[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv [b]In response to hotshot revan II,[/b] This policy does not by very necessity exclude automatically Halo Legends from the True Halo Canon; it is objective and open-minded just like I am. You can accuse me of not knowing Halo "lore" (I would take you up on this any day, but that's a different topic) but the fact is that this won't diminish the amount of Canon I know that I know. It is because of this knowledge of the Halo Canon that I dislike Halo Legends, but, since this thread is about my canon policy and not its specific application, I will continue this discussion about my personal opinion of Halo Legends via the PM system. And I will add that if you had read my OP, you would know why such statements like "perfectly intact with Halo canon" are ambiguous, un-constructive, ignorant. If you believe the Halo Canon to be that canon demonstrated in Halo Legends, then Halo Legends in your mind must be intact with the Halo Canon! It's like saying the number 1 and the value evinced by the word "one" are the same. It is a useless tautology. But, I cannot expect you to avoid this because you hadn't read the rest of my post when you wrote this, and therefore I apologize if I've been too terse in my reply. I appreciate that you are now reading the rest. I believe you mean to say that "343i didn't [i]give[/i] us garbage". Upon reading Summa Canonica, you will have found a portion where I concede to the (what I think are rare) instances when 343 has done a good or at least better job in manifesting the Halo Canon, and moreover I would tend to agree with those two had I to select two of their best publications. That does not overwrite their previous record. [b]In response to the latter part of Jabberwock's post,[/b] Please read the section in the Summa entitled "A NOTE ON CANONICAL HIERARCHY"; it seems to be most relevant to the question you first posted. And although I have already stated that this thread is not about specific analyses for each canonical publication but about this canon policy, I do not think I am straying too far to respond to your edit; you ask good questions. You know my personal stance on Legends; we can debate that with the PM system. Reach must be taken as canon but with a mature understanding of the Third dictum of the catechism for this canon policy entitled "Reasonable Manifestation" - I even include the quote from the Collector's edition somewhere in there that basically places Reach in a canonical position to be overwritten by others, but to provide some solid-basework and perhaps some actual and true manifestation of real canon, but with this ingenious canonical mechanism that allows Bungie to make a fun and playable game concurrently. You then go on to justify the canonicity of new artifacts - I think that's great. That is the type of specific debate and discussion I have said many times is a good thing and should be had for each canonical publication on a case-by-case basis. I don't agree about Legends, and I should be able to back that up with evidence and keep an open mind about it - and you the same. This canon policy is designed for such discussion; it provides logically proven, established, and discussed standards and extrapolations that we can use in such debates to back up statements and get rid of foolish ones. The ultimate purpose is to find the True Halo Canon. I stated these things at least once in my OP - read the Overture and Purpose for a more detailed version of what I just said. [b]In response to Xvise66 and the former part of Jabberwock's post,[/b] Your personal insult is not on topic and therefore will not deserve my conversation in this thread; please deliver your childish personal attacks to me via the PM system as to not break the forum rules. [b]In response to TedToaster22 and the nature of the former part of Jabberwock's post that was obscured by his personal attacks and insults,[/b] I have answered to the complaint of length and allegedly unnecessary vocabulary to an extent far greater than one would expect. I have repeatedly provided defenses for my choice of words and have explained why I wrote the way I did. But if that wasn't enough, I came back and constructed a simplification of what I said in the OP but in simple, short language. Your persistence with the complaint that has already been addressed indicates to me that you are a newcomer to this thread who started to read a bit of the OP and then carelessly proceeded to air your complaint (which may very well be valid; I'm all for constructive criticism) without paying the slightest attention to the bulk of my original post or the posts about your complaint that have ensued the original posting. Please actually read this thread and then provide new and unaddressed reasons to back up your complaint. [b]In response to DrMod,[/b] I could have addressed this comment with my above paragraph, but I decided that it deserves special attention. Nothing that I wrote is "gratuitous"; I can explain and reveal the reason for every single word and its choice. But I am fascinated by the specific nature of this accusation that I haven't really heard before. If you had read the Second Addendum, you would see why I chose to write my OP in English. Seems like a pretty common-sense decision. I wrote and am writing in English, not Latin. Now let us examine all instances of Latin in my use here. I needed a specific title - a proper noun - for reference, just like "Halo" is a Latin word and now a name for something. There were a few places within the actual text where I inserted Latin phrases; such phrases are used often in English to denote a concept, e.g., i.e., et. al., e.t.c. So far I have everything covered except for the three places I used Latin in the "Table of Contents", if you will, at the very beginning of the OP to designate the three parts. Although it is apparently not so obvious, I thought my obvious and somewhat humorous and un-serious yet somewhat serious in constructing the theme of the post throw/allusion to "Summa Theologica" would be a nice little detail that might spark a chuckle or two but, for serious purpose, helps establish the theme of what I'm writing. (Not that this too similar; this is one guy on a long rant on a video-game developer's website-forum) This thematic addition was advanced by my threefold partition of the OP and Latin naming, just like the aforementioned historical work. (I'm assuming you didn't know this and you apparently don't get it) If it makes you feel better, you can just ignore the twenty-four words before "I. Overture" and pretend they don't exist. So, my use of Latin was extremely sparse but always purposed, intentional, effective, and well-reasoned in its handful of appearances.[/quote] The 1st part of my post was not meant to be taken as an insult, I literally meant that you had earned my respect for using such high end vocabulary. OT: I am glad that you are open minded enough to discuss legends, and other 343 works, though I share the same sentiments as snakie: We shouldn't pick and choose canon, only try to give a vague order of it, and try to better understand how it fits together.

