www.ditl.org

I don't think so. After checking his MA page, there's no mention of him anywhere other than that TAS epsiode.

Wasn't he mentioned in the original pitch to the networks, or something like that?

I remember he was in the old Star Trek: Choose your own adventure book, but thats hardly Cannon either.

Having a "personal canon" is kinda silly, IMO. It's rather like saying you have a personal tax rate.

I don't have anything against people putting their own spin on Trek, if it pleases them. Hell I was even forgiving of that guy with his 16 km Sovereign with IsoExaWatt megaphasers or whatever the hell they were called. If some guy wants to include TAS or exclude Voyager that's fine with me, but it's a personal interpretation of Trek, not canon. In my mind canon means the official version of Trek, and while even that is open to some interpretation you can't just arbitrarily rule things in or out of the official Trek unless you're some Paramount exec or something.

Exactly my point. Saying "personal canon" is self-defeating, because the definition of the term "canon" in this sense is "whatever Paramount tells us it is."

And, BTW - booze and strippers.

Varthikes wrote:I heard he also de-canonized TOS when he started TNG, hence his original plan to do more TNG re-makes of TOS episodes (like "The Naked Now").

In the TNG episode "The Naked Now", Riker makes a direct reference to the TOS episode with the same illness (and specifically mentions Kirk's name), leading me to believe that most, if not all, of TOS is canon.

Sanehouse wrote:
In the TNG episode "The Naked Now", Riker makes a direct reference to the TOS episode with the same illness (and specifically mentions Kirk's name), leading me to believe that most, if not all, of TOS is canon.

His point is a red herring, Paramount owns and controls ST. So whatever Gene wanted or said at the time is completely irrelevant as Paramount gets to decide.

Indeed. Paramount says all live action is canon. Ergo, TOS is canon.