in the bible they aren't canon
Quote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:35:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:35:21 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:34:32 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:34:11 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:32:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:32:23 PMActually if they draw from the original thread it can be considered canon, but it's not a "concrete rule" so to speak.This post isn't canon.Actually explaining if something is or isn't canon is always canon.That rule isn't canon.It was declared canon 30 years ago so it's canon for all of us under 30 years old.You can't declare something canon, that makes it non-canon.I didn't declare it. It was declared, and I'm exposing that it was declared canon so my post is canon because it pertains to the fact that I'm providing an explanation of what is and isn't canon.
Quote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:35:21 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:34:32 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:34:11 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:32:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:32:23 PMActually if they draw from the original thread it can be considered canon, but it's not a "concrete rule" so to speak.This post isn't canon.Actually explaining if something is or isn't canon is always canon.That rule isn't canon.It was declared canon 30 years ago so it's canon for all of us under 30 years old.You can't declare something canon, that makes it non-canon.
Quote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:34:32 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:34:11 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:32:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:32:23 PMActually if they draw from the original thread it can be considered canon, but it's not a "concrete rule" so to speak.This post isn't canon.Actually explaining if something is or isn't canon is always canon.That rule isn't canon.It was declared canon 30 years ago so it's canon for all of us under 30 years old.
Quote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:34:11 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:32:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:32:23 PMActually if they draw from the original thread it can be considered canon, but it's not a "concrete rule" so to speak.This post isn't canon.Actually explaining if something is or isn't canon is always canon.That rule isn't canon.
Quote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:32:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:32:23 PMActually if they draw from the original thread it can be considered canon, but it's not a "concrete rule" so to speak.This post isn't canon.Actually explaining if something is or isn't canon is always canon.
Quote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:32:23 PMActually if they draw from the original thread it can be considered canon, but it's not a "concrete rule" so to speak.This post isn't canon.
Actually if they draw from the original thread it can be considered canon, but it's not a "concrete rule" so to speak.
Quote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:38:47 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:37:29 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:35:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:35:21 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:34:32 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:34:11 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:32:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:32:23 PMActually if they draw from the original thread it can be considered canon, but it's not a "concrete rule" so to speak.This post isn't canon.Actually explaining if something is or isn't canon is always canon.That rule isn't canon.It was declared canon 30 years ago so it's canon for all of us under 30 years old.You can't declare something canon, that makes it non-canon.I didn't declare it. It was declared, and I'm exposing that it was declared canon so my post is canon because it pertains to the fact that I'm providing an explanation of what is and isn't canon.That isn't canon though, you can't make non-canon into canon. It cannot be changed. But that isn't canon either.It was already canon.
Quote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:37:29 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:35:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:35:21 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:34:32 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:34:11 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:32:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:32:23 PMActually if they draw from the original thread it can be considered canon, but it's not a "concrete rule" so to speak.This post isn't canon.Actually explaining if something is or isn't canon is always canon.That rule isn't canon.It was declared canon 30 years ago so it's canon for all of us under 30 years old.You can't declare something canon, that makes it non-canon.I didn't declare it. It was declared, and I'm exposing that it was declared canon so my post is canon because it pertains to the fact that I'm providing an explanation of what is and isn't canon.That isn't canon though, you can't make non-canon into canon. It cannot be changed. But that isn't canon either.
the one true God is Doctor Doom and we should all be worshiping him.
Quote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:39:56 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:39:25 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:38:47 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:37:29 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:35:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:35:21 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:34:32 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:34:11 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:32:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:32:23 PMActually if they draw from the original thread it can be considered canon, but it's not a "concrete rule" so to speak.This post isn't canon.Actually explaining if something is or isn't canon is always canon.That rule isn't canon.It was declared canon 30 years ago so it's canon for all of us under 30 years old.You can't declare something canon, that makes it non-canon.I didn't declare it. It was declared, and I'm exposing that it was declared canon so my post is canon because it pertains to the fact that I'm providing an explanation of what is and isn't canon.That isn't canon though, you can't make non-canon into canon. It cannot be changed. But that isn't canon either.It was already canon.It never was canon. This is canon.It always has been canon.
Quote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:39:25 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:38:47 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:37:29 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:35:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:35:21 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:34:32 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:34:11 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:32:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:32:23 PMActually if they draw from the original thread it can be considered canon, but it's not a "concrete rule" so to speak.This post isn't canon.Actually explaining if something is or isn't canon is always canon.That rule isn't canon.It was declared canon 30 years ago so it's canon for all of us under 30 years old.You can't declare something canon, that makes it non-canon.I didn't declare it. It was declared, and I'm exposing that it was declared canon so my post is canon because it pertains to the fact that I'm providing an explanation of what is and isn't canon.That isn't canon though, you can't make non-canon into canon. It cannot be changed. But that isn't canon either.It was already canon.It never was canon. This is canon.
scrafty isn't canon
Quote from: Ryle on December 01, 2014, 04:40:30 PMscrafty isn't canonno
Quote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:40:51 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:40:31 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:39:56 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:39:25 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:38:47 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:37:29 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:35:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:35:21 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:34:32 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:34:11 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:32:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:32:23 PMActually if they draw from the original thread it can be considered canon, but it's not a "concrete rule" so to speak.This post isn't canon.Actually explaining if something is or isn't canon is always canon.That rule isn't canon.It was declared canon 30 years ago so it's canon for all of us under 30 years old.You can't declare something canon, that makes it non-canon.I didn't declare it. It was declared, and I'm exposing that it was declared canon so my post is canon because it pertains to the fact that I'm providing an explanation of what is and isn't canon.That isn't canon though, you can't make non-canon into canon. It cannot be changed. But that isn't canon either.It was already canon.It never was canon. This is canon.It always has been canon.No, it never was canon.Yes it was.
Quote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:40:31 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:39:56 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:39:25 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:38:47 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:37:29 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:35:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:35:21 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:34:32 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:34:11 PMQuote from: Snow Digger on December 01, 2014, 04:32:52 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 01, 2014, 04:32:23 PMActually if they draw from the original thread it can be considered canon, but it's not a "concrete rule" so to speak.This post isn't canon.Actually explaining if something is or isn't canon is always canon.That rule isn't canon.It was declared canon 30 years ago so it's canon for all of us under 30 years old.You can't declare something canon, that makes it non-canon.I didn't declare it. It was declared, and I'm exposing that it was declared canon so my post is canon because it pertains to the fact that I'm providing an explanation of what is and isn't canon.That isn't canon though, you can't make non-canon into canon. It cannot be changed. But that isn't canon either.It was already canon.It never was canon. This is canon.It always has been canon.No, it never was canon.
Quote from: Ryle on December 01, 2014, 04:40:30 PMscrafty isn't canonneither is that cheap DDR ripoff
Korra being a Whorra is super canon the avatar told mei
halo 5 isn't cannon
