I don't think so...
David Walker
"Voyager" stinks.
I am willing to suspend disbelief to a point, but the 1936 Ford started
faster than my 1984 Chevy does on a cold morning. There is a laundry
list of reasons that the truck would not start. I can't believe that
they put that into the show.
Land Voyager? No fucking way. Someone desperate for a new gimmick
invented that loser over the summer. There would be virtually no (NO)
reason to design the ability to land on a planet into a ship like
Voyager. Give me a break.
--
***************************************************************************
David Walker dswa...@panther.us.com
San Jose, California
Eugene Zhu Xia
: Well, if there was any doubt up to this point, it should be clear now:
: "Voyager" stinks.
:
: I am willing to suspend disbelief to a point, but the 1936 Ford started
: faster than my 1984 Chevy does on a cold morning. There is a laundry
: list of reasons that the truck would not start. I can't believe that
: they put that into the show.
The battery is still alive after 400 years. I don't think so either.
Voyager has sunk so low that it has become comical. I think I will
start watching relgularly again just for laughters.
Eugene
Ranstaff
David Walker <dswa...@panther.us.com> writes:
> Land Voyager? No fucking way. Someone desperate for a
> new gimmick invented that loser over the summer.
From what I heard, it didn't even take that long. I read
a couple of months back that the first three episodes of this
season were actually the last three episodes from the last
season. I don't know why they were held back, but it was said
that this season's _new_ shows don't actually start until
about the fourth show in (or whenever Janeway gets her new 'do).
Ran
Lynn Loschin
: Well, if there was any doubt up to this point, it should be clear now:
: "Voyager" stinks.
I disagree. I liked it. Certainly far superior to the TNG episode with
cryogenic humans. Which was sometime in the first season - which
numerically, is still where Voyager is.
Bottom line - you don't like it, don't watch it.
:
: I am willing to suspend disbelief to a point, but the 1936 Ford started
: faster than my 1984 Chevy does on a cold morning. There is a laundry
: list of reasons that the truck would not start. I can't believe that
: they put that into the show.
:
It's a minor point. This is a nitpick, not a reason to dismiss a whole
episode.
: Land Voyager? No fucking way. Someone desperate for a new gimmick
: invented that loser over the summer. There would be virtually no (NO)
: reason to design the ability to land on a planet into a ship like
: Voyager. Give me a break.
Buzz. Thank you for playing.
1 - this episode was filmed last spring - its one of the carryover episodes.
2- I heard at a convention before Voyager even came out that it would be
able to land. So reason or not, this was not some new idea.
--
-========================================================================-
/ Lynn Loschin, 2L |E-mail: llos...@netcom.com (preferred) /
/ UC Davis School of Law| bllo...@ucdavis.edu /
/ Davis, CA 95616 |http://www.microserve.com/PlanetX/lloschin.html /
-========================================================================-
Tom Salyers
In a previous article, dswa...@panther.us.com (David Walker) says:
>I am willing to suspend disbelief to a point, but the 1936 Ford started
>faster than my 1984 Chevy does on a cold morning. There is a laundry
>list of reasons that the truck would not start.
I'll start:
1.) Whatever gasoline was left would have boiled away in the vacuum of space.
--
Tom Salyers "Now is the Windows of our disk contents
IRCnick: Aqualung made glorious SimEarth by this Sun of Zork."
Denver, CO ---Richard v3.0
Robbie R. Veith
Hi, I guess I'am the only person to enjoy the season finale
{and make no mistake it was writen and produced as the season
finale, blame UPN not the producers if it does not feel like
a season opener} of Voyager.
So I'am going to take the time to defend some of the so called
mistakes and/or bad judgements in the story.
David Walker says:
"Land Voyager? No fucking way. Someone desperate for a new gimmick
invented that loser over the summer.. There would be virtually no (NO)
reason to design the ability to land on a planet into a ship like
Voyager. Give me a break."
Okay, is it easier for you to believe that a vessel close to
300 meters in length could achieve a speed of over a billion
miles per second? Or perhaps, you find it more likely that we
could disassemble a beings molecules , transport them as energy
a couple thousand of miles and put everything back together aagain
in the proper order? I, myself, personally believe it would be
easier to land said vessel on a given planet, then either of
the above common place occurances in trek lore.
And the ability to land Voyager has been mentioned from
production members since before the pilot episode aired.
