#objective

[refinedtaste]

[artist-issues]

Fight.

I was thinking about my favorite book in the Space Trilogy by C.S. Lewis, Perelandra, and the part where the Un-Man (a human body possessed by a demon, trying to recreate the evil of the first sin while a modern man from Earth tries to somehow stop him by arguing with him) sits up with the main character all night. And when he;s alone with It, the main character thinks it might attack him or start debating him cunningly. But instead it just starts repeating his name, over and over and over, just to annoy him.

And then I was thinking about the bullets used to murder Charlie Kirk. Everyone’s talking about who murdered him and whether they got the right guy and what his motives might be, whatever. I don’t know if you read about the inscriptions somewhere: I almost wish I hadn’t. The bullets were inscribed with some internet memes.

Just crass, crude memes that online gamers use. They’re definitely not the kind of jokes one side or the other in politics would claim. They’re too stupid for that. To someone outside the group that tells those kinds of jokes over Discord voice-chat, you wouldn’t be able to explain why the memes were even funny. They’re nonsensical.

That’s what was on the bullets in the gun used to kill Charlie Kirk.

Nonsense. And I don’t need to know which conspiracy theory or plain explanation of motives is closest to the truth—I think about how C.S. Lewis understood the psychology of reality and the Enemy, and I think about how the first thing God did was create order from chaos, and I know what was out to kill Charlie Kirk. It’s not ridiculous to say “our battle is not against flesh and blood.”

The bullets had nonsense nastiness on them. Because evil’s not that deep. Its consequences are so profound that evil appears deep. But it’s not. It’s just chaos. It’s just disorder, dada, nonsense. What was out to get Charlie Kirk was the Enemy, the demons, the fallen elohim, whatever you want to call the “principalities and powers of the air.”

And that’s why I buckle down and insist on pinning a post to this blog that says “here’s what I believe about stories.” Because you should believe something.

You have to make distinctions. You have to tell jokes that make some semblance of sense—“funny because it’s true.” You have to write songs that have an intended meaning. You have to speak words that mean something. You have to tell stories that have a point.

There’s a reason it’s important not to give in to the slurry-footing of “well that’s what it means to you” or “it can mean all those things” or “meaning is subjective.” There’s a reason it’s important to say, “no, there is such a thing as an objectively GOOD or objectively BAD movie and story. There is such a thing as good and evil, such a thing as right and wrong, such a thing as true or false. There is such a thing as a good choice or a bad choice, the right choice or the wrong choice, the best effort versus anything less.”

The reason it’s important is because our GOD made distinctions. That’s what He did, first. When He created this world, He separated things into categories, categories that can be measured, standards that can be understood, communication that can be transmitted and received. We do not live in a dada performance piece. Life has meaning, there are things that are black and white, even though there may be shades inbetween, that doesn’t do away with the black and white.

And Charlie Kirk isn’t here anymore and I just want to kick and shake and urge all of you, FIGHT. Fight it! Fight the nonsense. Fight the gibberish. Fight the bland, blank, “what it is to you, what it is to me,” pbbppbbbppttt of the Enemy. The nasty vague nothingness, the chaos, the blurring of distinctions. Make the distinctions. Define the terms. Separate the categories. Clearly divide the good away from the bad. Fight to make consistent sense whenever you can and insist that everybody who engages with you do the same.

Do it in the way you live your life, in the way you have conversations, yes, but please, please, for the love of truth, do it when you talk about art. Do it when you talk about stories. Do it when you talk about movies and songs and books. Fight, fight it. It’s meticulous and tedious and thorough and all scholarly and it’s not what they teach you when you go to school to study any of this stuff but fight for it anyway.

Fight! Fight! Kick and struggle! The Enemy killed him because he wouldn’t quit drawing the lines and separating truth from blah blah blah, then standing up for truth. Fight! Fight it in this stupid online sphere, too.

”For thus says Yahweh, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it; He established it and did not create it a formless place, but formed it to be inhabited),

“I am Yahweh, and there is none else. I have not spoken in secret, In some dark land; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘Seek Me in a formless place’; I, Yahweh, speak righteousness, Declaring things that are upright.” - Isaiah 45:18-19

[xponentialdesign]

Drawn Target ( color scheme )

[does-it-introject]

printers... as in, like, inkjet printer or laser printer...

