Which version do you prefer, ASM #258 or Parallel Lives?

Personally I'd say Conway's version as I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable with her knowing for that long personally speaking.

Oops sorry my mistake.

Yes since that was what I meant lol. Sorry I'm not with it today lol.

And this is what I wanted to post several days ago, but couldn't:

@70-something (numbers seem to be screwed) RDMacQ

Just in your first paragraph, and you're getting it wrong. I explicitly said: "You can like a bad retcon, you can dislike a good one." So where on earth does "the retcons you dislike, in your own words “don’t care about the facts” come from?

Seriously guys, when I make a mistake I even apologize, and it was more an unfortunate juxtaposition of words, than a real mistake. On the other hand, I've pointed to concrete facts that were being ignored/subverted (ASM #47 flashback sequence from ASM #15 & 34) and all I've gotten was more negativity and reinforcement of a wrong stand. The rules for a healthy discussion are:

1. Read the work you're talking about.
   
2. Understand and remember it.
3. Be willing to accept corrections.

So far here, only one other person has showed that predisposition.

I'm trying to do some semantic work with "retcon", because it has sifted its meaning over time. I've proposed to call the old meaning "good" and the new one "bad", because it reflects the state of affairs in the MU. Originally, retcons were respectful towards the original work, but with Marvel's sliding time scale policy in full swing, there's no respect anymore, and retcons have become "bad". That's why, now, changes are accepted "regardless of whether the change contradicts what was said before". If you don't like the labeling I'm using, then use your own, just don't expect it to make more sense.

"Mary Sue" is another term which has suffered alterations. I stick to the original meaning (they one I quoted), because it leaves out the concept of self-insertion, which is different and can be described as… self-insertion? I also prefer "idealized" to "perfect", because the later is more restrictive and leaves out cases like MJ, where the author wanted the character to be the perfect companion to the lead, without being perfect in itself. How do I know Conway wanted that with PL? Doesn't just the title give you a clue? Have you read/understand it? Do you remember it? Do you know of Conway's stance about MJ? You can live in denial if you want, but that was clearly his intention.

In general, I'd say that the currently accepted definition of both terms, is vague and leads to confusion. Something that generates discussions. You can short it out by using different terms to differentiate, or you can keep up with the "debate". It's up to you.