Check out the article in Omni, the Cover dated Feb. 1995.
Hardly done over the summer , unless I can no longer trust
my calendars.
And as for virtually no reason to land Voyager, well I seem
to remember 2 episodes of trek {Power Play, and Second
Chances} where both the transporters and the shuttles were not v
very effective for travel. The shuttles have no where near
the shields that the Voyager has. Thus it being able to
withstand moree force in the atmosphere. Plus, it can't
seperate like any of the versions of the Enterprise. In
an emergency the ship might be forsed to land {Thats forced].
Okay Now don't think that I don't find fault in trek, there
is plenty. But to make mistakes in finding fault in others,
I personally think is worse. [of courseI've probable just
made 30, oh well.}
MARK WOOD
Bryce Burchett
: In a previous article, dswa...@panther.us.com (David Walker) says:
: >I am willing to suspend disbelief to a point, but the 1936 Ford started
: >faster than my 1984 Chevy does on a cold morning. There is a laundry
: >list of reasons that the truck would not start.
: I'll start:
: 1.) Whatever gasoline was left would have boiled away in the vacuum of space.
2. Paris said the there was still *water* left in the engine. SHEESH!
(Water would have boiled away too. I dunno, maybe it froze very quickly
or something)
--
br...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu (br...@seds.org) br...@starfire.lpl.arizona.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
and coming soon(er or later) to the World Wide Web:
>>> http://www.seds.org/~bryce/ <<<
finger br...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu for pgp public key block
Jim Henderson
>Tom Salyers (at...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
>: In a previous article, dswa...@panther.us.com (David Walker) says:
>
>: >I am willing to suspend disbelief to a point, but the 1936 Ford started
>: >faster than my 1984 Chevy does on a cold morning. There is a laundry
>: >list of reasons that the truck would not start.
>
>: I'll start:
>: 1.) Whatever gasoline was left would have boiled away in the vacuum of space.
>
>2. Paris said the there was still *water* left in the engine. SHEESH!
> (Water would have boiled away too. I dunno, maybe it froze very quickly
> or something)
3. The seals would not have held in vacuum due to the extreme
difference in pressures.
4. It's still trailing gasoline 3-400 years later?
5. It hasn't hit any asteroids (even small ones)?
6. Why is the truck in space, but the plane is on the planet?
JH
Just speakin' for me
Tom Salyers
In a previous article, br...@SEDS.LPL.Arizona.EDU (Bryce Burchett) says:
>2. Paris said the there was still *water* left in the engine. SHEESH!
> (Water would have boiled away too. I dunno, maybe it froze very quickly
> or something)
It'd boil way before it froze. The point at which a liquid boils varies
inversely as the the pressure exerted on it. (I once saw a glass of water boil
at a comfortable 72 degrees Fahrenheit in a vacuum, for example...)
Cal Jacobson
Loschin) wrote:
> David Walker (dswa...@panther.us.com) wrote:
> : Well, if there was any doubt up to this point, it should be clear now:
> : "Voyager" stinks.
> I disagree. I liked it. Certainly far superior to the TNG episode with
> cryogenic humans. Which was sometime in the first season - which
> numerically, is still where Voyager is.
Numerically, schnumerically. End of season one/beginning of season two...
what's the big difference?
And I personally think that "The Neutral Zone" (the TNG first season
episode with the cryo folks) was much better than "The 37ers". "Neutral
Zone" was not only one of the best episodes of TNG's first season, but
re-introduced us to the Romulans...whom we hadn't seen since TOS.
> Bottom line - you don't like it, don't watch it.
I don't like what I see on CNN, but I still watch it.
The TRUE bottom line is: if you don't like it, do something to CHANGE it.
And since most of us don't work at Paramount, venting our frustrations
about the absymal writing quality of Voyager's writers on the Internet is
the closest thing to a Hot Line to Rick Berman.
> : I am willing to suspend disbelief to a point, but the 1936 Ford started
> : faster than my 1984 Chevy does on a cold morning. There is a laundry
> : list of reasons that the truck would not start. I can't believe that
> : they put that into the show.
> It's a minor point. This is a nitpick, not a reason to dismiss a whole
> episode.
I don't think so: r.a.s.c. has been *filled* with posts noting this
problem. Are there so many nit-pickers?
A true nit-pick would be to complain that the paint job on the truck
was so wrong.