Does It Introject: Printers

YES

NO

RESULTS

Voting ended onMay 2

[lulublack90]

Prompt 10 - Objective

@jegulus-microfic October 10, Word count 300

Previous part First part

The objective was simple: get Sirius back, so why was it taking so long?! He’d been waiting as patiently as possible, but Wednesday was too far away. Sirius could be moved by then, and he might not get the chance to send another message. They should have gone as soon as Barty had shown them the newspaper article. He was so stupid. He should never have involved the professors. If he had just gone, he could have crossed Europe and had Sirius by now. Involving adults had never worked for him, bar Effie and Monty. 

He’d spent a lot of the last few nights running through the forest with Moony, Prongs and Wormtail. He found that, as Midnight, he wasn’t as anxious about feeling so useless when it came to bringing Sirius home.  

Wednesday finally came. Regulus ignored his breakfast, choosing instead to watch the spot where the owls usually flew in from. A soft whooshing of wings alerted him to their presence, and he watched the birds swoop in and circle until they had picked out their recipients. The owl he sent to find Sirius was not among them. He felt his heart sink. He hadn’t realised how much he’d been hoping it would fly in. Hot tears flooded from his eyes, and James’s warmth enveloped him. It was up to McGonagall now; it didn’t exactly instil him with confidence.

He was about to ask James to go with him into the forest when Regulus’s owl alighted on his empty plate. A howler clutched in his beak. With trembling fingers, he took the red envelope from it and whispered. “Thank you,” before it took off for a well-earned rest. 

Regulus looked down at the howler, clutched in his hand, the corners had started smoking, and he tore it open. 

Next part

[academic-vampire]

It’s so odd to me that my creative writing professor gives us a lecture on what he calls “bad poems,” but I didn’t think most of them were bad. Some were even quite good, in my opinion.

I don’t understand how he thinks writing and art are so objective. However, that does explain why he grades you so harshly unless you cater to his specific writing style. I have a feeling he would label my poems as “bad poems” if he could.

[gregoryelliottgrosberg]

Do Bob Schooley & Mark McCorkle Have Creative Control Over Kim Possible?

A Documented, Source-Backed Answer

Short answer: No. Long answer: Also no, and this is not a matter of opinion, vibes, or “creator intent.” It is a matter of law, contracts, credits, and Disney’s established studio practice.

This post lays out verifiable proof showing why Bob Schooley and Mark McCorkle do not possess creative control or canon authority over Kim Possible. Table of Contents: Section #1 Context & Scope of This Post (Why This Exists) Section #2 Additional Personal Motivation: Community Impact of the 2022 Podcast Commentary Section #3 Before Anything Else: What “Creative Control” Actually Means Section #4 Final Conclusion (Proof-Based)

Section #1 Context & Scope of This Post (Why This Exists)

This post is written in direct reference to my research-paper–style dissertation and canon analysis, titled:

“In Defense of DrakkXGo (Why the 2022 KP Anniversary Podcast Is Non-Canon)”

This analysis was written in response to an unofficial 2022 Kim Possible 20th Anniversary podcast comedy skit, featuring the series co-creators (Bob Schooley and Mark McCorkle) and several original voice actors, in which a non-canon joke was made implying that Drakken and Shego “broke up” after Season 4.

That podcast skit — while humorous and explicitly self-disavowed as canon — has nonetheless been repeatedly cited online as if it carries canonical or authoritative weight. My dissertation directly addresses why that interpretation is incorrect.

The full analysis is split into two long-form Tumblr posts due to length constraints:

Part 1/2 In Defense of DrakkXGo (Why the 2022 KP Anniversary Podcast Is Non-Canon) https://www.tumblr.com/gregoryelliottgrosberg/804537499629305856/in-defense-of-drakkxgo-why-the-2022-kp?source=share

Part 2/2 In Defense of DrakkXGo (Why the 2022 KP Anniversary Podcast Is Non-Canon) https://www.tumblr.com/gregoryelliottgrosberg/804777997901103104/in-defense-of-drakkxgo-why-the-2022-kp?source=share

Those posts contain:

Transcript-backed behavioral analysis across 85 episodes (~796 pages of transcripts)

Application of the scientific method (Hempel; Meehl)

Longitudinal pattern recognition

Attachment theory, interdependence theory, and investment model modeling

Explicit rebuttal of the 2022 podcast’s canonical validity

This present post exists to clarify one foundational legal and media-analysis premise that underpins that dissertation:

Bob Schooley and Mark McCorkle do not possess creative control or canon authority over Kim Possible, and therefore their retrospective commentary — including the 2022 podcast skit — cannot override on-screen canon.

