I'm petty because I'm responding to you taking offense at something I didn't do?
No, you're petty because you posted 'lolfailedit' in the first place.
Just because I don't reference having five fingers all the time, doesn't mean I don't. And I didn't say it was less authoritative, now did I? I said it implies COLW isn't canon. Big difference.
Not really, since you have yet to explain any of the logic underlying your stance.
Yes, because ONE Ultimania appearance just isn't good enough. The first one tooootally didn't count.
Apparently not, since DoC, CC, and COLW said 'no' to it.
Okay, I'll amend it to "you can argue that but it's pretty ridiculous to do so, like arguing that penguins are the world's most capable nuclear physicists".
And you'll be backing up the ridiculousness of such in a non-strawman any day now, I bet.
They also don't mention whether or not Cloud likes to breathe. Does that mean that's not part of the continuity, either? You're using the same fallacious logic here.
No, because you're creating a strawman of both my argument and the basic narrative process. Complete disregard in this case means more than 'don't mention it', but includes 'ignores or contradicts things it was supposed to have established' which the rest of the compilation quite does.
It's important because it's not true?
Last Order is important DESPITE its discontinuity. Not because of it. That is my stance, since even as and after it is cut from the timeline, it is included in character profiles for its impact on characters.
Aerith tells Zack that he's not shy and awkward like Cloud. Then Zack says, "Is that what you liked" and Aerith says "After five years, things change." Which is subtly saying that she's moved on from him, especially when a few lines later it says that she *was* attracted to him.
Alternately, it is affectionate teasing, which is how quite a lot of people read those lines back when we had no reason to consider the novella stricken from the record.
If it weren't one thirty in the morning and I could be arsed, I would. But it is, and this is my last post before bed, since I am woefully sleep deprived, so you'll have to take a rain check. But I will, dear. Believe it.
The usual expectations apply.
Pot, kettle, and black? So sorry I don't put up with bullshit personal sniping in something that's supposed to be a "debate" and hold you accountable to the standards of an adult conversation.
The irony. Oh, the irony.
And believe me, when I'm being condescending, it so much better than that.
I'll take your word on that one.
Same song and dance.
I notice you're not calling CC into question because it contradicts what's been expressly stated as canon, being as it is the original work?
If I was calling Maiden into question because it had errors with previous works, you might have an argument. Maiden is 'in question' because all the SUBSEQUENT works that disagree with it. Whatever canon status it may or may not have had, it no longer has.
Why's that? And one could make the argument that the events of the other works are contradicted by Maiden...but then that opens a "so you're saying the others aren't canon huh" can of worms that I'm not opening and is a pointless and stupid argument anyway. I'm just saying - Maiden is canon.
And I'm saying, your only argument for its canonicity seems to be that it was in Ultimania, and that you don't like Crisis Core.
Meanwhile, the counterargument that Maiden being part of continuity cannot exist with everything else we have been told after its publication- that much like Threshhold in Star Trek, it's been kicked out, and that like said episode, later released materials have renderred its revelations as 'unhappened.'
Who said I was hating? Please do me a favor and stop trying to put words in my mouth in order to manipulate the situation to give yourself a more favorable outlook. Soft-positional bargaining isn't going to work..
Firstly, dude, you are way overreacting to the sarcastic commentary.
Secondly, I not you've chosen to respond to that commentary instead of the point, that of you needing facts, and coherent logic, not pure dismissiveness, which is all you've as yet provided.
Thirdly, again, your selective response and trying to lecture me on favorable outlook, the irony is palpable.
Ummm...no. It either happens or it doesn't. It can't "kinda happen".
I did not say that. I said there is such a thing as more and less canon. G-canon events are more canon than C-canon events. All G and C canon sources are canon, but if a C-canon event is ever in contradiction with G-canon, it must defer to the more canon source.
Because of its typical biblical connotations, canon is thought of often as being purely binary and inviolate, but in practice, canon, or more practically, continuity, is a constantly evolving entity, and sometimes, things get excised, and usually it's done not by press release, but by more subtle means, skipping over or contradicting it at repeated opportunities.
