Dear Folks -

xxxxxx@gmail.com wrote:

> One of the points made by others and I think explicitly existent in
> Rebellion era library data is this: Every telling was told by somebody
> with
> a perspective. There were no truly objective observers.
>
> Maybe that explains some of the canonical positions that contradict.

As someone who has transcribed a few Library Data entries, I can let you
know that there were a few transcription differences between the CT-era
Library Data (from the two Supplements) and the MT Library Data.

This was primarily due to the authors of MT having to re-type everything!

The text of the original "Little Black Books" was entered directly in to
the printing machines by the type-setters, and therefore there was no
electronic copy. Scanners were also in their infancy in those days, and
even if you owned one the character recognition programs were a bit dodgy.
(I know, I tried scanning a few pages in back in the early 90s, and even
then the results were less than spectacular).

Thus the MT authors found it easier to re-type the whole thing.

Along the way, they took advantage of this re-typing to add some updates
in those entries directly affected by the events of the Rebellion.

For example, see the difference between Norris' original CT entry:

http://members.tip.net.au/~davidjw/libdata/alphabet/n/norris.htm

and his MT entry:

http://members.tip.net.au/~davidjw/libdata/alphabet/n/norri_mt.htm

In addition, there is an in-game explanation in the MT Library Data of why
the entries are different, under the Regency library data heading.
Basically it's a clever way to insert a disclaimer.  ;-)  ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David "Hyphen" Jaques-Watson        Beowulf Down (Tavonni/Vilis/SM 1520)
http://www.tip.net.au/~davidjw                       xxxxxx@pcug.org.au
"I file things in historical order, with a hashing algorithm of gravity"