[b]In response to hotshot revan II,[/b] This policy does not by very necessity exclude automatically Halo Legends from the True Halo Canon; it is objective and open-minded just like I am. You can accuse me of not knowing Halo "lore" (I would take you up on this any day, but that's a different topic) but the fact is that this won't diminish the amount of Canon I know that I know. It is because of this knowledge of the Halo Canon that I dislike Halo Legends, but, since this thread is about my canon policy and not its specific application, I will continue this discussion about my personal opinion of Halo Legends via the PM system. And I will add that if you had read my OP, you would know why such statements like "perfectly intact with Halo canon" are ambiguous, un-constructive, ignorant. If you believe the Halo Canon to be that canon demonstrated in Halo Legends, then Halo Legends in your mind must be intact with the Halo Canon! It's like saying the number 1 and the value evinced by the word "one" are the same. It is a useless tautology. But, I cannot expect you to avoid this because you hadn't read the rest of my post when you wrote this, and therefore I apologize if I've been too terse in my reply. I appreciate that you are now reading the rest. I believe you mean to say that "343i didn't [i]give[/i] us garbage". Upon reading Summa Canonica, you will have found a portion where I concede to the (what I think are rare) instances when 343 has done a good or at least better job in manifesting the Halo Canon, and moreover I would tend to agree with those two had I to select two of their best publications. That does not overwrite their previous record. [b]In response to the latter part of Jabberwock's post,[/b] Please read the section in the Summa entitled "A NOTE ON CANONICAL HIERARCHY"; it seems to be most relevant to the question you first posted. And although I have already stated that this thread is not about specific analyses for each canonical publication but about this canon policy, I do not think I am straying too far to respond to your edit; you ask good questions. You know my personal stance on Legends; we can debate that with the PM system. Reach must be taken as canon but with a mature understanding of the Third dictum of the catechism for this canon policy entitled "Reasonable Manifestation" - I even include the quote from the Collector's edition somewhere in there that basically places Reach in a canonical position to be overwritten by others, but to provide some solid-basework and perhaps some actual and true manifestation of real canon, but with this ingenious canonical mechanism that allows Bungie to make a fun and playable game concurrently. You then go on to justify the canonicity of new artifacts - I think that's great. That is the type of specific debate and discussion I have said many times is a good thing and should be had for each canonical publication on a case-by-case basis. I don't agree about Legends, and I should be able to back that up with evidence and keep an open mind about it - and you the same. This canon policy is designed for such discussion; it provides logically proven, established, and discussed standards and extrapolations that we can use in such debates to back up statements and get rid of foolish ones. The ultimate purpose is to find the True Halo Canon. I stated these things at least once in my OP - read the Overture and Purpose for a more detailed version of what I just said. [b]In response to Xvise66 and the former part of Jabberwock's post,[/b] Your personal insult is not on topic and therefore will not deserve my conversation in this thread; please deliver your childish personal attacks to me via the PM system as to not break the forum rules. [b]In response to TedToaster22 and the nature of the former part of Jabberwock's post that was obscured by his personal attacks and insults,[/b] I have answered to the complaint of length and allegedly unnecessary vocabulary to an extent far greater than one would expect. I have repeatedly provided defenses for my choice of words and have explained why I wrote the way I did. But if that wasn't enough, I came back and constructed a simplification of what I said in the OP but in simple, short language. Your persistence with the complaint that has already been addressed indicates to me that you are a newcomer to this thread who started to read a bit of the OP and then carelessly proceeded to air your complaint (which may very well be valid; I'm all for constructive criticism) without paying the slightest attention to the bulk of my original post or the posts about your complaint that have ensued the original posting. Please actually read this thread and then provide new and unaddressed reasons to back up your complaint. [b]In response to DrMod,[/b] I could have addressed this comment with my above paragraph, but I decided that it deserves special attention. Nothing that I wrote is "gratuitous"; I can explain and reveal the reason for every single word and its choice. But I am fascinated by the specific nature of this accusation that I haven't really heard before. If you had read the Second Addendum, you would see why I chose to write my OP in English. Seems like a pretty common-sense decision. I wrote and am writing in English, not Latin. Now let us examine all instances of Latin in my use here. I needed a specific title - a proper noun - for reference, just like "Halo" is a Latin word and now a name for something. There were a few places within the actual text where I inserted Latin phrases; such phrases are used often in English to denote a concept, e.g., i.e., et. al., e.t.c. So far I have everything covered except for the three places I used Latin in the "Table of Contents", if you will, at the very beginning of the OP to designate the three parts. Although it is apparently not so obvious, I thought my obvious and somewhat humorous and un-serious yet somewhat serious in constructing the theme of the post throw/allusion to "Summa Theologica" would be a nice little detail that might spark a chuckle or two but, for serious purpose, helps establish the theme of what I'm writing. (Not that this too similar; this is one guy on a long rant on a video-game developer's website-forum) This thematic addition was advanced by my threefold partition of the OP and Latin naming, just like the aforementioned historical work. (I'm assuming you didn't know this and you apparently don't get it) If it makes you feel better, you can just ignore the twenty-four words before "I. Overture" and pretend they don't exist. So, my use of Latin was extremely sparse but always purposed, intentional, effective, and well-reasoned in its handful of appearances.

Whats with your gratuitous Latin.

Too long, did not read.

Well someone is pretentious as -blam!-

Okay, I admit, OP's post was too much for even me. OP, for your arrogant use of advanced vocabulary, official tone, and long as hell post I grant you a high award: My respect. ---------- Now, on topic: Is there any radical change from the general Games > books > Viral campaigns > ads New > old Bungie > all else version we had before? EDIT: Basically, I'm asking if Reach, Legends, or any other recent stuff is still canon to you guys? Most of what was in legends that broke canon was explained in Cryptum, and the novel reprint's extra material, and reach's breaks are mostly explained, outside of the dates, by halsesly's journal. [Edited on 02.26.2011 12:13 PM PST]

I wanna know why you thikn Halo Legends ruined canon.If you really knew alot of the Halo lore then you would have known it is perfectly intact with Halo canon. And 343i didn't gave us garbage,does Cryptum and Evolutions count as garbage? I still haven't read the rest of your post,but i'm doing it now :)