Everything that follows establishes why that premise is correct, using copyright law, industry practice, studio precedent, and documented sourcing — not opinion, shipping preference, or creator dislike.

Section #2 Additional Personal Motivation: Community Impact of the 2022 Podcast Commentary

Another direct motivation for writing this dissertation came from a comment left by @demico-art, which crystallized the real emotional and interpretive damage caused by the widespread misreading of the 2022 KP Anniversary podcast comedy skit as canon.

The comment reads (quoted with permission-preserving attribution):

@demico-art January 17, 2026 1:06AM Just here to say that this is an amazing analysis, and I love every part of it, and before I move on to Part 2, I have to say that unlike you, I watched KP as it was airing in 2002, and I shipped Drakgo (and Kim+Ron) then. I was shocked when KimRon became canon, and I thought the series would end there, but they didn't! Their relationship didn't become boring or cringe, but I never dreamed that Drakgo would be canon too. That being said, I was happy to listen to that podcast at first, because it felt like a new ep, but then they said how drakgo didn't work out. So basically they confirmed and destroyed the ship in one sentence. I felt really angry and depressed too, because wtf even??? I tried to forget and make peace with it because whatchagonnado... And I didn't really see other remaining drakgo fans bitching about it, and no one replied to my angry posts, so yeah...

This comment mattered to me for several reasons:

It demonstrates real harm caused by misattributing canon authority The emotional reaction described here did not arise from the show itself, but from an external, unofficial comedy skit that explicitly disavowed canon status — yet was nonetheless interpreted as definitive.

It shows how silence amplifies misinformation As @demico-art notes, many long-time DrakkXGo fans did not publicly contest the podcast’s claims, creating the false impression that the ship had been “officially killed” when no such canon action occurred.

It reinforces why this analysis needed to exist at all This dissertation is not about “bitching,” shipping defensiveness, or nostalgia. It is about correcting a factual and interpretive error that:

incorrectly assigns canon authority to non-canon material,

overrides on-screen evidence with retrospective commentary,

and leaves fans believing that something meaningful was “taken away” when it never was.

It validates the need for a rigorous, evidence-based response Emotional reactions like anger, grief, or resignation are understandable — but they should not be the endpoint when the underlying premise is false. The correct response is not dismissal, but clarification grounded in:

copyright law,

media canon hierarchy,

transcript-backed behavioral evidence,

and the scientific method.

In short, comments like this made it clear that the 2022 podcast did not merely spark debate — it caused people to mourn a loss that never occurred in canon.

That is why this post does not simply say “the podcast isn’t canon” and move on. It explains why, how, and by what standards canon authority actually works — so that no one has to feel blindsided, dismissed, or quietly isolated over a misinterpretation again.

Direct permalink to the referenced comment: https://www.tumblr.com/gregoryelliottgrosberg/804537499629305856/in-defense-of-drakkxgo-why-the-2022-kp/replies/805989270640869376

This link is included to document the specific community response that helped motivate this analysis and to preserve primary-source context for future readers. @demico-art comment is cited here not as evidentiary proof of canon, but as evidence of interpretive harm caused by misattributing canon authority to unofficial material.

Section #3 Before Anything Else: What “Creative Control” Actually Means

Because this term is often used loosely in fandom, it’s important to define it precisely.

Creative control (in film, television, comics, books, videogames, artwork, Epcot attractions,etc) refers to legal authority, not influence or authorship.

Specifically, creative control means the contractual right to:

Approve or veto storylines

Approve or veto character arcs or relationships

Approve or veto canon declarations

Override studio decisions

Control continuity in future projects

Prevent retcons or reinterpretations

Decide what is or is not “official”

Creative control is not:

Being the original creator

Having written the show

Having run the show at one time

Giving interviews or commentary

Explaining original intent

Being consulted later

A creator can have creative input or historical authority without having creative control.

