>>38638781There's a difference between a lie intended to actively spread misinformation and a miscommunication based off of false information, I already don't see a story as canon without supporting lore because of a variety of reasons but a story that specifically has intended bias shouldn't be considered canonical lore because it does not provide an objective account.
If you said that its a biased account and not entirely accurate than it's very reasonable to assume that it's also not strictly canonical especially given that stories have not been substituted for lore thus far. You're making it out to seem as though this was a random lie spread with harmful intent instead of an assumption based off previous statements.
The mention of retro does nothing in this discussion accept provide an aim for schizophrenics to intrude upon.
>>38638725I accept that because that's what I thought and assumed the relationship always was, my big difference was that only lore is strictly canonical and stories are only canonical in relation to the lore that they reference.