Given the long string of complaints about length and complexity, I have done my best to provide a summary and simple, condensed version of what I'm trying to get across. It now seems clear to me that this forum does not quite give habitation to the sort of people with whom a formal and proper discussion about Halo Canon policy is a productive and auspicious exercise. No, perhaps it is not the lack of proper people, but the structuring of this forum system which was designed for much smaller populations than that of today, and therefore can restrict good yet involved conversations. The people who I want to speak to are here in this forum, but my mistake was overestimating the effort and time they were willing to expend in hearing my attempt at persuading them. Because of that, and because of the recent spark in the canon debate, I judge that I should simplify what I have already said in a way that is short and understandable; to convey at least some of what I have already conveyed but in this manner which is more accessible and timely. That will be my business in this post. I will start off assuming to address a "newcomer" - one who hasn't heard of what I have said about this. To me, it is disastrous to see long-time fans of Bungie's magnificent construction be turned away by what they perceive is money-milking garbage from 343 Industries or elsewhere. Additionally, such garbage [i]would[/i] greatly disturb and offend me, for its self-proclaimed association with the Halo I know as the Halo Trilogy. I say "would" because I am not making any such accusation in here; this discussion should supersede (at least in this post) that of those discussions about something new from 343 or the like being garbage or not. I believe those are good discussions to have and should be executed on a case-by-case basis, but in them there are these highly varied general beliefs and ideologies about canonical acceptance, and those I need to address so we can be more productive in our assessment of canon and ultimate observation that the greatness in the story/universe represented by the Halo Trilogy is never diminished. With that said, here are some very simplified canons [i]concerning[/i] Halo Canon (I hope this does not lead to confusion) and its appropriate policy that I must speak of and persuade others to accept: [b]CANON I:[/b] The name "Halo" evokes various understanding: that of religious iconography, that of a shape, but in this case and obvious context, that of a story. [b]CANON II:[/b] Even with the understanding of this story as the meaning of the word, different people believe different things about this story. (For instance, I reject Halo Legends as canonical anathema and others hope to make it welcome and accepted) [b]CANON III:[/b] These different canons share similar specific elements (Grunts, Infection Forms, Planet Reach, Installation 05, Plasma Rifles, etc.) but are still different entities because of their small difference, however small. [b]CANON IV:[/b] Therefore, it can be said that the word "Halo" in realistic and actual implementation and popular prevailing usage of vernacular language refers to a [i]number[/i] of stories. [b]CANON V:[/b] However, this is just a product of the popular usage and evolution of language; the proper Halo Canon as it first came to be known was the original definition of the word "Halo" as a story. [b]CANON VI:[/b] Therefore, there is one underlying and objective standard of this Halo story, i.e. the True Halo Canon, as evidenced by the common similarities discussed in my Third Canon. [b]CANON VII:[/b] This does not prove perfection or even definitive nature of the first canonical manifestation, because each varied story (or "personal canon") cannot be constrained from original introduction in a way unofficial in comparison with the original incarnation of this story as "Halo" with Halo: Combat Evolved. [b]CANON VIII:[/b] Therefore, we must acknowledge the fact and evident reality that alternate meanings of the word "Halo" are used. [b]CANON IX:[/b] I wager that these alternate meanings, these canonical perversions and distortions, are useless because of their incongruity with the objective and standard Halo Canon. [b]CANON X:[/b] Because there is often a lack of full objectivity and solid proof in discerning an assessment deemed by one a personal canon, and deemed by another as the True and standard canon, the full clarity and unmitigated manifestation of this objective, unchangeable, and true canonical standard may never be known certainly. [b]CANON XI:[/b] However, at least a portion of it has been revealed to us by observation of aforementioned commonalities between canonical renditions. [b]CANON XII:[/b] Therefore, an effort can be made to discern which is canon and which is not given the knowledge we have about previous canonical manifestations, their quality, their originality, and the tendencies of new manifestations and their corresponding publishers. [b]CANON XIII:[/b] This process of canonical analysis is assisted by experience and knowledge in the Halo story/Canon. [b]CANON XIV:[/b] In such debate, we can therefore include evidence from the Trilogy (being a source of commonality and great quality) and personal conclusions [i]a posteriori[/i] from it. [b]CANON XV:[/b] Since this process may never be fully objective and provable, as we have established in my Tenth Canon, a reasonable consensus among the educated in canonical interpretation must serve as a sufficient conclusion to said analysis, unless if such consensus is adversely affected by a foolish misconception. [b]CANON XVI:[/b] A foolish misconception of Halo Canon is the one which states whichever personal canon is most pleasing is and ought to be the Halo Canon to one person; on the contrary, the definition of this story obeys or knows of no such personal preference, and the selfish selection and reservation of this personal canon reflects a story different than that of the True Halo Canon. [b]CANON XVII:[/b] Another misconception is that which misleads those into accepting a mentioned personal canon or otherwise acanonical artifact because of its forced name of "Halo" and deceitful association therewith; on the contrary, an open and sensible mind is to be kept when evaluating the canonicity of canonical candidates. [b]CANON XVIII:[/b] Another misconception is that canon policy which by nature deals in unimpressionable absolutes; including or excluding the canonical artifact in entirety; although such absolute judgments may very well be wise conclusions at times, it is