Creative control only exists if it is explicitly granted by contract.

Absent that contract language, the IP owner retains full authority.

Section #3A Kim Possible Is a Work-for-Hire Disney Television Property

Legal basis: U.S. Copyright Law

Under 17 U.S. Code § 101, a work made for hire is defined as:

“A work specially ordered or commissioned… where the employer or commissioning party is considered the author for purposes of copyright.”

In U.S. television animation:

The studio is the employer

The creators are contracted writers/producers

The studio is the legal author and rights holder

Disney Television Animation operates entirely under this model.

Implication: Unless a creator negotiates explicit ownership or veto rights (which Disney does not grant for DTVA shows), all creative control remains with Disney.

Source:

U.S. Copyright Office — Copyright Law of the United States, § 101 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101

Section #3B Disney Explicitly Owns Kim Possible

Copyright & trademark records

Kim Possible is registered to The Walt Disney Company

All licensing, merchandise, streaming, and distribution credit Disney alone

Every episode carries standard language equivalent to: © Disney. All rights reserved.

There is no copyright attribution to Schooley or McCorkle.

That distinction is legally decisive.

Sources:

Disney+ episode copyright slates (Kim Possible, Seasons 1–4)

USPTO Trademark Database — Kim Possible https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/

Section #3C On-Screen Credits Confirm Employment, Not Ownership

Schooley & McCorkle are credited as:

“Created by”

Executive Producers

They are not credited as:

Rights holders

IP owners

Final creative authority

In U.S. television, “Created by” is a credit, not a property claim.

The Writers Guild of America explicitly distinguishes authorship credit from ownership or control.

Source:

Writers Guild of America — Credits Manual https://www.wga.org/contracts/credits/manuals

Section #3D Disney Television Animation Does Not Grant Creator Control

This is not unique to Kim Possible. It is studio-wide policy.

Direct precedent (same studio, same structure):

Alex Hirsch (Gravity Falls)

Dana Terrace (The Owl House)

Matt Braly (Amphibia)

Alex Hirsch stated publicly:

“I don’t own Gravity Falls. Disney does.”

Creators may advise, pitch, or be invited back — but Disney retains final authority.

Sources:

Alex Hirsch, Twitter (2018)

Disney Television Animation press interviews (Variety, THR)

Section #3E Schooley & McCorkle Themselves Do Not Claim Canon Authority

In interviews, panels, and anniversary podcasts, Schooley & McCorkle:

Frame statements as “what we intended at the time”

Speak retrospectively

Do not assert veto power or binding authority

They never claim:

Ownership of the IP

The ability to override Disney

The power to define canon unilaterally

Because they legally cannot.

Source:

Kim Possible 20th Anniversary commentary & interviews (2022)

Section #3F Podcasts & Interviews Are Not Canon by Disney’s Own Standards

Disney follows a consistent canon hierarchy across franchises:

On-screen narrative media

Official Disney-produced narrative extensions

Disney-approved publications

Creator commentary (non-binding)

This is why:

DVD commentaries

Convention Q&As

Anniversary podcasts

Are classified as behind-the-scenes insight, not canon law.

Sources:

Disney franchise canon guidelines (Star Wars, Marvel, DTVA precedent)

Section #3G No Contract Evidence Exists Granting Them Control — And That Matters

If Schooley & McCorkle had:

Ownership rights

Creative veto power

Canon authority

There would be:

Public contract disclosures

Trade publication reporting (Variety, THR)

Disney press releases advertising creator-controlled status

None exist.

Disney always highlights creator-controlled projects when they exist. Silence here is meaningful.

Section #4 Final Conclusion (Proof-Based)

Documented facts:

Kim Possible is a Disney-owned, work-for-hire television property

Bob Schooley & Mark McCorkle are creators and former showrunners

They do not own the IP

They do not control canon

They do not possess veto or creative control rights

Their commentary is historical and contextual (personal takes/subjective opinions), not binding

This conclusion is supported by:

U.S. copyright law

Disney Television Animation ownership practices

On-screen copyright credits

Writers Guild definitions

Studio-wide precedent

Absence of any contrary legal documentation

Bottom Line

Respecting the creators ≠ assigning them authority they do not have.

Canon authority for Kim Possible belongs to Disney.