Really, dude? FFS, I knew it was being used as a distraction to talk about me versus talking about the facts, but I didn't expect someone to go as low as actually looking, but then pretending one item was all that was in the thread as a personal attack vector.
Ugh. Fine.
As I note in the thread:
"Note that "attention" usually just refers to being cited as a reference or footnote, I think, rather than anything more specific, unless otherwise noted. Still cool, though."
The list includes the journals Extrapolations, purportedly the original journal for academic study of science fiction, the Journal of Cinema and Media Studies (with note "For a detailed overview on the canon wars {...}", which also appeared in a book from Amsterdam University Press "Star Wars and the History of Transmedia Storytelling", the amusingly-Neryk-list-esque Journal of Fandom Studies, and as a reference specifically on Star Trek canon from some large book's appendix I have yet to uncover published on the MIT site.
So, as I said, my work on Trek and Wars canon policies is referenced in scholarly journals. I have not dug much further to see if it shows up anywhere else in that regard, but then there are many links and references on various boards and discussion forums where my work is also referenced and quoted, so the search parameters matter.
So there. Now, how about something other than eyerolls on the actual topic of the thread? Or should I take the efforts at distraction as evidence of concession?