most possible for a canonical artifact to reflect and manifest both the standard, common, objective, and True Halo Canon in some parts while also eliciting false and acanonical portions, as reinforced by the observed differences found in my Second Canon and commonalities from my Third Canon between canonical retellings. [b]CANON XIX:[/b] Another foolish misconception is that which interprets the literal sensory effect of a canonical representation (a video game, for instance) to be the represented canon where obvious implied realism exists, considering, to continue with our video game example, the humorous inclusion of acanonical "Easter Eggs" or technical limitations that cause video-graphic renderings to be photounrealistic. [quote][/quote] If there is only one thing that I would wish a reader to learn after reading this brief dialectic, I would desire that they abandon the absurd notion that 343 Industries, or whomever is empowered by copyright laws or financial arrangements, is somehow endowed or entitled to publish materials which automatically constitute the True and Absolute Halo Canon. There is no logical or sensible basis to that, and one is to treat new canonical statements and assertions from them the same way they should treat them from anyone else: with the objective, open-minded, and cautious canonical analysis. The human beings working at 343 Industries are no more enabled to draw up constitution for a matter-less and non-concrete narrative Canon, the definition and true nature of which has already been at least partially revealed, than a playful and artistic child of 43 months. When you boil it all down, that's all I really need to hit-home. [Edited on 03.10.2011 12:49 PM PST]

I'm going to save this for a later read. I'll probably just end up printing this out and reading it... too much text for the computer.

First of all, I apologize for this delay in my response. @Snakie: You say that you can't change your canon policy due to monetary common sense; perhaps I've failed to communicate that my policy does not necessitate that one stays on top of everything new from 343 and what not and buy everything, even if there is good reason to. Your policy as it relates to that subject is well intended and interesting, as I said, and I will have to take it under consideration. But it is absolutely compatible with the gist of my canon policy: there is one true and absolute canon, and those that do not represent this canon (stuff like Legends) should be rejected as such. If even given its tolerance of your monetary common sense, you still reject this out of unwillingness to change an opinion given new information, I will not attempt to argue this any further. But either way, I do thank you for the time you spent to have this discussion. I believe it is important and do appreciate the time you've put into getting back to me. @Gurder: Thank you. Standardization is necessary because canonical inclusion based off a subjective and personal process is not responsible; because it cannot be assumed of everyone and because the Halo Canon knows not of your personal preferences, because we are each our own individual selves indistinguishable to that of the Halo Canon - and if you say that you are somehow better and therefore your policy should be accepted, that is not subjective. It may not be correct, but it is no longer subjective. Certainly there are those who will take Halo in whichever manner stimulates their enjoyment to the highest degree, but this cannot be the true definition of the Halo Canon since this varies from person to person. That is why standardization is necessary, at least to those who are interested in finding the True Halo Canon. Certainly, each individual has the mental freedom to know and enjoy whichever story he pleases, but the one that you and I know to call "Halo" is only the one that is the absolute and true Halo Canon. Therefore, this document is rigmarole only to those who do not care about the absolute definition of Halo Canon, or who chose to steal the name "Halo" in application to a canon that it is not. I agree that we cannot disregard one version of canon in the event of a contradiction solely because of rank; perhaps I was not clear enough in my discussion of canonical hierarchy and exclusionary procedures that such ranks are only estimations and useful guidelines that will usually hold true. It is possible that a Halo book, for instance, may more accurately depict the True Halo Canon in an area better than that of a Bungie game. This policy does not necessarily say otherwise. I agree that we can plot one line of continuity using the baseline policy, and with a knowledgeable and experienced background on Halo Canon. However, it is my well-substantiated negative opinion of 343 Industries that I did hope to intimate through my OP; however, I am always willing to keep an open mind and this policy itself does not hold any specific canonical manifestor at a state better than that of another. I hope that most discrepancies could be easily solved as a matter of common sense, and do agree that in most cases the matter of solution is of this nature. However, there are always those who are unsatisfied or ignorant, and this logical process will help foster agreement over matters that would appear to many as "common sense". The "Defense of Style" is not the only defense I have put forward to this accusation; I have subsequently posted a more rigorous defense and explanation of my language to match the rigor and frequency of related accusations. In your specific idealization of an apparently verbose part of the Summa, you did capture the overall meaning but did exclude details of clarity and disambiguation. However, as I have conceded in the past, I do apologize for any instance where I was unnecessarily verbose and complicated with no benefit of added detail or content. I do want this discussion to reach as wide an audience of possible, but not at the expense of my message. Again, any word or grammatical construction too "embellished" without contributing some way is an error for which I apologize, as is any word or grammatical construction in which I sacrificed detail for brevity or simplicity. But I do believe, if you examine my words more closely, that there are few places where I made this error. I tried to choose my words carefully. But all in all, I appreciate your discussion and invocation of specific statements/accusations instead of resorting to quick, sort "blanket statements". That is the easy way and advances the discussion to no degree.

