[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] OrderedComa [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] OrderedComa Halopedia's canon policy will be more reliable than how the vast majority of people rank canon, as they based their policy on the set of priorities for canon than Joe Staten, I think it was, laid out quite a while ago.[/quote] Halopedia's canon policy is structured to document the purported canon in the eyes of a consumer entirely obedient to the financial and legal whims of 343 Industries. This is insufficient because it does that ensure that the objective and ultimate standard of what True Halo Canon is - is met. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] OrderedComa And what the heck are you even talking about? If any information revealed comes from a source of Bungie/343i approved canon, then everything stated within that work is completely canon unless they go back and change it. The fans and Halo community at large have no input on what is or is not canon whatsoever. Only Bungie, now 343i since the reigns have officially been passed on, can decide on matter of canon, and like it or not, whatever they says is the official information. If they decided to change everything in the contemporary Halo era (IE Chief and all the events leading directly up to Halo 3) to be a vision of the future that Bornstellar/Didact has, then that would the official canon.[/quote] I have replied to this objection countless times. I am tempted to link to you those times, or just copy and paste, but I will attempt to explain this again. You are telling me that "whatever they say, goes". That is great for them. They have every right to put forward a reportedly fictitious story - an account of events. But to assign the name of the Halo Canon to it ascribes those events to a standard that is objective, concrete, and absolute. Bungie has very accurately found and conveyed that absolute standard in the Halo Trilogy. This is wonderful because it gives us a visible anchor with which to measure more questionable canonical artifacts. Certainly, I would doubt the canonicity of certain parts of recent canonical publications, such as from 343. That is not to say that they are entirely acanonical, but rather that the true parts are so indiscernible from the fragments of low-quality work and poor revelation of True Halo Canon so as to be made a potpourri of randomness. It is next to useless since one cannot tell which remains in the same universe as that of the Halo Trilogy and what deviates, at least for certain 100% of the time. A better knowledge and understanding of true canon leads me to a "know it when you see it" type of situation. But the Halo Canon is not dictated by anybody - it is only found and revealed. Bungie did a near-perfect job with that in the original Trilogy which is coequal with the definition of Halo, though more recent artifacts have strayed from that standard. Yet they still call themselves "Halo", which is angering and "blasphemous" in a way; although it can't change what Halo Canon is, it does mislead people into believing the Halo canon to be something it is not, something inferior. I am no supporter of "whichever is better, go with it". I say that whichever is true to the Halo story, go with it. In the end, they will be the same, but one is cause, and another is correlation. There is a big difference. So, in a word, feel free to follow whatever you are told from the official business people with IP rights over the franchisal manifestation of a few parts of the Halo Canon. But please use the intelligence I know you have to discern between their canon and that of the True Halo Canon. They will intersect and diverge at various points, and if I had to generalize recent patterns, it seems abundantly clear to me that divergence from the true Halo Canon is far more common than congruency - especially with 343 at the helm.[/quote] So what you are saying is that canon is completely subjective and that individuals can choose to believe whatever they want, regardless of what the holders of the IP, the ones who [i]make[/i] the story? I'm sorry, but you're completely crazy. The "True Halo Canon" as you put it is [i][b]ANYTHING[/b][/i] that the holder of the IP, in this case 343i right now, says is part of the story. You seem to be one of those people who thinks the [i]entire[/i] Halo story should revolve around the events of the Trilogy and that if anything doesn't have any direct connections to it that story is either subpar or not even part of Halo's story at all. I hate to tell you this buddy, but while the events of the Trilogy are indeed quite significant, the Halo story does not revolve around it. Halo's story is one large expanding universe and every piece of media is an important piece to the Halo Puzzle and each develops a subset of the vast Halo Universe. If the fans are the ones who decide the canonnity of Halo, then what is the point of even having the story to begin with? There would be absolutely no story as almost no one would agree on what stories, or what details within the stories are part of the true canon. [i]That[/i] is why the developer of the story are the ones who hold power over the canon, without a supreme power over the fictionional universe molding and shaping it and deciding what is truth to the story and what is fallacy everything would fall to pieces and there would no longer even [i]be[/i] a story any more![/quote] I absolutely DO NOT think that the canon is subjective and that individuals can pick and choose what they like. That you call me crazy seems a bit out of line since I described the absolute standard of the Halo Canon as an objective thing. Perhaps you are confused by the meaning of the word "subjective". The Halo Canon is not determined by the fans, but it is not determined by some guy working for Microsoft either. It is found by us and conveyed by means of Bungie, etc. You say that is stupid because the information of the story was conceived of mentally by the developer's writers. Let's assume this is true. It still has no impact on