How can a Word of God change all the time to fit current plot lines of a cartoon that's ended over 20 years ago?

 

"obstinence"???You miss judge me.

I just stand by my words.

And thats why anything a writer/creator says outside of the narrative isint canon.

For example, Geene Rodenberry was famous for changing his mind on what was canon and what wasnt almost on a daily bases'es.

Particularly over drinks.

This is why "canon" is defined by the facts from within the series.

 

My point is that a writer/creator can make any claim at any time. God, as in the writer, can just about add anything he wants, even 20 years after the fact.

Look twards Geen Rodenbery again.He claimed that at least 3 of the motion pictures arent canon because he doesnt feel it fits the plot he set forth.

Simple put, "if the creator wanted a certain fact to be canon that she/he should have included it in the work to begin with.

 

ITT: Aspergers. Aspergers everywhere.

 

Poor joke.

 

It wasn't a joke, it was an observation.

 

What ever it was it was in poor taste.

 

That makes you the only one in this thread who does, by all appearances. I even asked a random friend who has zero knowledge of this argument and even she heard "Cobra!". That in itself isn't proof, but it's amazing how you're the only one who seems to hear it that way.

I have showed you how. You merely fail to acknowledge despite all the proof everyone provides. There's a difference.

By your incessant demands for ridiculous levels of proof in just about any continuity-related thread you post in, including this one. When it comes to argumentation, you don't start with a conclusion and then dismiss or ignore evidence to the contrary just because it doesn't fit what you want to believe.

By that logic, there's no proof that A3 from Forever Is a Long Time Coming is Alpha Trion simply because it's never explicitly stated that he is (apart from a hallucination by Superion and the Aerialbots connecting the dots after Silverbolt makes an interesting observation).

It has no weaknesses. You're confusing my argument with yours.

Correction, Miss Judge: you stand by your words in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.

You're under the mistaken impression that denying evidence enough times will somehow invalidate it or that being stubborn and holding out until your opponent gives up trying to convince you otherwise somehow means you win a debate. That's simply not the case.

So, then, let's turn this argument around: what would you consider sufficient proof? What singular statement could any character have made that would completely convinced you that what we're all saying is right?

The Word of God can't change much if the production company went defunct over 12 years ago and the continuity in question hasn't been touched for nearly 23 years. In other words, this:

Red Herring. Star Trek canon decisions have zero relevance to Transformers canon decisions.

Also, Flint Dille was the story editor. One of his many duties was to make sure all the facts fit together and that continuity is maintained.

For some reason, this whole debate reminds me of the following anecdote:

 

No rudeness intended but, that means absulutly nothing.

Theres nothing amazing about it.

I conducted the same test here at home.

My wife and her father heard the "a"
My daughter and i did not.

Thats not proof either, but as a child I was told I had perfect pitch, True that has changed some in my old age.

You've shown me your opinion...nothing factual from within the narrative.

Thats the difference.

Keep in mind that this little debate of ours started when I said [paraphrased] "I dont feel "Only Human" did a great job of bridging the 2 universes.

I said it only contained vague evidence.Nothing you have provided changes that.

Now its true that their are degrees of "vagueness", meaning somethings can be more vague then others.

But, the only thing that can combat a vague item of evidence, from within the story, is a solid peace of evidence from within the story.

So asking for a solid peace of evidence is now considered "ridiculous"???

That just doesnt make any sence at all.The way I see it, trying to argue circumstantial evidence as "solid" is ridiculous.

It has nothing to do with what I want, its just the solid facts of the issue.

I'll give you an other "so called" fact I always dispute when I see it brought up.

Most consider it a "fact" thast Ironhide was shot in the head by Megatron.

Now its true that is what was implied....but in fact it was not shown so its not a fact that it happened.

Now thats not what I want, its just the real facts of the issue.

That wasnt a hallucination...that was a time shift.

But its true, theres no solid statement they are the same character...unless you consider the time shift proof.

Not in any way.

Pointing out spelling mistakes, and trying to imply that they weaken my argument is only showcasing a weakness in your argument.

I'm under no such impressions.

Simple fact is you havent provided and solid evidence from within the narrative.

EDIT:Can I make a suggestion??

How bout "we"..... refrain from trying to make personal judgment calls about the others style or motives and just stick to the issues of the debate.

Doing so adds noting to the converstation and is tad amount to insulting the other.

Old Snake finishing his battle cry [if Corbra was the intent] would have been enough for me.

Naming the organization he lead would have been enough.

Seems to me that the only intent the writer had was to be vague.

Thats not really true.

Any creator can make a statement, at any time.

Not the point.

How canon is measured is universal trew all fictions and franchises.

Cannon is what accrues within the story.What makes it to the final product, be it word/picture or action.

Canon is not the word of the creator or writer or artist, it is not the word of the director nor whats seen/read in the script or story boards.

Canon is not writer intent or anyones intent.

Canon is simple what is shown/heard in the final product.

I've always liked that story.

Really dont see much wrong with the teachers way of thinking.