[b]ON TOPIC[/b] This is an incredible post and certainly proposes well thought out structure for a canonical policy- nevertheless I believe that this [i]standardisation[/i] is simply unnecessary. We are presented with a rich and ever expanding Universe that can be viewed in continuity from event A to event B without need for this rigmarole. Every canonical issue can be wrestled with [b]subjectively[/b] and the debate that ensues is just as conducive to the Universe as the introduction of a new technology or architecture. You could argue that the contextual objective needs to be maintained if we are to continue to follow the same continuity of events, but this is simply not the case. The fact is if we are not presented with an explanation for a discrepancy we cannot 'rank' or even disregard one event over another because of it. We [b]must[/b] argue the various pros', cons', buts' and maybes in an attempt to develop the franchise on a personal and subjective level. You're intellectual approach did not veil you're obvious disregard for 343's forays into the Halo universe and this is something I feel we both share in one way or another. Never the less I dont believe the state of the cannon has been thrown into total dissaray at all and we can easily plot one line of continuity. Simply put it is my opinion that a canon policy, on a technical level, would be great but we simply do not need one. The Universe has been written and structured with discrepancies, of course, but nothing has been presented to utterly destroy it and the handling of these disrepancies is simply [b]common sense[/b] in my opinion. [b]OFF TOPIC[/b] I understand the points you are trying to make and it is an indisputable fact that the standardisation of accepted forms of canon is a noble goal to which one must strive but this is simply far to academic a text to discuss this standardisation within the scope of. Simply put it is [b]not accessible[/b]. Furthermore you're [i]defence of style[/i] is simply not an adequate enough argument to justify this lack in accessibility: [quote]At the time of this writing, it has been announced that Bungie will progress from Halo-related endeavors once they have finished their canonical revelation that aims to convey the events of The Battle of Reach in a form of an interactive media experience, colloquially, a "video game".[/quote] -This text was written after Bungie announced they are moving on from the Halo franchise once Halo Reach ships- surely would have sufficed!? This quote, from the beginning of your text, is one illustration of this unnecessary jargon that seems to be used to illustrate you're obviously well thought out and thorough argument. Surely you could have presented the piece in a way that would be more conducive to your purpose or stimulate discussion from a wider audience? I am an English student and it took me a great degree of effort to read even half of your post, not because of its length or wide use of the intellectual vernacular, but because of the convoluted and unnecessarily embellished sentence structure that results.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] drake3011 i understand that Odd one out was supposed to be "Just for fun" but i just felt it really didnt work, it attempts too much at the canon of the story and is just, well, over the top. Hell, i actually felt Embaressment for 343 after i saw it, Its one of those "Oh i get it, its ripping the piss out of anime in total... wait... i dont think it is... Oh..GOD" But thats me mixing personal opinion with an overall view, i just felt in total the animators behind most of Legends just tried to embed their own works and culture too much into the project, and as a result we end up with marines in what are Basically gundams, and sanghelli living in an ancient japanse cultured planet. It just becomes difficult to determine what was intended and what was more freelanced, and history dictates within media, Freelancing your own ideologies and storylines will only damage the media text in question. Im gonna stop with the analysis, im a media student, i get a little bit carried away :P[/quote] Odd One Out is the only Legends episode declared non-canon.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv Perhaps if you read my OP (Yes, I know it is long) you could better identify what's wrong with what I'm saying here.[/quote] There is nothing wrong with what you are saying. Now that you explain it more fully, unless I interpret your meaning wrong still, you are at no fault. I accede to your interpretation; you are right, there is a way to stay with Halo and interpret your own canon without acknowledging 343i as an end-all and be-all and without being a child picking and choosing his experience. Nevertheless, even with this understood, I cannot change my policy. It is based on principal and monetary common-sense--for my part, anyway--and I won't change it now, even if there is an acceptable alternative. But I thank you for showing me that there is.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Lord Snakie [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv[/quote] The one thing I can't do is reject their new canon. I dislike it, I dislike those that make it, but I cannot, [i]cannot[/i] bring myself to pick and choose my canon, for multiple reasons. It seems petty and childish to me to reject something, even if it is poor, on the basis of those who made it. It likewise seems childish to hold on to something in the wake of irreversible change. Sitting on this forum and theorizing about things that are no longer possible is clinging to the past and a shred of what prestige theorists used to have. I won't do it, because it would make me look more petty than my all-out attacks on 343i usually do. There are divisions to canon--old canon, new canon, bad canon, good canon--but it is still the same thing: canon. All one unified body of continuous material, regardless of who produced it. I choose to believe old canon and stop "acknowledging" any material outside of it, but that's mainly to do with when I turned away, not a true picking and choosing. It's too painful to pick and choose, because that's a real sign of a dying series.[/quote] To "Pick and Choose" is different than performing a sound canonical analysis for a book/game/whatever at question. Suppose someone came up to you and made an absurd and illegitimate statement about the Halo story, for instance, suppose some kid draws a sketch with crayons of a bouquet of daffodil flowers and then tells you that this image is the actual, canonical representation of the Energy Sword, I'm assuming you would not hold this as Halo Canon. (This is much like the "parable" I pasted above, except more concise and less symbolic.) You would not consider a frivolous and absurd exposition of apparent canon to be actual true canon. You wouldn't go running home distraught about how crappy the canon has got. Therefore, you just performed a canonical analysis. You just "picked and chose" your canon, as you put it. Now, if we had a Halo game from Bungie in which I walk around getting whacked around by Sangheili Ultras and their giant yellow flower assortments, then I think most would run home crying about what the canon has come to - and for good reason. But in both cases, it is not canon. But you can't bring yourself to "pick and choose". What is it, then, the difference between your thoughtless exclusion of this kid's purely-aspirational fantasy, and this standard that keeps you from rejecting the acanonical artifacts of 343? Usually the argument would be "because 343 defines the canon and what they've published is Halo canon", but you understand so far as to know that 343 produces largely crap that is of a far lower quality than that of Bungie's. You say that you can't exclude something just on account of who made it. I agree, by logical principle, if there is this absolute and unchanging ideal canon, then the identity of the author has no meaning. But likewise, you say you abandon the "new" canon largely because of the time you were turned away. To deem an artifact acanonical to Halo because of its publication date relative to your personal epiphany is just as standard-less as excluding something just because 343 wrote it. Here is the big problem, then, that 343 makes for us and is a problem I addressed in the very beginning of my OP (in the "Purpose" section) when establishing the need and direction of the OP: how can one logically substantiate their rationale of what is canon and what isn't? I'll tell you why I spent so much time and many words answering this question: because I cannot stick with a canon that has both the Halo Trilogy, and this new stuff from 343. It just isn't worth my time. There are better scifi stories to captivate me and be objected to my thought if that is the true state of canon. So if I saw the identity of the canon the same way you do, I'd abandon it too. Adiós. I have no interest in the crap you see in the words "Halo Canon". But here is why your definition of it is wrong: because there [i]is[/i] some sort of objective method to reasonably include and exclude canonical artifacts, and a general consensus among the educated of that process and of the Halo Canon will generally agree and find the more certain areas. Largely, that is what my entire OP did. It is essentially an amalgam of purely [i]a priori[/i] ideas and knowledge that I can come to by just thinking about my observations of Halo Canon. For you, you probably don't need a fancy logical process to back things up; your intuition seems to be so finely tuned that you will be right on your canonical analyses most of the time. But the important thing is that such a fair and reasonable process exists and can be expected of all reasonable people regardless of preference or opinion of canonical bodies. This removes the "petty and childish" nature of "picking and choosing" canon. And let's abandon that term - what I am proposing is not "picking and choosing", it is using logical, universally true thought and reason to make a sound conclusion as to whether or not something actually represents the True Halo Canon. Picking and choosing is including whatever "feels" or "seems" best at one's relative and affected whim, which is indeed most childish and petty for its lack of standardized, logical, and objective nature. Such logical and methodical process is necessary because it gives a baseline standard that is true for all and can be expected of others too. My feelings about what should be canon isn't good enough, however valid they are. There is an objective way; I have disapproved strongly of "Halo is whatever I want it to be/think it should be" and "Halo is whatever you interpret it and enjoy it to be". I hate that, and I assume that is the same type of "picking and choosing" mentality that you won't bring yourself to. I agree with that; I can't bring myself to that either. I disproved that mentality in my OP. "Picking and choosing" is not the same thing as executing a reasonable, sound, logical, common, universally-applicable, and methodical analysis of the canonicity of an object. If you can't accept the appropriateness of that process, then you must "acknowledge" the kid's depiction of an Energy Sword as Halo Canon. (Because that is an extreme example and the simplest analysis would prove that false.) Unless you somehow think that the "official" nature of 343 enables them to define canon, which is Relativism, which I disproved in my OP. The Halo Canon has an absolute and unalterable definition, and it is usually obvious which things reveal that canon (Trilogy) and which things are stupid and really don't (Legends). That's not "I don't like this, therefore it is not canon", it is "Given my logical process that can be expected of everyone, I estimate that these are not canon and these are". So, yes, there is that continuous material that is defined by the publications which have taken on the name "Halo", but only a certain part of that publication collection is True Halo Canon. Determining which parts are which does not undermine your stature or respect for standards over the rejection of logical thought for the reasons only of feeling and intuition, rather this determination is a logical and standardized process that can be expected of everyone and is oftentimes an easy and sure thing. Perhaps if you read my OP (Yes, I know it is long) you could better identify what's wrong with what I'm saying here.