what I am saying. A story is an imaginative thing; you can imagine as many stories as you like. Therefore, a video game or book or whatnot (what I refer to as a canonical "manifestation" or "artifact") is a means of representing, displaying, and conveying some imaginable story. Since a story is an imaginable unit there are an infinite number of them. There's no limit as to how many you could imagine because you can just add more information or change existing parts infinitesimally. If all you people with the mentality of "new new new" enjoy all this crap from 343 and Legends and so forth, go ahead and float your own boat. I'm not here for the fun, but if you are, sure: go ahead if you want to. But it is not "Halo" - it is a different thing. There are obviously similarities between the True Canon and what I deem to be the false canon, e.g., the characters, themes, places, and names are similar, but that does not constitute mere identity. Now the greatest thing having been painted by a canonical manifestation when taken as a part and not a whole is the Halo Trilogy and its essence of purity. This is either a matter of faith or of sufficient experience and study of the said artifact to accept surely. Since "false" artifacts would not belong to the same universe as this Halo Trilogy, or be as great as the Halo Trilogy, they are not a part of the same canon. You can call it whatever you want and that won't change the contents, but it is certainly fair that the word "Halo" is reserved for that canon represented by the Halo Trilogy, because that was its first usage and would be a reservation that prevents people from being mislead into thinking that the originally named "Halo Canon" is more inferior than it is - which would be a reasonable conclusion if one considered the common acanonical garbage of this age. Your "I hate to tell you this buddy" sentence and following assertions seem to be mere unsubstantiated, declarative sentences. I should point out that the Halo Universe doesn't expand - the Halo Universe is conceptually whatever it is in its full detail. What expands are our representations of this universe of infinite detail. You say that nobody will be able to agree. That is not true - the more educated in True Canon will be able to discern where and when it is and isn't shown. I have discussed that ad nauseum in the past. In fact, I have addressed your arguments and many more that you haven't even thought of against this in a much more comprehensive way in the past. I just hope my simplification and repackaging of my arguments to suit realistic time constraints hasn't left out any relevant information and thereby prevented you from reading this reply refreshed and educated about what I was trying to say. [Edited on 05.09.2011 12:14 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] OrderedComa Halopedia's canon policy will be more reliable than how the vast majority of people rank canon, as they based their policy on the set of priorities for canon than Joe Staten, I think it was, laid out quite a while ago.[/quote] Halopedia's canon policy is structured to document the purported canon in the eyes of a consumer entirely obedient to the financial and legal whims of 343 Industries. This is insufficient because it does that ensure that the objective and ultimate standard of what True Halo Canon is - is met. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] OrderedComa And what the heck are you even talking about? If any information revealed comes from a source of Bungie/343i approved canon, then everything stated within that work is completely canon unless they go back and change it. The fans and Halo community at large have no input on what is or is not canon whatsoever. Only Bungie, now 343i since the reigns have officially been passed on, can decide on matter of canon, and like it or not, whatever they says is the official information. If they decided to change everything in the contemporary Halo era (IE Chief and all the events leading directly up to Halo 3) to be a vision of the future that Bornstellar/Didact has, then that would the official canon.[/quote] I have replied to this objection countless times. I am tempted to link to you those times, or just copy and paste, but I will attempt to explain this again. You are telling me that "whatever they say, goes". That is great for them. They have every right to put forward a reportedly fictitious story - an account of events. But to assign the name of the Halo Canon to it ascribes those events to a standard that is objective, concrete, and absolute. Bungie has very accurately found and conveyed that absolute standard in the Halo Trilogy. This is wonderful because it gives us a visible anchor with which to measure more questionable canonical artifacts. Certainly, I would doubt the canonicity of certain parts of recent canonical publications, such as from 343. That is not to say that they are entirely acanonical, but rather that the true parts are so indiscernible from the fragments of low-quality work and poor revelation of True Halo Canon so as to be made a potpourri of randomness. It is next to useless since one cannot tell which remains in the same universe as that of the Halo Trilogy and what deviates, at least for certain 100% of the time. A better knowledge and understanding of true canon leads me to a "know it when you see it" type of situation. But the Halo Canon is not dictated by anybody - it is only found and revealed. Bungie did a near-perfect job with that in the original Trilogy which is coequal with the definition of Halo, though more recent artifacts have strayed from that standard. Yet they still call themselves "Halo", which is angering and "blasphemous" in a way; although it can't change what Halo Canon is, it does mislead people into believing the Halo canon to be something it is not, something inferior. I am no supporter of "whichever is better, go with it". I say that whichever is true to the Halo story, go with it. In the end, they will be the same, but one is cause, and another is correlation. There is a big difference. So, in a word, feel free to follow whatever you are told from the official business people with IP rights over the franchisal manifestation of a few parts of the Halo Canon. But please use the intelligence I know you have to discern between their canon and that of the True Halo Canon. They will intersect and diverge at various points, and if I had to generalize recent patterns, it seems abundantly clear to me that divergence from the true Halo Canon is far more common than congruency - especially with 343 at the helm.