> : Land Voyager? No fucking way. Someone desperate for a new gimmick
> : invented that loser over the summer. There would be virtually no (NO)
> : reason to design the ability to land on a planet into a ship like
> : Voyager. Give me a break.
> Buzz. Thank you for playing.
Buzz yourself. David Walker is right on-target here: why design a
"mothership" to land on a planet when it posesses shuttlecraft and
transporters? The whole landing sequence was a GIMMICK, and didn't
have anything to do with the plot; the whole "atmospheric interference"
problem could have been ignored and the crew could have beamed down.
Unlike the TOS episode "The Enemy Within" -- in which Sulu and a landing
party can't be transported up from a freezing cold planet because the
transporter is splitting objects into two halves -- access to the ship
was never an issue.
It was just a cool thing to do.
Have you heard the pathetic promotions on UPN? "...for the first time,
a starship lands on a planet..." etc etc. (I guess everybody has
forgotten the Klingon Bird of Prey from STIII and STIV).
A SFX gimmick. That's it.
> 1 - this episode was filmed last spring - its one of the carryover episodes.
Like I said before: what's the difference between an "end of the first season"
episode and a "beginning of a second season" episode? You're not going to
see much change in writing styles or character evolution even if the actors
and staff get a summer hiatus.
> 2- I heard at a convention before Voyager even came out that it would be
> able to land. So reason or not, this was not some new idea.
Just because it's an 'old' idea doesn't mean it's a good one.
CJ
=====================================================================
I don't speak for Mystech Associates Inc. and I sure as hell don't
speak for the U.S. Government, its allies, the estate of Elvis
Presley or God, and any resemblance between myself any any other
person with a free will, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[I *HAD* a home page] Public key avilable upon request.
=====================================================================
A. Hutchinson
>In article p...@news.ccit.arizona.edu, br...@SEDS.LPL.Arizona.EDU (Bryce Burchett) writes:
>>Tom Salyers (at...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
>>: In a previous article, dswa...@panther.us.com (David Walker) says:
>>
>>: >faster than my 1984 Chevy does on a cold morning. There is a laundry
>>: >list of reasons that the truck would not start.
>>
>>: 1.) Whatever gasoline was left would have boiled away in the vacuum of space.
>>
>> (Water would have boiled away too. I dunno, maybe it froze very quickly
>> or something)
>
>difference in pressures.
>
>4. It's still trailing gasoline 3-400 years later?
>
>5. It hasn't hit any asteroids (even small ones)?
>
>6. Why is the truck in space, but the plane is on the planet?
>
>JH
>Just speakin' for me
>
Also, didn't anyone notice that when they came out of the cave to go see
Voyager Janeway and company magically had their phasers back?!!
Puhleeease!
AHutchinson
Administration
Re Below:
Folks, apparently the landing bit was written in to accommodate fans who
wrote in "Well, we heard you can land the ship, why don't you..." This
from a local con, I think it was the lady who plays Torres....
Me.
: > : Land Voyager? No fucking way. Someone desperate for a new gimmick
Bill Huber
>
>Land Voyager? No fucking way. Someone desperate for a new gimmick
>invented that loser over the summer. There would be virtually no (NO)
>reason to design the ability to land on a planet into a ship like
>Voyager. Give me a break.
Sure, why not? However, with the four legs in the lower hull the only
on groud support, Voyager looked completely out of balance. If the
forward hull detached and landed on its own it would have been much
more believeable.
Also, since they shut down the warp core and vented it, does that mean
a complete cold restart once back in orbit?
Bill Huber
Doug Mertaugh
>Land Voyager? No ... way. Someone desperate for a new gimmick
>reason to design the ability to land on a planet into a ship like
>Voyager. Give me a break.
It may be stupid but it wasn't invented over the summer. I read
that the ship was going to be able to do that before the show
ever started.
--
"I am the embodiment of modern medicine. Now how much dirt do you need?"
-The Doctor-
Lloyd R. Parker
: In a previous article, br...@SEDS.LPL.Arizona.EDU (Bryce Burchett) says:
: >2. Paris said the there was still *water* left in the engine. SHEESH!
: > (Water would have boiled away too. I dunno, maybe it froze very quickly
: > or something)
: It'd boil way before it froze. The point at which a liquid boils varies
: inversely as the the pressure exerted on it. (I once saw a glass of water boil
: at a comfortable 72 degrees Fahrenheit in a vacuum, for example...)