TL DR, maybe one day. But I'm glad that intelligent, sophisticated people exist on these forums and have interesting things to say. [Edited on 02.02.2011 9:31 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv[/quote] The one thing I can't do is reject their new canon. I dislike it, I dislike those that make it, but I cannot, [i]cannot[/i] bring myself to pick and choose my canon, for multiple reasons. It seems petty and childish to me to reject something, even if it is poor, on the basis of those who made it. It likewise seems childish to hold on to something in the wake of irreversible change. Sitting on this forum and theorizing about things that are no longer possible is clinging to the past and a shred of what prestige theorists used to have. I won't do it, because it would make me look more petty than my all-out attacks on 343i usually do. There are divisions to canon--old canon, new canon, bad canon, good canon--but it is still the same thing: canon. All one unified body of continuous material, regardless of who produced it. I choose to believe old canon and stop "acknowledging" any material outside of it, but that's mainly to do with when I turned away, not a true picking and choosing. It's too painful to pick and choose, because that's a real sign of a dying series. [Edited on 02.02.2011 1:15 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Lord Snakie[/quote] Again, I agree about 343 Industries and have always been critical of them. I am attacked frequently over my criticism of them but did not tone it down in my OP, however I did ensure that my accusations were substantiated - which they are. 343 has done a great job of turning me against them and from THAT canon, with Halo Legends as a good example. But, for the purpose of this discussion, take the fictional canon represented by Halo Legends. I am abandoning that BECAUSE I'm not abandoning Halo; the canon of Halo Legends and of 343 in general has almost always been different than the True Halo Canon, which is what we find in quality "old" canon like the Halo Trilogy. I, too, can't talk specifics of Cryptum because I haven't finished reading it. The thing is, I recognize the special effort and accuracy some members of the community, like you, have demonstrated in studying canon and interpreting the story beyond what is given (theorizing) and I would absolutely concede to the statement that your explanation of these areas is "better" than that of 343's. Now, we can't define "better" as how we feel about it; it is whatever is closest to the True Halo Canon. (I define all this stuff in my OP) It is very possible that you have shown the THC when they have shown false canon that is not Halo. In that case, just abandon and ignore their crap and stick to what we know is Halo. You could make a strong argument against me about supporting 343: I have been and will be buying their "canonical" publications not because I care or even have the least bit of hope that they will be canon (in most cases), but just to be thorough and sound in my argument against them. I should at least consider what they've put forward so I have specifics to point to when observing their status as acanonical and mendacious to take on the name "Halo". However, if we all agreed to boycott them, perhaps they'd get the message. That's a different debate, though. Here's where I think the issue is: you call the real Halo Canon the "fumes of what used to exist". I don't understand that; even if every record of any book/video game/canonical manifestation of the "old times" before 343 were destroyed, we still know of that true canon in our heads. And it exists regardless of our knowledge of it. So this seems to be the core of our issue: the "old" canon - the True Halo Canon that is found in the Halo Trilogy - still exists and will always exist. (That's one of the first things I prove in my OP). The existence of 343's crap is unfortunate, but in the end it should have no effect on us because we know better than to believe that is part of the same canon. Absolutely, abandon the "canon" of 343, the canon that we disagree with. But that's not abandoning Halo Canon, because to call something that is not canonical "Halo" is a lie. I think we completely agree, except you are persuaded that the term "Halo Canon" refers to not one absolute unchanging original canon (found in the Trilogy), which I call "Dualcanonicalism", which I disprove. If all you are abandoning is the crap from 343 like Legends that professes to be canonical but isn't, then I'm all with you. I advocated for that position bigtime in my OP. I just don't want 343 to use their legal/"official" power to distort the meaning of the word "Halo" to mean something it doesn't and thereby mislead you into abandoning the true canon ("old" canon, as you call it) which we as a community have had great fun with over the years. However, to the end of making theories, the more who define canon in a similar way we do, the more audience you have. Which is of course smaller because people accept 343's canon and think that they "define" Halo Canon, which is a foolish and absurd statement that I also disproved in my OP. However, if you apply your Purist 343-boycotting "if everybody did what I'm doing we'd be all-right but they wont in a million years but I will anyways" mentality (which I think is an honorable and principled position - one I should consider) to that of making theories, you should continue with that talent of yours. But whether you do or not, I just didn't want to see 343 somehow get you to abandon the real Halo canon, which I am glad to see they haven't. This was largely just a disagreement about word meanings and terminology, which 343 confused. I addressed that in detail as the "Question of Identity" in my OP. So, to sum up: 1. Assume 343's stuff is crap and not true canon (which I agree off the bat; normally I'd have to have a big argument here to move onto the next step) 2. Stay loyal to the True canon, whatever it is. (we know it's found in the Trilogy) 3. Reject anything that is acanonical, like the crap (Legends) we determined to have from 343. 4. ...and we'll all be just fine.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv[/quote] I'm "turning away" from Halo because everything that I believe it once stood for is now gone. There is no magnificent tale filled with mystery, there is no longer the love of those working on it fueling their creation. There is only greed fueling revelations that, ultimately, should never have been revealed. I am astounded that I am saying this at all, but the mystery surrounding some things should never be revealed to the player. Some, certainly--enough to discern the true nature of what is being discussed--but sometimes... oftentimes, even, perhaps... there should be mystery. The thirst for knowledge is why I loved Halo, but that thirst can only exist so long as there is still something to discover, and that thing to discover is worth discovering. There are still things to discover, but less, and less worth it. When I started here, I was focused upon research into the relationship between the Halos and other Forerunner installations. With the release of [i]Ghosts of Onyx[/i] and [i]Halo 3[/i], all of my theories were broken. I quit then, for a time, but it was not because the theories were disproven, it was... over other matters. The point, however, is that I returned, years later, as a student of the Flood and the Precursor--but, honestly, I think that I mainly studied the Flood. There are two reasons why I quit after my theories were broken this time but did not the last. One of the reasons is because I believed I had created a better, more realistic (in Halo canon standards) foundation for both the Flood and the Precursor than 343i has with Cryptum. I had put hours of time into thinking of it--for all intents and purposes, it was really a fanfiction that was canonically possible (at the time) rather than being a theory. I loved the theory even as I realized that, ultimately, it would be proven false--but I didn't [i]care[/i] about that, I did it because I wanted to, because I loved the concept of it. What angered me--enraged me, really--was that I had spent three hours thinking about that theory and had made it fully canonical--actually explaining events more logically, I feel, than Cryptum--and yet the "true" explanation was, in my mind, worse. And they had months and months to come up with that. And it enraged me, because what does it say when an (at the time) 17 year-old child can manage to outwit you? It doesn't speak very much towards the skill (or, for that matter, the dedication) of 343i. But the other reason was, by far, the primary; even without my theory, in my opinion, being better than some of the crap 343i churned out, their stuff was [i]still[/i] just that: crap. I've never hidden from myself what I believe the true motives of 343i are, and I haven't because I understand business politics pretty well, so far as I'm concerned. Frankie left Bungie because he saw where the dollar signs were, and went to Microsoft. He built a team of half-dedicated, half-competent people around him and started whacking the dead horse as soon as he feasibly could, starting by gathering together the works of Bungie and selling them for profit (Encylopedia), continuing by editing the works of past workers that actually cared about the series (book edits). In my mind, those were failures--their own "new-canon" ventures (Legends, Cryptum) are arguably worse. I can't speak for Cryptum, because I simply know the gist of the plot rather than having read it myself, but I know how I stand on Legends. Frankie and 343i, simply, have no care for the series any longer, if they did even originally. They are letting it die when even I see a way that it could probably be cared for. I even spoke to the Halo Waypoint twitter a few months ago about it, and we had a long conversation over it. I see very little being done with my suggestions, as I anticipated. I am abandoning Halo canon because I cannot stand by and support 343i any longer. I cannot give them my money, I cannot give them my support. I vehemently speak against them when I can in the hopes to raise support for my beliefs, but of late those who used to appreciate my contributions are attacking me. I care very little about the attacks, but the blind worship of a dying body is disappointing for me, mainly because 343i will be able to feed for a time. I am not abandoning the old canon. I have my books, I have my games, I have my love for it. But the old canon isn't the new canon, and to theorize, I have to know everything I can know. I cannot support myself on the fumes of what used to exist. I acknowledge their canon, but will not support it... so I abandon the franchise, because I cannot bring myself to buy what they make. But what I learned about storyline from the old canon, the inspiration it provided to me, will shine through in my work on Heron. I refuse to allow the contribution that Halo has made on my psyche to not affect the material that I produce... but I have to turn my back, because I can't keep up anymore. I'll remember what was, but not blindly follow into the future.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Monochron How long is that thing?[/quote] 17k+ words. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SilverBulitt82 its going to take some time to read this.[/quote] I do recognize this issue; I can only suggest that you first read the conclusion to understand the primary message, and then read the rest for some more important points and the defense thereof if you can get around to it.

