That said, from a lurker's perspective it seems like the recent Vance and DSG2k argument mostly stems from their difference in definition of 'canon.' Vance regards canon as the materials created for use in creation of the show. DSG2k uses the CBS-Paramount definition of canon (those things said or shown on screen excepted the Animateds.) True?
I use the objective third-party canon as defined by the owners and creators of Star Trek, in which Star Trek, a television entertainment entity, has a continuity (its 'reality') defined by the televised live-action episodes.
In the final analysis, nothing else is Star Trek beyond that core narrative. The rest is simply licensed material or fan-fiction based on the Star Trek universe, using its names and images to tell disparate stories.
Because of past encounters with those who would seek to ignore Star Wars 'reality' if it counters their whims, I expended more than a little effort in deriving the correct interpretation of disparate statements on the Star Wars canon . . . this research culminated in an expansive page on the matter (presently housed at CanonWars), and my conclusions (shared by SW continuity experts such as Nathan Butler) have been proven correct by the statements of George Lucas and others over the past three or four years.
Not coincidentally, the same groups of folks I encountered who would seek to ignore Star Wars 'reality' also sought to ignore Star Trek 'reality'. And so it was that the same rigor and persistence was brought to bear on the Star Trek canon question. . . even down to tracing the ownership of Trek from Desilu to Paramount's various owners to the current split-stewardship mess. And thus was born a similarly expansive page at CanonWars, with my original research now being used by others interested in the topic.
Canon is neither bludgeon nor scalpel. It is not a weapon at all. It is the basis of discussion, an objective 'reality', the round table at which discussion begins.
By rejecting the concept of canon, one relegates the fans to an absence of fact, which is abhorrent to me. Further, seeing the concept of canon attacked by any means necessary is particularly offensive to me, not because it is the concept of canon being attacked but because of how the game's being played.
Seriously . . . we're all here typing away on TrekBBS. That basically means we are all riding the proverbial short bus. Is it really necessary to lie and obfuscate to try to get a better seat on the bus? It's not like the view's likely to get better.
I just don't tolerate that sort of thing very well. Intellectual dishonesty meant to muddy and cloud the clear waters of fact really pisses me off, and I do not have the patience to put up with it.
As I posted the last time I was at TrekBBS and anti-canonites started flipping out on me:
"We both agree that people can and should have their own subjective canon. However, the notion that fans should apply this subjective view in the company of other fans while discussing Trek is absurd. You participate in other forums . . . how many times have you seen threads degrade into discussions of canon? Can you even begin to count them?
Do you really think that's only a TrekBBS phenomenon? Do you really think that's only a Star Trek phenomenon?
And do you really think that there would be any improvement if there was no canon for people to fall back on? It would serve as an end to discussion. There are posters here at TrekBBS who reject much of the live-action Trek we've seen. How could you possibly have a thoughtful discussion with someone about, say, the Borg when you get some guy saying "well, I don't think they exist" or "they never came to the Federation, because I reject everything after "Q Who?"" or even "well, in my fanfic I established . . . "?
This is the very reason that religious groups, Sherlock Holmes fans, and a
whole lot of other fan groups and producers thereof trouble themselves to make canon policies to begin with. (The idea even appears in soap opera fan pages . . . a group more likely to be female than the male-centric list above.)
Now I agree that the idea of a canon policy . . . itself a uniting influence . . . can be taken too far when people seem bent on meddling with one's personal canon. However, I'm not attempting to meddle with your personal choices about what you want to accept. My purpose with the canon page and with my messages in this thread has been to clarify what that third-party uniting influence actually says we're uniting
towards.
And regarding my page, thanks to some subjectivists who believe what they want to believe while claiming they are speaking objectively, I'm having to be damned careful about it, too. That's the very reason I popped up in this thread to ask for clarification in the first place.
Your gross misunderstanding of me notwithstanding, I intend to continue pursuing that goal as I see fit."
Good day.
Most of us were willing to look at other ideas before you jumped in (I'm not even a strict 190,000 ton person... I'm still looking at the subject with an open mind).
I forget. 
