 5/13/11 4:50 p.m.
                                                     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreuberfoop 5/13/11 5:35 p.m.
                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreSimpsons Rule 5/16/11 12:12 a.m.
                                               Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/16/11 1:13 a.m.
                                                     Thoughts and conspiracies...Leviathan 5/16/11 2:22 a.m.
                                                           Re: Thoughts and conspiracies...Narcogen 5/16/11 3:52 a.m.
                                                     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreuberfoop 5/16/11 2:44 a.m.
                                                           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/16/11 4:05 a.m.
                                                                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreuberfoop 5/16/11 7:36 p.m.
                                                                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/17/11 12:13 a.m.
                                                                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreuberfoop 5/17/11 3:24 a.m.
                                                                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/17/11 5:39 a.m.
                                                     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/16/11 8:16 a.m.
                                                           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreLeviathan 5/16/11 10:13 a.m.
                                                                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/16/11 11:43 a.m.
                                                           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/17/11 12:15 a.m.
                                                                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/17/11 10:18 a.m.
                                                                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreLouis Wu 5/17/11 10:56 a.m.
                                                                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreLeviathan 5/17/11 11:46 a.m.
                                                                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymorescarab 5/17/11 3:13 p.m.
                                                                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreLeviathan 5/17/11 4:35 p.m.
                                                                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/17/11 1:22 p.m.
                                                                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreBry 5/17/11 1:40 p.m.
                                                                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/17/11 1:50 p.m.
                                                                                               Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreBry 5/17/11 1:57 p.m.
                                                                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/18/11 12:12 a.m.
                                                                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/18/11 8:54 a.m.
                                                                                               Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreLouis Wu 5/18/11 9:20 a.m.
                                                                                                     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/18/11 9:57 a.m.
                                                                                               Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/18/11 11:29 p.m.
                                                                                                     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/19/11 6:56 a.m.
                                                                                                           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/20/11 1:23 a.m.
                                                                                                                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/20/11 7:03 a.m.
                                                                                                                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/20/11 11:34 p.m.
                                                                                                                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/21/11 8:47 a.m.
                                                                                                                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/22/11 11:33 p.m.
                                                                                                                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/23/11 8:10 a.m.
                                                                                                                                               Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreBry 5/23/11 9:06 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/23/11 10:01 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreBry 5/23/11 10:53 a.m.
                                                                                                                                               Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreGeneral Vagueness 5/23/11 10:31 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreQuirel 5/23/11 11:48 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreArchilen 5/24/11 1:44 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/24/11 6:18 a.m.
                                                                                                                                               Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/24/11 1:01 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreQuirel 5/24/11 2:11 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreArchilen 5/24/11 3:24 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/24/11 4:07 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/24/11 8:03 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/24/11 3:36 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreBry 5/24/11 5:45 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/24/11 6:34 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                             You can't please everyone all of the time *NM*Bry 5/24/11 6:37 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                 My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenQuirel 5/27/11 3:23 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                       Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With Narcogenuberfoop 5/27/11 4:54 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                       Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenCody Miller 5/27/11 5:00 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                             Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenBeckx 5/27/11 6:10 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                   The guy who mage Greedo shoot first *NM*scarab 5/28/11 3:56 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                       Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/27/11 5:25 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                             Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenQuirel 5/27/11 7:03 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                   Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/27/11 7:46 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                         Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenQuirel 5/27/11 8:39 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                         My take.BlueNinja 5/28/11 6:58 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                       Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenGeneral Vagueness 5/27/11 6:30 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                             Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/27/11 6:51 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                       +1 *NM*Document 5/28/11 4:30 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                       Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenDocument 5/28/11 5:42 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                       Great post. Love it.Gravemind 5/28/11 5:53 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                             Re: Great post. Love it.Quirel 5/29/11 2:15 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                       Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenNarcogen 5/30/11 12:23 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                             Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/30/11 6:50 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                   Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenGeneral Vagueness 5/30/11 10:46 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                         Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With Narcogenpete_the_duck 5/30/11 11:01 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                   Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenGravemind 5/30/11 8:04 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                         Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/30/11 8:15 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                               o_OArithmomaniac 5/30/11 9:07 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Re: o_OStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/30/11 11:02 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                   Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenNarcogen 5/31/11 12:11 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                         Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/31/11 6:45 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                               Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenNarcogen 6/1/11 1:21 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenStephen L. (SoundEffect) 6/1/11 6:55 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Commentary Transcripts.Narcogen 6/2/11 3:00 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Re: Commentary Transcripts.Stephen L. (SoundEffect) 6/2/11 7:07 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Re: Commentary Transcripts.Gravemind 6/2/11 1:17 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Re: Commentary Transcripts.Stephen L. (SoundEffect) 6/2/11 1:20 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Re: Commentary Transcripts.Dagoonite 6/2/11 5:04 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Re: Commentary Transcripts.Stephen L. (SoundEffect) 6/2/11 7:06 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Re: Commentary Transcripts.Narcogen 6/3/11 12:29 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Re: Commentary Transcripts.Stephen L. (SoundEffect) 6/3/11 8:14 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Re: Commentary Transcripts.Louis Wu 6/3/11 8:27 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Re: Chips.Hedgemony 6/3/11 8:40 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       338 repliesCody Miller 6/3/11 7:26 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Re: 338 repliesQuirel 6/3/11 7:47 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Re: 338 repliesLouis Wu 6/3/11 8:01 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Re: Commentary Transcripts.Narcogen 6/5/11 11:04 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Re: Commentary Transcripts.Stephen L. (SoundEffect) 6/6/11 6:32 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Re: Commentary Transcripts.General Vagueness 6/3/11 8:49 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Re: Commentary Transcripts.Narcogen 6/5/11 11:07 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Re: Commentary Transcripts.Narcogen 6/3/11 12:25 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Re: Commentary Transcripts.resplendentvole 6/2/11 2:14 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Re: Commentary Transcripts.scarab 6/2/11 4:49 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Re: Commentary Transcripts.Narcogen 6/3/11 12:30 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Re: Commentary Transcripts.Stephen L. (SoundEffect) 6/2/11 7:10 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Re: Commentary Transcripts.Narcogen 6/3/11 12:39 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Re: Commentary Transcripts.Stephen L. (SoundEffect) 6/3/11 8:17 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Re: Commentary Transcripts.Narcogen 6/3/11 12:19 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                             Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenGeneral Vagueness 5/30/11 10:51 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                   Re: Johnson's survivalDocument 5/30/11 4:19 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                             Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenGeneral Vagueness 5/30/11 10:56 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                   Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With Narcogenpete_the_duck 5/30/11 11:09 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                         Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/30/11 11:20 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                               Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenNarcogen 5/31/11 12:22 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/31/11 6:24 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenNarcogen 6/1/11 1:11 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenStephen L. (SoundEffect) 6/1/11 6:33 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenNarcogen 6/2/11 1:29 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                         Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenGeneral Vagueness 5/30/11 11:34 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                               Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenGeneral Vagueness 5/30/11 11:44 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                               Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenNarcogen 5/31/11 12:29 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenLeisandir 5/31/11 12:05 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenLouis Wu 5/31/11 12:09 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenCody Miller 5/31/11 12:49 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenNarcogen 6/1/11 1:13 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenLouis Wu 6/1/11 7:07 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenNarcogen 6/2/11 1:28 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                   Re: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With NarcogenNarcogen 5/31/11 12:17 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                             Johnson's character statusDocument 5/30/11 4:09 p.m.
                                                                                                                                                                             Reprise: Testing size limits on individual posts.Quirel 6/5/11 2:53 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                   Re: Reprise: Testing size limits on individual posStephen L. (SoundEffect) 6/5/11 8:24 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                   Quirel- okay here's the response.Narcogen 6/13/11 5:01 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                                                         Re: Quirel- okay here's the response.scarab 6/13/11 7:09 a.m.
                                                                                                                                                     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/24/11 6:55 a.m.
                                                                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreGeneral Vagueness 5/17/11 12:26 p.m.
                                                                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/17/11 1:33 p.m.
                                                                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreGeneral Vagueness 5/17/11 1:37 p.m.
                                                                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/17/11 1:54 p.m.
                                                                                               Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreGeneral Vagueness 5/17/11 2:24 p.m.
                                                                                                     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/17/11 5:34 p.m.
                                                                                                           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreagdtinman 5/17/11 6:49 p.m.
                                                                                                                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreBry 5/17/11 8:34 p.m.
                                                                                                                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/17/11 9:48 p.m.
                                                                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreBry 5/17/11 1:44 p.m.
                                                                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/17/11 1:53 p.m.
                                                                                   Wrong example.Louis Wu 5/17/11 2:22 p.m.
                                                                                         Re: Wrong example.Stephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/17/11 5:39 p.m.
                                                                                         Re: Wrong example.Narcogen 5/18/11 12:33 a.m.
                                                                                               Re: Wrong example.Stephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/18/11 8:33 a.m.
                                                                                                     Re: Wrong example.Narcogen 5/18/11 11:34 p.m.
                                                                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/18/11 12:27 a.m.
                                                                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/17/11 11:37 p.m.
                                                                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/18/11 6:44 a.m.
                                                                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/18/11 7:27 a.m.
                                                                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/18/11 9:52 a.m.
                                                                                               Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/18/11 11:40 p.m.
                                                                                                     Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/19/11 6:24 a.m.
                                                                                                           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/19/11 6:52 a.m.
                                                                                                                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/19/11 8:17 a.m.
                                                                                                                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/20/11 1:26 a.m.
                                                                                                                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/20/11 7:22 a.m.
                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/13/11 2:25 a.m.
                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreCody Miller 5/13/11 11:17 a.m.
                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreHawaiian Pig 5/14/11 6:10 p.m.
                                               Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreCody Miller 5/15/11 2:55 a.m.
                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/15/11 10:59 p.m.
                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreBry 5/12/11 4:33 p.m.
                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreAvateur 5/12/11 4:48 p.m.
                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreBeckx 5/12/11 5:01 p.m.
                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreAvateur 5/12/11 5:10 p.m.