Not so. Look at a comet -- a big ball of basically ice. Doesn't boil
away until it comes close to the sun.
Lloyd R. Parker
: Buzz yourself. David Walker is right on-target here: why design a
: "mothership" to land on a planet when it posesses shuttlecraft and
: transporters? The whole landing sequence was a GIMMICK, and didn't
Duh, because of a situation exactly like this one where neither is
possible to use? Besides, it's not like Voy is Galaxy-size.
: have anything to do with the plot; the whole "atmospheric interference"
: problem could have been ignored and the crew could have beamed down.
: Unlike the TOS episode "The Enemy Within" -- in which Sulu and a landing
: party can't be transported up from a freezing cold planet because the
: transporter is splitting objects into two halves -- access to the ship
: was never an issue.
: It was just a cool thing to do.
Sort of like separating the saucer and battle sections of the E-D,
right? "We need an action sequence, let's separate the ship and forget
about the fact that the saucer, without warp drive, would be a sitting duck."
: Have you heard the pathetic promotions on UPN? "...for the first time,
: a starship lands on a planet..." etc etc. (I guess everybody has
: forgotten the Klingon Bird of Prey from STIII and STIV).
It wasn't a starship. That term refers to a specific type of ship. Like
calling a frigate a battleship.
Bonnie Lee Miller
And now a message from Short Attention Span Theatre:
When gene roddenberry created Star Trek, his intention was for
the Enterprise to be capable of landing on and lifting off of
planet surfaces. When he realized the tremendous expense...the
transporter was born (and with it the holodeck, the replicator,
et al).
You may go on about your business.
Bonnie
Jonathan C. Enslin
>>faster than my 1984 Chevy does on a cold morning. There is a laundry
>>list of reasons that the truck would not start.
>
>I'll start:
>
>1.) Whatever gasoline was left would have boiled away in the vacuum of space.
>
2.) Battery would have lost its charge over 400 years and temperatures near
absolute zero.
Jon
Lloyd R. Parker
: In article p...@news.ccit.arizona.edu, br...@SEDS.LPL.Arizona.EDU (Bryce Burchett) writes:
: >: In a previous article, dswa...@panther.us.com (David Walker) says:
: >
: >: >I am willing to suspend disbelief to a point, but the 1936 Ford started
: >: >list of reasons that the truck would not start.
: >
: >: I'll start:
: >: 1.) Whatever gasoline was left would have boiled away in the vacuum of space.
: >2. Paris said the there was still *water* left in the engine. SHEESH!
: > (Water would have boiled away too. I dunno, maybe it froze very quickly
: > or something)
: 3. The seals would not have held in vacuum due to the extreme
: difference in pressures.
: 4. It's still trailing gasoline 3-400 years later?
We don't know that 400 years actually elapsed. Maybe the aliens
travelled in time to abduct these humans. But the gas would be frozen
and have a very low vapor pressure, so it would evaporate slowly.
: 5. It hasn't hit any asteroids (even small ones)?
Why assume that planetary system has asteroids?
: 6. Why is the truck in space, but the plane is on the planet?
Why ask why?
: JH
: Just speakin' for me
James J. Bjorkman
: In a previous article, dswa...@panther.us.com (David Walker) says:
: >I am willing to suspend disbelief to a point, but the 1936 Ford started
: >faster than my 1984 Chevy does on a cold morning. There is a laundry
: >list of reasons that the truck would not start.
: I'll start:
: 1.) Whatever gasoline was left would have boiled away in the vacuum of space.
How about the tires - weren't they still inflated? Seems *awfully*
unlikely after 400 years at zero pressure - even under ideal conditions
they all leak a little.
jb
Cal Jacobson
(Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:
> Cal Jacobson (ja...@mystech.com) wrote:
> : Have you heard the pathetic promotions on UPN? "...for the first time,
> : a starship lands on a planet..." etc etc. (I guess everybody has
> : forgotten the Klingon Bird of Prey from STIII and STIV).
> It wasn't a starship. That term refers to a specific type of ship. Like
> calling a frigate a battleship.
Really? I guess that means it doesn't travel between stars!
Question: What, then, is the LACK of difference between the
STARSHIP Enterprise (TOS), STARSHIP Enterprise (TNG),
STARSHIP Defiant, and the STARSHIP Voyager?
They are obviously of different sizes, yet are have all been called
at one point or another "Starship".