[/quote] So what you are saying is that canon is completely subjective and that individuals can choose to believe whatever they want, regardless of what the holders of the IP, the ones who [i]make[/i] the story? I'm sorry, but you're completely crazy. The "True Halo Canon" as you put it is [i][b]ANYTHING[/b][/i] that the holder of the IP, in this case 343i right now, says is part of the story. You seem to be one of those people who thinks the [i]entire[/i] Halo story should revolve around the events of the Trilogy and that if anything doesn't have any direct connections to it that story is either subpar or not even part of Halo's story at all. I hate to tell you this buddy, but while the events of the Trilogy are indeed quite significant, the Halo story does not revolve around it. Halo's story is one large expanding universe and every piece of media is an important piece to the Halo Puzzle and each develops a subset of the vast Halo Universe. If the fans are the ones who decide the canonnity of Halo, then what is the point of even having the story to begin with? There would be absolutely no story as almost no one would agree on what stories, or what details within the stories are part of the true canon. [i]That[/i] is why the developer of the story are the ones who hold power over the canon, without a supreme power over the fictionional universe molding and shaping it and deciding what is truth to the story and what is fallacy everything would fall to pieces and there would no longer even [i]be[/i] a story any more!

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] OrderedComa Halopedia's canon policy will be more reliable than how the vast majority of people rank canon, as they based their policy on the set of priorities for canon than Joe Staten, I think it was, laid out quite a while ago.[/quote] Halopedia's canon policy is structured to document the purported canon in the eyes of a consumer entirely obedient to the financial and legal whims of 343 Industries. This is insufficient because it does that ensure that the objective and ultimate standard of what True Halo Canon is - is met. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] OrderedComa And what the heck are you even talking about? If any information revealed comes from a source of Bungie/343i approved canon, then everything stated within that work is completely canon unless they go back and change it. The fans and Halo community at large have no input on what is or is not canon whatsoever. Only Bungie, now 343i since the reigns have officially been passed on, can decide on matter of canon, and like it or not, whatever they says is the official information. If they decided to change everything in the contemporary Halo era (IE Chief and all the events leading directly up to Halo 3) to be a vision of the future that Bornstellar/Didact has, then that would the official canon.[/quote] I have replied to this objection countless times. I am tempted to link to you those times, or just copy and paste, but I will attempt to explain this again. You are telling me that "whatever they say, goes". That is great for them. They have every right to put forward a reportedly fictitious story - an account of events. But to assign the name of the Halo Canon to it ascribes those events to a standard that is objective, concrete, and absolute. Bungie has very accurately found and conveyed that absolute standard in the Halo Trilogy. This is wonderful because it gives us a visible anchor with which to measure more questionable canonical artifacts. Certainly, I would doubt the canonicity of certain parts of recent canonical publications, such as from 343. That is not to say that they are entirely acanonical, but rather that the true parts are so indiscernible from the fragments of low-quality work and poor revelation of True Halo Canon so as to be made a potpourri of randomness. It is next to useless since one cannot tell which remains in the same universe as that of the Halo Trilogy and what deviates, at least for certain 100% of the time. A better knowledge and understanding of true canon leads me to a "know it when you see it" type of situation. But the Halo Canon is not dictated by anybody - it is only found and revealed. Bungie did a near-perfect job with that in the original Trilogy which is coequal with the definition of Halo, though more recent artifacts have strayed from that standard. Yet they still call themselves "Halo", which is angering and "blasphemous" in a way; although it can't change what Halo Canon is, it does mislead people into believing the Halo canon to be something it is not, something inferior. I am no supporter of "whichever is better, go with it". I say that whichever is true to the Halo story, go with it. In the end, they will be the same, but one is cause, and another is correlation. There is a big difference. So, in a word, feel free to follow whatever you are told from the official business people with IP rights over the franchisal manifestation of a few parts of the Halo Canon. But please use the intelligence I know you have to discern between their canon and that of the True Halo Canon. They will intersect and diverge at various points, and if I had to generalize recent patterns, it seems abundantly clear to me that divergence from the true Halo Canon is far more common than congruency - especially with 343 at the helm. [Edited on 05.06.2011 8:34 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Ender Ghost Whos to say halo 3 is cannon?[/quote] That's a rhetorical question right? >_>

Whos to say halo 3 is cannon?

