Frequently Asked Forum Questions
Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact		Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2		Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ | More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts

Re: Yes, it is.
Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net>	Date: 10/15/08 12:15 a.m.
: I can certainly see the argument for 'ILB != canon' from purists, and I can : see a solid argument for 'ILB ~ canon' from less rigid thinkers (maybe : even 'ILB = canon') - you're welcome to your opinion, but you should : realize that it's not as cut-and-dried as you're trying to make it. That's : all I was saying. That's pretty much how I feel about it. If one takes the perspective that nothing is canon without a clear statement, then ILB doesn't make it because Joe essentially says no and Frankie says "as canon" (not canon) and those statements aren't strong enough. If one takes the perspective that everything is canon without a clear denial, then ILB is canon where it doesn't contradict and isn't where it does. Either is fine with me, really-- the problem I think is basing speculation about the primary sources based on noncontradicting information in quasi-canon sources like ILB. Because when you develop content specifically with the goal of making sure it doesn't conflict existing canon, the easiest way to do this is to avoid canon material altogether. Which basically means that all the parts of ILB that could be canon, because they don't conflict, are the least relevant to the discussion of the primary sources (the games).

Keep It Clean Teaser - Frame By Frame

Message Index