Rob DeMillo
Lloyd> : have anything to do with the plot; the whole "atmospheric
Lloyd> interference" : problem could have been ignored and the crew
Lloyd> could have beamed down. : Unlike the TOS episode "The Enemy
Lloyd> Within" -- in which Sulu and a landing : party can't be
Lloyd> transported up from a freezing cold planet because the :
Lloyd> transporter is splitting objects into two halves -- access to
Lloyd> the ship : was never an issue.
Lloyd> : It was just a cool thing to do.
Lloyd> Sort of like separating the saucer and battle sections of the
Lloyd> E-D, right? "We need an action sequence, let's separate the
Lloyd> ship and forget about the fact that the saucer, without warp
Lloyd> drive, would be a sitting duck."
Yup, exactly.
That was the problem I had with the "saucer sep" concept, as well.
"We can do this now with our level of special effects, so let's
just do it..."
I *liked* the whole concept (born out of necessity due to ST:TOS's
budget) that a starship *can't* land. It's a great idea...it
provided great plot devices...now Voyager can land. Ick.
By the way, I did *not* have a problem with the "top heavy startship
not tipping over" stuff...they explicitly mumbled technobabble about
"gravity compensators," etc etc. We have seen on ST how they easily
control gravity...that was probably how Voyager got down there to
begin with.
The thing I *did* have a problem with was: it's already a small,
cramped ship...now they have to make room in the secondary hull
for the housings for those landing struts? Yikes.
--
- Rob DeMillo | Internet: dem...@atc.ll.mit.edu
MIT Lincoln Lab | Also Internet: dem...@portnoy.tiac.net
Air Traffic Automation Group | Reality: 617-981-3254 (office)
URL: http://portnoy.tiac.net/persons/DeMillo.htm
"...the Truth is Out There..."
Gregory Herrick
>I *liked* the whole concept (born out of necessity due to ST:TOS's
>budget) that a starship *can't* land. It's a great idea...it
>provided great plot devices...now Voyager can land. Ick.
I heard that Gene Rodenberry didn't have the original Enterprise land
was because he couldn't think of a way to land it. From this the concept
of Transporters arrised.
>By the way, I did *not* have a problem with the "top heavy startship
>not tipping over" stuff...they explicitly mumbled technobabble about
>"gravity compensators," etc etc. We have seen on ST how they easily
>control gravity...that was probably how Voyager got down there to
>begin with.
Those kewl gravity generators, those inertial dampaners or something.
>The thing I *did* have a problem with was: it's already a small,
>cramped ship...now they have to make room in the secondary hull
>for the housings for those landing struts? Yikes.
They just replicate those before they land. Save space in the ship :)
later,
greg
David J. White
: : 4. It's still trailing gasoline 3-400 years later?
: We don't know that 400 years actually elapsed. Maybe the aliens
: travelled in time to abduct these humans. But the gas would be frozen
: and have a very low vapor pressure, so it would evaporate slowly.
Yes, we do know that 400 years have elapsed. Evansville said that the
revolt in which their ancestors overthrew the Briori was "fifteen
generations ago." That easily works out to roughly 400 years, if not more.
David White
dwh...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
: : 5. It hasn't hit any asteroids (even small ones)?
Ivelisse Atiles
>We don't know that 400 years actually elapsed. Maybe the aliens
>travelled in time to abduct these humans. But the gas would be frozen
>and have a very low vapor pressure, so it would evaporate slowly.
It's been a while since i've taken chemistry, but...
a) if the gasoline is solid, it wouldn't start anyway, right?
and b) if the gasoline is at such a low temperature, wouldn't
it be pretty much sublimated completely?
In any case, it's highly unlikely that the truck would start.
>: 6. Why is the truck in space, but the plane is on the planet?
Maybe Star Trek is now delving into surrealism? 8)
--
Ivelisse Atiles @}-->-- i...@rhf.bradley.edu @}-->-- Bradley University
Jay Sherman: You're the man who didn't know if it was a pimple or a boil.
Homer Simpson: It was a gummi bear.
(*Don't* check out my home page. I really mean it!)
Lynn Loschin
: Numerically, schnumerically. End of season one/beginning of season two...
: what's the big difference?
Because the hiatus is when they would have had the time to rethink major
things and make changes, if they felt they were needed.