Wow, im going to save this thread, its going to take some time to read this.

Sweet mother of god. How long is that thing? When did you get the time for that?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Lord Snakie My opinions on 343 Industries are my own, and they color my view on the quality of canon... not one bit, actually. I judge the material produced by the quality of the material itself, not by the company that produces it or what I think of them. However, with that said, what I have seen of 343i's material has been decidedly lacking, and their motivations in its productions likewise questionable--or, in my mind, concrete, and for the worse.[/quote] I agree that, on the whole, a canonical manifestation is to be judged by itself, although it will usually align with what we have come to expect from its author. I agree, too, about the general status of 343 Industries's likely motives and certainly the nature and quality of their canonical artifacts, Halo Legends being the foremost example. I subtly slammed Legends and expressed discontent with 343i throughout to a degree that might have been a bit of an exaggeration. Still, no argument here - I've always been suspicious and critical of 343. [quote]I'm not petty, I don't ignore their canon or claim that only what I think is what is true. I acknowledge their canon.[/quote] Here's where we may differ; this strays into the "Purism vs. Relativism" topic that I discussed. There is an ultimate and absolute standard of Halo Canon; what the name "Halo" truly refers to. The Halo Trilogy did a nearly perfect job of conveying THAT canon; newer junk from 343 has conveyed a "contravened" and "perverted" canon (with a few exceptions) and will likely continue doing so in the future, which is unfortunate. But it can't change that true canon behind the Trilogy, for example! That is what you need to explain to me: how come you reject the true canon that is found in the Trilogy and other good canon on account of crappy and dishonest revelation from those who have misaligned motives? How can their work change the work of Bungie? What makes you link the two? Practicality, you say? That is Relativism, which I disproved in its corresponding section. But if I think there's one part of my OP you should read, it should be my "parable" that illustrates what 343 is doing in this instance: [quote]A thirsty man once walked a narrow street in the late afternoon, nightfall not distant. His attention was won by a young child, facing right, that is, in the direction of this man, while keeping his body half oriented to the attraction and motioning the man to approach, on an intersecting street upon his arrival at the intersection. The child directed his attention at a demonstration occurring farther down the road; there were many people watching the demonstration. The numerous and obese nature of this congregation lured the man's attention and attracted him into this wide path; he descended down the steps with the boy and observed in curiosity what the cause of all this hype was: a performer, meretriciously and gaudily circumvolving six ring-shaped hula-hoops in a chimerical and clown-like fashion. Apparently a magician, the performer exhaled fire onto these hoops, and although they were rotationally bound to his abdomen, these raging rings of fire did him no harm; they kept burning until the spectators grew bored and ceased donation of their philanthropic rations - the hereunto accumulation of which on the ground would have been great if the performer had not just as acrobatically managed to hoard this amassment onto his person as they came. At this conclusion of events, the performer departed; leaving seven suffered, atramentaceous, and stained rigidly orthogonal quadratic remains to lie atop the wooden scaffold he had stood upon. The man, now ready to leave after the conclusion of this fascinating immolation, was then told by the departing performer that this performance was a direct representation, reenactment, and canonical manifestation of Master Chief's actions during the Battle of Installation 04 in the Halo Universe. This is the end of my parable. Is this exposition of Halo Canon valid? Certainly not; for this is absurd and no sensible person would accept it. I know not of even the most perverted Relativist who would accept such a laughable blasphemy. In this case, the issue is obvious....[/quote] We're on the same page about 343, and I'm assuming we also agree about the absolute standard of Canon (which I also proved in "Specific Reflexivity"). Therefore, I cannot see why you abandon a work because of new work that claims to hitch a ride on the good and original work that we ought to "hang on" to. [quote]But I also acknowledge, without reservation, what I [i]think[/i] of their canon; it is of poor quality, and its creation is mandated by monetary gain, and with little love for the series itself. That is my belief.[/quote] I agree wholeheartedly, which only serves to reinforce what I'm saying. [quote]Even if it were not, the quality of the material itself speaks for why I chose to forsake the series. I do not have the time or the money to expend upon something that I can do better myself.[/quote] Yes, the argument of quality is a very important concept that I discussed throughout the OP. I can't sum-up all that right here, but I will say that the low quality of acanonical junk from 343 is indicative of its state of disassociation with the True Halo Canon - see, right here. You choose to forsake the series why? Choose to foresake the bad material! What association is there between the True Halo Canon (which is certainly found in parts of the totality of the series) and what we esteem as low-quality junk from 343? There is none, and if you disagree, read the section disproving Relativism. [quote]I'm working on my own game series, as I've said before, that attempts to uphold my own policies on canon, which ironically spawned from the 343i/Bungie debacle in the first place: absolutely no retcons, a well-conceptualized story that is fully explained scientifically, and at least makes attempts to explain its technology with understandable, possible scientific methods (IE 'anti-gravity' becomes 'dark energy', etc.). That's my policy for canon, and I can support no other.[/quote] You know I am absolutely supportive for all you guys at Whisper; I can't wait to see what you guys do with Heron; I'm all for it, but I digress. I agree with this canon policy: the True Halo Canon has no "retcons" or "inconsistencies"; but the simple fact is that humans are impefect and bound to make errors in canonical manifestation. And to that end, Bungie has certainly done a heck of a lock better than 343, and least with the Trilogy. Basically what I need to understand is why you abandon ANYTHING called "Halo" - including what is truly called "Halo" - all because of some crap (as we agreed it was) that ISN'T canon. The only reason I can foresee is that 343, in all practicality, defines canon, which is false. That is Relativism and I addressed that in "Unicanonical-Purist School -> Relativist Objections" and "A Brief Lambasting of Dualcanonical-Relativist Thought" Here's basically the end of my OP: [quote]Were I compelled to construct a fair summation of these topics having been discussed, I would resign to the sure and necessary message I hope to convey, above all others: The True Halo Canon is a great and magnificent thing, and we have enjoyed its presentation hereunto this point at which concurrent canonical manifestations would lessen and diminish the greatness of our canon if indeed representational of the same canon: they are not; let not anything diminish one's proper vision of Halo Canon; let not these blasphemous artifacts of the Denigrators of our Magnificent Canon succeed in persuading the ignorant of their canonical status; let them fail in their efforts to convince the beliefs of Halo to be something it is not; and let this Great Plague not dissuade any of us Students and Doctors of Halo Canon from our righteous purpose and vocation of study and reverence.[/quote] Certainly overzealous and emphatic about it, for effect; but I still back the message 100%.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv Snakie ... Can you explain to me, in your view, why you let others change your view of the Halo Canon?[/quote] To be frank, I don't. My opinions on 343 Industries are my own, and they color my view on the quality of canon... not one bit, actually. I judge the material produced by the quality of the material itself, not by the company that produces it or what I think of them. However, with that said, what I have seen of 343i's material has been decidedly lacking, and their motivations in its productions likewise questionable--or, in my mind, concrete, and for the worse. I'm not petty, I don't ignore their canon or claim that only what I think is what is true. I acknowledge their canon. But I also acknowledge, without reservation, what I [i]think[/i] of their canon; it is of poor quality, and its creation is mandated by monetary gain, and with little love for the series itself. That is my belief. Even if it were not, the quality of the material itself speaks for why I chose to forsake the series. I do not have the time or the money to expend upon something that I can do better myself. I'm working on my own game series, as I've said before, that attempts to uphold my own policies on canon, which ironically spawned from the 343i/Bungie debacle in the first place: absolutely no retcons, a well-conceptualized story that is fully explained scientifically, and at least makes attempts to explain its technology with understandable, possible scientific methods (IE 'anti-gravity' becomes 'dark energy', etc.). That's my policy for canon, and I can support no other. I'll read it if I find the time, but it will be unlikely. [Edited on 02.01.2011 4:24 PM PST]

