 | | Re: A couple stupid SW questions...
|
|
(...) in (...) WORTHLESS!?! Excuse me, but most all of it makes more sense than gas from beans :> I don't care how "Lucas" it is, it is just a helpful and usefull sorce of information that makes my teenie brain say, " Ah, how simple." Many books (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jun-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: A couple stupid SW questions...
|
|
(...) of (...) is (...) false (...) by (...) Oh for crying out loud. What I stated was the offical standpoint of Lucasfilm/Lucasarts. All it states is that if their is an argument information form any game is worthless as it is overridden by offical (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jun-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: A couple stupid SW questions...
|
|
(...) Star (...) and (...) computer (...) goof- (...) Good (...) information (...) Have they stated anything to contradict the Sourcebook information I added to discussion, or does it merely not get in the way of "canon"? If it does, please point (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jun-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: A couple stupid SW questions...
|
|
[snip] (...) step (...) important (...) [snip] (...) Well the sourcebook is contradictory to many things that are canon so I don't put much stock in it. However anything that is explained in it with no other explaination, could and arguably should (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jun-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