You're acting as if I'm not convinced and/or have not found out already that in fact, yes, all of its crazy, universe-breaking, enlightment-of-the-Halo-era stories are canon. [Edited on 05.06.2011 8:43 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MAXPWN197 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MAXPWN197 says the rules of canon!!!!!!!!!!! [url=http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=33630397]Bungies guide to Halo Canon[/url] Halo Cryptum being the newest book in the halo franchise is placed between halo wars and halo legends on the list in the post, and as for who says its canon? well 343i says it's canon, anything halo related has to pass by their creative director Frank O'Connor who is a former Bungie employee. so stop having a fit over the shocking revelation and deal with it. [/quote] You are absolutely wrong; that thread is NOT "Bungie's" guide to canon, it is some fan's guide to canon. There is nothing official about it and the hierarchy he proposed is, I must respectfully and quite gently say, severely flawed. There are natural laws as to what is Canon and what isn't, and you are clearly ignorant of them. Would you mind to inform me of these "Rules of Canon" you mention? I have never seen such a thing, other than my own personal rules.[/quote] halopedian gives this link as one of the references for there official canon policy page. [url]http://www.halopedian.com/Halopedia:Canon_Policy[/url][/quote] So what? What does that prove? I could link you to [url=http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=55889922]my canon policy[/url] that [i]doesn't[/i] mention this kid's narrow-view of canon: that fact alone does not disprove anything. I do not see why people perceive Halopedia as a god. It is a fan endeavor, just as this thread is a fan endeavor. You need to sit back, look at everything, and research what is meant by "canon". I've already figured it out, but I've painfully learned that this forum seems not to harbor the intellectual capacity or interest in listening or, better yet, figuring out for themselves, which is evidenced by a whole host of replies in this thread. There is almost certainly true canon revealed in Halo Cryptum, but it is not certain where it lies or if the majority of all minute canonical modica are true. You need to have both the proper process and canonical background to carry out a sensible analysis of canonicity. What "they say" is, I concede, sometimes of relevance, but is absolutely not an issued ultimatum on canon.[/quote] Halopedia's canon policy will be more reliable than how the vast majority of people rank canon, as they based their policy on the set of priorities for canon than Joe Staten, I think it was, laid out quite a while ago. And what the heck are you even talking about? If any information revealed comes from a source of Bungie/343i approved canon, then everything stated within that work is completely canon unless they go back and change it. The fans and Halo community at large have no input on what is or is not canon whatsoever. Only Bungie, now 343i since the reigns have officially been passed on, can decide on matter of canon, and like it or not, whatever they says is the official information. If they decided to change everything in the contemporary Halo era (IE Chief and all the events leading directly up to Halo 3) to be a vision of the future that Bornstellar/Didact has, then that would the official canon.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MAXPWN197 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MAXPWN197 says the rules of canon!!!!!!!!!!! [url=http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=33630397]Bungies guide to Halo Canon[/url] Halo Cryptum being the newest book in the halo franchise is placed between halo wars and halo legends on the list in the post, and as for who says its canon? well 343i says it's canon, anything halo related has to pass by their creative director Frank O'Connor who is a former Bungie employee. so stop having a fit over the shocking revelation and deal with it. [/quote] You are absolutely wrong; that thread is NOT "Bungie's" guide to canon, it is some fan's guide to canon. There is nothing official about it and the hierarchy he proposed is, I must respectfully and quite gently say, severely flawed. There are natural laws as to what is Canon and what isn't, and you are clearly ignorant of them. Would you mind to inform me of these "Rules of Canon" you mention? I have never seen such a thing, other than my own personal rules.[/quote] halopedian gives this link as one of the references for there official canon policy page. [url]http://www.halopedian.com/Halopedia:Canon_Policy[/url][/quote] So what? What does that prove? I could link you to [url=http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=55889922]my canon policy[/url] that [i]doesn't[/i] mention this kid's narrow-view of canon: that fact alone does not disprove anything. I do not see why people perceive Halopedia as a god. It is a fan endeavor, just as this thread is a fan endeavor. You need to sit back, look at everything, and research what is meant by "canon". I've already figured it out, but I've painfully learned that this forum seems not to harbor the intellectual capacity or interest in listening or, better yet, figuring out for themselves, which is evidenced by a whole host of replies in this thread. There is almost certainly true canon revealed in Halo Cryptum, but it is not certain where it lies or if the majority of all minute canonical modica are true. You need to have both the proper process and canonical background to carry out a sensible analysis of canonicity. What "they say" is, I concede, sometimes of relevance, but is absolutely not an issued ultimatum on canon.