glitterboy2098 wrote:
conversion book 1 revised did edit the BTS section to update it to the newer material. this was done by kevin himself. since he did edit the intro bit to BTS to bring it in line with the updated timeframe, he actually looked at that material while doing so. the fact that he did not change the bit about considering BTS to be the past of RIFTS earth.
You've no proof of that though. It's a direct cut and past, like 90% of the book. The 'new' material, is what I'd posted a while back where he lumps BTS in with 10 other games as being other dimensions. The part you're quoting is the same -exact- words and such as the book from before. Its not re-written. It's lifted in a click, drag, cut, and paste.
glitterboy2098 wrote:
he had the chance to change it, and he did not. every other time he has had a chance to change something from earlier that he no longer agreed with anymore (glitterboy slug velocity, glitterboy ammo amount, the MDC on many early units in rifts that was weak even for the time it was written, etc..) he had done so.
Not true. In the past we've seen cut and pastes from different game lines, lifted and plopped down in different books, complete with the same mistakes. It takes a second to cut and paste a collum. he's not re-reading it all and signing off on it line item like you seem to think. 90% of Conversion book 1 Revised is just cut and pasted. Is it reprinted? yeah, but that's like saying that reprints of older books are some how "again" refutingthings that appeared in later books, because they're reprints. It wasn't 'Re-written" it was cut and pasted.
had it been re-written (( like much of Source book 1 Revised, or Vamp Kingdoms Revised)) that's one thing. This is not. It's a page of "Cut and paste'.
glitterboy2098 wrote:
the fact that he had that chance, and left it as is indicates that he still considers that information to be canon.
*Shakes head* It indicates he's lazy and cut and pasted it. It COULD indicate "Hey I've written a three page reply on this topic. I'm not going to spend an hour rewriting this after I've already answered it.
As an aside.. how do you explain the three page answer in the rifter? A bad dream? you're acting like he never sat down, typed out an answer, and published a -direct answer- to this question. he did.
One line in a later book doesn't change that. How do you explain the rifter 2?
glitterboy2098 wrote:
as for triax 2, rifter 2 says vic is from another universe and not from rifts past. triax 2 says the opposite, that he is from Rifts past. that makes the rifter 2 detail no longer valid.
NO it DOESN"T.
Look I've explained this a number of times. There's MORE THAN ONE Victor. Like there's more than one G.W. Bush, and more than one Abe Lincon, in the three universes past. There's more than one America. More than one Russia. Ect ect ect. You don't seem to understand, the fact that there's a dude that was a parapsychologist in the past, doesn't make it BtS past.
Kevin --directly addressed this---.
glitterboy2098 wrote:
add in that megaverse builder establishes Heroes unlimited (the other rifter 2 element) as a completely different universe, with a completely seperate flow of time (to the point where 20th century HU exists at the same point as 25th century earth aka rifts), and a dimensional fabric (the "wall" between universes in the megaverse) being strong enough to make dimensional travel difficult.
which means the "merging" described in rifter 2 is unlikely, since that would imply time flowing at the same rate and a weaker dimensional fabric.
So Kevin wrote the thing in the rifter 2.... what... To lie? Your position is... as an official answer.. he lied.. but a cut and paste from before the -Official answer- makes the 3 page official answer a great deception?
*Shakes head* It's stupid. Why write the three page official answer if it's not what... he actually wanted? It's not like someone stood there with a g un and made him. That's actual -effort- to go to, to take time. Sit down, Write the answer, then make sure it's published.
Alot more effort than a cut and past he might not have read closely. Or one line in traix two, that has been repeatedly explained not to contradict the previous answer in any way.