I hoped that this discussion would show more actual debate over my points, but the accusation that there is a communication barrier mandates that I take a step back and explain myself. I will paste something I have already written in response to these accusations elsewhere: [quote]Here is my big problem that I need to get out of the way: the accusations regarding the style and length of my "mega-rant" ... Like some of the other unfair accusations in this thread, it is hard and redundant to reply to someone who hasn't read the entire thing. This I regret: I foolishly excluded some sort of disclaimer at the beginning that said "If you don't read the entire thing, please don't complain to me." I understand the length; it actually took me about an hour to read when I sat down I went back through it to fix spelling/grammar errors. So, I will entertain these accusations and provide a general defense. I anticipated these specific accusations, and therefore wrote what I did in the second addendum at the end. It's really short; please read. It builds off of what I say in "Idealism and Implicitness" and "Question of Identity", but at that point you should just read the entire thing. Please do that - that's a request. But when you accuse me, it is sort of an expectation. Again, I'm cool about it; I'm not offended ... I wrote how I wrote to A. communicate the info I needed to in B. the most concise way possible, WITHOUT sacrificing detail, specificity, and important subtle meaning. I chose my words very carefully; there's a big difference between "talk" and "speak" in popular usage the way I see it. Granted, I had a little fun. I had a little fun with the name and structure on the first page, making it seem like it was something much more important than it really was (although I do think it is important) by using fancy Latin mottos and throws to St. Aquinas, etc. The fun ended there. (Even though it did have the effect of establishing the style and effect I was going for). Let's actually examine the meat, the body text, and not some affected legalese ostentation that I obviously had fun with on page 1. It ended at "Overture... to be oversimplified" and continued in seriousness until the end of the "mega-rant". If in the actual content, I included language or a word that was unnecessarily verbose and could have been condensed without shrinking the meaning... I made and error and do apologize. I am not perfect. The ironic thing is, to all you people who criticized me for this but didn't read the Summa in entirety, I discuss the utter uselessness of choosing a language other than the common vernacular for the communication of ideas. That was part of one of my biggest arguments! .... Just read the entire thing, and then I'll be happy to hear why I'm wrong. Back to the topic of my apparent bad style, I must admit I am somewhat embarrassed. For me, whenever I see a paper or something that was obviously written by some kid but tries to sound all smart by thesaurusing every single word... it just looks like the most stupid and juvenile thing in the world. It's awkward. And it is wicked obvious that this kid was just using a thesaurus to find longer words to make him look smart... which makes him look dumber, but most of all, makes him look young and immature. So, that this perception is taken in regards to my work is a source of embarrassment to me, however I know that this is inaccurate. I did not slave over this; I have a life. I started this thing over 1.5 years ago. I would work on it when I was being driven somewhere in the car, when I got some free time, or when I could spend a day or two off from everything else. I chose my words carefully. I did not sit there and try to make them sound "fancy" because I know how stupid that sounds. But then I read Erasmus for example, and I'm just struck by how ingenious the use of language is. Not just words, but constructions. I profess: I will likely never be that good a writing, nor do I think I am the best writer as I stand. But I just spent more time perfecting sentences that a better writer would have needed to. So you can attack SC on that account, but until you've read the entire thing and can find an instance where I used an unnecessarily verbose word (btw I'm sure you could, a few times), then I'm not very interested in entertaining that discussion. But your complaint is heard and I have a completely open mind. [/quote] That addresses dibbs089, Wolverfrog's only subsequent post, serpx's first post, and serpx's second post. To clarify, I had no intent but to communicate my ideas to as many people as possible without sacrificing detail and meaning of what I am to say. Again, I apologize if I ever used a word that was overly verbose with no purpose. E.g., "way", "method", and "methodology" are all used in my OP. They mean generally the same thing, but carry different connotations. My post was not intended to be unread by the "hoi polloi". Theoretically, I want as many people to understand my point as possible. But not at the expense of my point itself. Snakie; I am happy to see you still check back to this forum. You are without question one of the most knowledgeable persons on the Halo Canon I have ever known of on this website. I've always enjoyed reading your theories. It pains me to hear you make statements about how "Halo" is going downhill and how you are "bailing the Halo bandwagon". If that is so, then it is not canon! (By the way, I agree about 343 and the general negative direction canonical [i]revelation[/i] seems to be taking) Can you explain to me, in your view, why you let others change your view of the Halo Canon? I'm pretty sure I addressed all aspects your logic (or as much as I have read/been able to foresee) in the document, but that's no good if you haven't read it. If I had to pick one person to understand my point as conveyed in my OP, it very well may be you. Please read it; this is not the constitution of a bloody nation, it is a "constitution" that defines the nation that isn't bloody, and separates that nation from what it is now confused to be. And also, don't sweat it; I take no offense. I would rather you be honest and blunt than reserved and dishonest. But I do think I achieved my goal of a succinct and concise summary: 17k words is a lot, but it is not a lot compared to the scope and magnitude of the topic of Canon policy. It seems that I've just "compressed" this potential information into a language so "implicit" (read ii. "Idealism and Implicitness" to understand what I mean here) that people are unwilling to expend the intelligence to "decompress" it - a theoretical concept that I applied to this canon policy in the discussion. anton1792, I appreciate your specific and relevant objections. I'll respond to all of them: [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] anton1792 The problem with picking and choosing canon at any rate is that you will end up with holes all over the place. Let us say that some new canon piece comes out that is a farce, and we discard it as such. What would then happen if another piece came out afterwards, based upon that last piece, that actually was fantastic? If you have already covered that then I am sorry, but I cannot remember everything from the OP at once[/quote] I believe this was covered, but I do not believe this specific objection was ever raised, rather its disproven nature follows from lower level concepts scattered about that would lead to an ultimate understanding of this area - the assimilation of which I understand is difficult because of the great length and limitations of human memory - so I will try to break this down. Your contrast of the words "farce" and "fantastic" implies the judgment following from quality of the canonical manifestation. Certainly, quality is usually a good indicating factor that can shed light on questions of canonicity. But it is not absolute. For instance, the visual complexity and realism of a scene rendered in the Halo 3 engine is (without any argument I know of, or I would have selected a different example) far superior and higher quality than that of Halo 1. However, they are obviously both canonical. Really I'd need you to be a bit more detailed, but from what I can tell from your usage of the phrase "pick and chose canon", you seem to get the impression that I'm saying whatever you think is best, whatever floats your boat - that is canon. Not necessarily; I'm just trying to say that there is an absolute and True "Halo Canon" that goes to the word "Halo" (review "Question of Identity"). Not all canonical artifacts may evince this Idealism as well as each other. So, in that sense, if something is a "farse", then it is just acanonical. But something can't be great ("fantastic") and still be Halo unless it is built off True Halo Canon. Therefore, there cannot be True Halo Canon that is based off of True Halo Canon and a "farse" (not of quality, but of acanonicity). That's largely a tautological factual exercise. Where the question lies is how one determines if something is a "farse" or not. You bring up a good point: if something is a "farce" (acanonical), and something else acknowledges that "farce" (acanonicity), then they can't be canon. You just have to figure it out on a case-by-case basis, and perhaps you can never be 100% sure outside of the Trilogy. Let me know if this does not answer your question. [quote]That is unjustified. Come on. Bungie have said that one day they may wish to return to Halo. I believe that is the reason for including this Legendary difficulty material. Of course, one may say that Bungie were forced to say that, but there is no proof. At best that takes its place alongside other conspiracy nutjobs like the Illuminati.[/quote] Perhaps; I did not say it forthright as a matter of certainty, but as one of possibility. Granted, there is no proof, only intuition. Therefore I acquiesce in this instance.

The problem with picking and choosing canon at any rate is that you will end up with holes all over the place. Let us say that some new canon piece comes out that is a farce, and we discard it as such. What would then happen if another piece came out afterwards, based upon that last piece, that actually was fantastic? If you have already covered that then I am sorry, but I cannot remember everything from the OP at once. [quote][/quote] [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv Anticonfectism cites this ending having calibrated an interactive quality of the canonical manifestation to its fourth and highest difficulty, thereby exposing an entirely different or additional canon that indicates its continuation after the Halo Trilogy. Although not essential to this canon policy, the most basic understanding of this policy, in my opinion, makes clear the acanonicity and uselessness of this graphic, which I shall call the Image of Straw. [u]It is possible that the Denigrators enforced their heavy, overbearing hand by legal threats to Bungie, an impingement selfishly mandating the inclusion of this Image of Straw that frees space in which for them to publish subsequent canonical bodies of blasphemy while claiming compatibility with the Halo Trilogy for their agendas of greed and avarice.[/u][/quote] That is unjustified. Come on. Bungie have said that one day they may wish to return to Halo. I believe that is the reason for including this Legendary difficulty material. Of course, one may say that Bungie were forced to say that, but there is no proof. At best that takes its place alongside other conspiracy nutjobs like the Illuminati.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wolverfrog I've discovered better science fiction universes to captivate my imagination.[/quote]Blasphemy.