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dustin 6047 I think they should have had a little more build up on a few of its big topics, such as: Precursors, Ancient Humanity, Human-Forerunner war, Human-San 'Shyumm allience, etc.[/quote] Well remember, this is only the first book, there are two more coming out at point in the nearer future. I am sure that we will discover a [i]lot[/i] more about both the information given in Cryptum and what is still left a mystery from older materials.

I think they should have had a little more build up on a few of its big topics, such as: Precursors, Ancient Humanity, Human-Forerunner war, Human-San 'Shyumm allience, etc.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Monkeybarsixx I don't think so.[/quote]It is.

I don't think so.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dustin 6047 I meant finding this year-old thread in the forum pages.[/quote] I'm the one who resurrected this corpse I believe :P It wasn't that hard to find, I just clicked back through the forums looking for stuff I wanted to post in, and I found this one and it wasn't locked, so yeah :/

I meant finding this year-old thread in the forum pages. [Edited on 04.26.2011 2:29 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dustin 6047 That's great, but still I made that last year and not to be rude and I'm glad you're contributing, but I already have seen that in fact, yes, it is all true.[/quote] Bring what up? Seriously, I feel like I'm only getting half of a converation, game can you please tell me what you are refering to?

That's great, but still I made that last year and not to be rude and I'm glad you're contributing, but I already have seen that in fact, yes, it is all true.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dustin 6047 How did you manage to bring this up? I made this I think in 2010.[/quote] Wait, are you replying to me? I can't tell if you are, if so, my comment wasn't directed at anybody in particular. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] StealthSlasher2 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MAXPWN197 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MAXPWN197 says the rules of canon!!!!!!!!!!! [url=http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=33630397]Bungies guide to Halo Canon[/url] Halo Cryptum being the newest book in the halo franchise is placed between halo wars and halo legends on the list in the post, and as for who says its canon? well 343i says it's canon, anything halo related has to pass by their creative director Frank O'Connor who is a former Bungie employee. so stop having a fit over the shocking revelation and deal with it. [/quote] You are absolutely wrong; that thread is NOT "Bungie's" guide to canon, it is some fan's guide to canon. There is nothing official about it and the hierarchy he proposed is, I must respectfully and quite gently say, severely flawed. There are natural laws as to what is Canon and what isn't, and you are clearly ignorant of them. Would you mind to inform me of these "Rules of Canon" you mention? I have never seen such a thing, other than my own personal rules.[/quote] halopedian gives this link as one of the references for there official canon policy page. [url]http://www.halopedian.com/Halopedia:Canon_Policy[/url][/quote] -sigh- this is exactly why I hate halopedia... Halo wiki, Halopedia, Halopedian. Whatever it calls itself now a days is not an official canon source in of itself and never has been. They have no authority or say as to what is considered canon let alone where things should be ranked. Joseph Staten's rule about the new official things becoming the new gold standard if it contradicts old still stands (and in effect still applies to whatever 343i churns out now whether it be book or game as they are now the ones holding the Halo reigns), fan made Halo wikis hardly have the authority to validate things as official or lend credence to anything for that matter simply because they cite it. Whatever they cite would have to be an official source of itself first and second off which many fail to pay attention closely to is that said source should be specifically quoted. Edit: For example on the canon policy page itself look at the citation for number 4. What is that supposed to mean exactly in terms of validating a point when all it says is "editor's notes"?[/quote] Like any wiki, the Halo wiki (now halopedian) IS a good source if you can find the place in canon a parituclar section is sourced from. Don't post "I read in halopedian..." Go to that page, check the citations, find the one that applies to that statement, and post: "I read in page X of X novel that..." Futhermore, citation 4 says the editors notes of the GRAPHIC NOVEL, IE: in the graphic novel. A canonical work. [Edited on 04.26.2011 2:24 PM PDT]

How did you manage to bring this up? I made this I think in 2010.