                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymorescarab 5/12/11 6:09 p.m.
                                               Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreBeckx 5/13/11 7:35 a.m.
                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreBry 5/12/11 5:10 p.m.
                                         Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreAvateur 5/12/11 5:25 p.m.
                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreQuirel 5/12/11 5:31 p.m.
                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreStephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/12/11 5:50 p.m.
                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreGeneral Vagueness 5/12/11 7:56 p.m.
                       How to Still Care About Halo.Narcogen 5/15/11 11:01 p.m.
                             Re: How to Still Care About Halo.Hoovaloov 5/16/11 7:17 a.m.
                                   Re: How to Still Care About Halo.Narcogen 5/17/11 12:17 a.m.
                             Well said.Kermit 5/16/11 9:55 a.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreNarcogen 5/13/11 2:22 a.m.
           I like this post *NM*Avateur 5/12/11 12:58 p.m.
           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreDuncan 5/12/11 4:38 p.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymorescarab 5/12/11 6:18 p.m.
                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymoreHoovaloov 5/16/11 7:20 a.m.
           I liked it better when humans were forerunnersFlynn J Taggart 5/12/11 6:36 p.m.
           Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymore *SP*Narcogen 5/13/11 2:21 a.m.
                 Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymore *SP*mc_leprechaun 5/13/11 12:07 p.m.
                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymore *SP*scarab 5/13/11 12:46 p.m.
                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymore *SP*mc_leprechaun 5/13/11 4:03 p.m.
                       Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymore *SP*Narcogen 5/15/11 10:53 p.m.
                             Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymore *SP*Stephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/16/11 6:26 a.m.
                                   Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymore *SP*Dagoonite 5/16/11 9:40 a.m.
     Why Retcons annoy me to no end...The BS Police 5/16/11 5:41 a.m.
           Re: Why Retcons annoy me to no end...RC Master 5/16/11 10:54 a.m.
                 Re: Why Retcons annoy me to no end...General Vagueness 5/16/11 11:56 a.m.
                       Re: Why Retcons annoy me to no end...The BS Police 5/16/11 3:46 p.m.
                             Re: Why Retcons annoy me to no end...General Vagueness 5/16/11 6:17 p.m.
     .....The Hell's A Retcon? (/dumb) *NM*Morpheus 5/16/11 8:24 a.m.
           Re: .....The Hell's A Retcon? (/dumb)Beckx 5/16/11 9:01 a.m.
           Retroactive Continuity...GrimBrother One 5/16/11 9:02 a.m.
                 Re: Retroactive Continuity...Morpheus 5/16/11 1:59 p.m.
                       Re: Retroactive Continuity...Quirel 5/16/11 6:42 p.m.
                             Re: Retroactive Continuity...Unique Name 5/16/11 7:27 p.m.
                                   Re: Retroactive Continuity...Quirel 5/16/11 7:54 p.m.
                                         You make no sense!ZackDark 5/16/11 9:00 p.m.
                                               Re: You make no sense!Quirel 5/16/11 10:20 p.m.
                                                     Re: You make no sense!Beckx 5/17/11 8:21 a.m.
                                                           Re: You make no sense!ZackDark 5/17/11 10:30 a.m.
     Why retcons do bother me.Gravemind 5/24/11 4:45 p.m.
           Re: Why retcons do bother me.General Vagueness 5/24/11 6:25 p.m.
           Amen, brother! *NM*The Loot 5/24/11 6:50 p.m.
           I've said it before, I'll say it again...Lurono 5/24/11 7:41 p.m.
                 Re: I've said it before, I'll say it again...The Loot 5/24/11 8:57 p.m.
                       Re: I've said it before, I'll say it again...General Battuta 5/24/11 8:58 p.m.
                 Re: I've said it before, I'll say it again...General Battuta 5/24/11 8:57 p.m.
                       Re: I've said it before, I'll say it again...Lurono 5/24/11 9:22 p.m.
                       Re: I've said it before, I'll say it again...The Loot 5/24/11 9:48 p.m.
           Re: Why retcons do bother me.Narcogen 5/25/11 8:01 a.m.
                 Re: Why retcons do bother me.Stephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/25/11 8:30 a.m.
                       Re: Why retcons do bother me.Narcogen 5/26/11 12:10 a.m.
                             Re: Why retcons do bother me.Stephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/26/11 7:12 a.m.
                                   Re: Why retcons do bother me.Narcogen 5/26/11 7:46 a.m.
                                         Re: Why retcons do bother me.Stephen L. (SoundEffect) 5/26/11 1:07 p.m.
                                               Re: Why retcons do bother me.Narcogen 5/26/11 11:19 p.m.
                 Re: Why retcons do bother me.Archilen 5/25/11 11:43 a.m.
                       Re: Why retcons do bother me.Narcogen 5/26/11 12:14 a.m.
                             Re: Why retcons do bother me.Cody Miller 5/26/11 12:17 a.m.
                       Re: Why retcons do bother me.Narcogen 5/26/11 12:21 a.m.



contact us

The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33.