I thought Cryptum was well written, and canonically brillant. It actually explains a lot, and does not break anything other than the terminals, and even then there's still ways it may not be doing so. If you actually read the re-prints, as opposed to blaming 343 for everything, you'd see how the little bonus stories, and halselys jounral explain nearly all canon breaks 343 has made.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] gamedude234 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dustin 6047 They attacked a Forerunner world under fear the flood would attack Earth and destroy their race, so they lost trying to steel their planet and the Forerunners gave them their punishment, they were de-evolved back to cavemen.[/quote] actually, ancient humanity's homeworld was Charum Hakkor. [/quote] Actually the Forerunners didn't really know what Humanities homeworld was, they thought that it was Erde-Tyrene (aka Earth). Charum Hakkor was [i]not[/i] Humanities' homeworld, it was merely an important base of operations, similar to what Reach was for later humanity. IIRC, the Forerunners seemed to think that Charum Hakkor was the Precursor's homeworld, or a place of significance to them at least.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Toa Freak [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] gamedude234 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dustin 6047 They attacked a Forerunner world under fear the flood would attack Earth and destroy their race, so they lost trying to steel their planet and the Forerunners gave them their punishment, they were de-evolved back to cavemen.[/quote] actually, ancient humanity's homeworld was Charum Hakkor. [/quote]Charum Hakkor wasn't the homeworld, it was a base of operations, chosen as such because it contain Precursor tech, something the Forerunners valued above all else.[/quote] Yeah, Charum hakkor was like their version of Reach.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] gamedude234 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dustin 6047 They attacked a Forerunner world under fear the flood would attack Earth and destroy their race, so they lost trying to steel their planet and the Forerunners gave them their punishment, they were de-evolved back to cavemen.[/quote] actually, ancient humanity's homeworld was Charum Hakkor. [/quote]Charum Hakkor wasn't the homeworld, it was a base of operations, chosen as such because it contain Precursor tech, something the Forerunners valued above all else.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dustin 6047 They attacked a Forerunner world under fear the flood would attack Earth and destroy their race, so they lost trying to steel their planet and the Forerunners gave them their punishment, they were de-evolved back to cavemen.[/quote] actually, ancient humanity's homeworld was Charum Hakkor.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] That Atheist [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wolverfrog I don't understand why the humans didn't just ask the Forerunners for help against the Flood. The Didact says that the Forerunners didn't even know about the Flood until after defeating the humans, which I find hard to believe. It was probably an ONI cover-up. Even ancient humanity had ONI to cover everything up.[/quote] I hear that humanity and the forerunners weren't on the best of terms with one another. [/quote] true. They absolutely hated each other. Humanity thought the forerunners as the "spoiled brat" of the galaxy, taking all the technology for themselves, while the Forerunners viewed Humanity as arrogant, greedy, and not caring about anyone apart from themselves.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wolverfrog ...I was joking, you utter tool. [/quote] Carlsberg don't make insults, but if they did, they would probably be the best insults in the world.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wolverfrog [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] red alert447 Ooh, so you were joking. more like "oh no, i was wrong, got to find an excuse quick"[/quote] Urgh, you obviously don't know me. I would have to be deluded to believe ONI existed in the time of the ancient human empire. The fact that you can't grasp the fact that it was a joke is, quite frankly, astounding. I've written three popular fan fictions set in the Halo universe, finished two of them, one totaling nearly 400 pages, and I've written multiple theories in this forum too. I know a heck of a lot more than you do about the Halo universe, and unless you're trolling, I can bloody guarantee that I'm a lot more intelligent than your abysmally witted self too.[/quote] On that topic, when is the next chapter on True (I can't spell the covenant name for elites) coming out? I really like the story, probably me favorite of all of you're works.