: And I personally think that "The Neutral Zone" (the TNG first season
: episode with the cryo folks) was much better than "The 37ers". "Neutral
: Zone" was not only one of the best episodes of TNG's first season, but
: re-introduced us to the Romulans...whom we hadn't seen since TOS.
: > Bottom line - you don't like it, don't watch it.
: I don't like what I see on CNN, but I still watch it.
CNN is news. Literate and informed citizens should know what's going on
in the world. Star Trek is entertainment. You dont need entertainment
in the first place and there are many sources in the second place. So if
you dont like star trek, watch something else.
: The TRUE bottom line is: if you don't like it, do something to CHANGE it.
: And since most of us don't work at Paramount, venting our frustrations
: about the absymal writing quality of Voyager's writers on the Internet is
: the closest thing to a Hot Line to Rick Berman.
Keep dreaming. The net is widely ignored by TPTB, and the longer I read
the groups the less I blame them for ignoring the net. Its the most
negative, hypercritical "fans" out there....this is not what's reflected
by ratings or other fandom like clubs and conventions. And about 90% of
the complainers, who have probably never written a short story much less
a teleplay for a highly stylized TV series, think they could do better.
: > : I am willing to suspend disbelief to a point, but the 1936 Ford started
: > : faster than my 1984 Chevy does on a cold morning. There is a laundry
: > : list of reasons that the truck would not start. I can't believe that
: > : they put that into the show.
: > It's a minor point. This is a nitpick, not a reason to dismiss a whole
: > episode.
: I don't think so: r.a.s.c. has been *filled* with posts noting this
: problem. Are there so many nit-pickers?
: A true nit-pick would be to complain that the paint job on the truck
: was so wrong.
A true nitpick is something that is peripheral to the story. This is
peripheral. You could come up with some other rationale for this
happening (or not have it happen at all) without changing the major
themes of the story - 1937 humans in the delta quadrant, and the crew
willing to stay with the ship. That's what the episode was "about" - not
the stupid truck.
: > : Land Voyager? No fucking way. Someone desperate for a new gimmick
: > : invented that loser over the summer. There would be virtually no (NO)
: > : reason to design the ability to land on a planet into a ship like
: > : Voyager. Give me a break.
: > Buzz. Thank you for playing.
: Buzz yourself. David Walker is right on-target here: why design a
<snip>
What I was "buzzing" was the assertion (which you snipped) that
"someone thought it up over the summer". Which was wrong, since the
episode was filmed before the hiatus, and they had planned on Voyager
being able to land before the show ever aired. I did not say anything
about whether it was a good idea. You didnt read what I said.
: Have you heard the pathetic promotions on UPN? "...for the first time,
: a starship lands on a planet..." etc etc. (I guess everybody has
: forgotten the Klingon Bird of Prey from STIII and STIV).
I have never heard a Klingon ship called a starship, but even so, it was
the first time in the series'.
: > 1 - this episode was filmed last spring - its one of the carryover episodes.
: Like I said before: what's the difference between an "end of the first season"
: episode and a "beginning of a second season" episode? You're not going to
: see much change in writing styles or character evolution even if the actors
: and staff get a summer hiatus.
Again, all I was responding to was what the poster said about the landing
idea being developed over the summer.
With that said, I disagree with you. TNG changed doctors over hiatus
(twice) and did cosmetic changes (the Riker beard, doing away with the
Troi bunhead etc.) Given the pace of series TV, I would say hiatus is the
only time they have to make such changes.
: > 2- I heard at a convention before Voyager even came out that it would be
: > able to land. So reason or not, this was not some new idea.
: Just because it's an 'old' idea doesn't mean it's a good one.
I didnt say it was. Please read posts before you challenge what people
say :) I happen to like the idea. If I was a ship designer I would make
it as flexible as possible.
David J. White
: The truck is a valid gripe. It is not peripheral to the story because
: the truck *drives* (pardon the pun) the story. Without the truck's
: ability to start, the AM radio would not have worked, they would *not*
: have heard the SOS, they would *not* have followed the signal all those
: miles to the other planet, and they would *not* have found the 37's.
: Therefore, without the truck, you would have no story. Period. Griping
: that the truck would be in working order after 400 years in space is
: *not* nitpicking, since the '37's would not have been discovered if it
: hadn't. It is major plot motivation, not a peripheral element.
: Maybe they should have *driven* the truck off voyager onto the planet.
: That would have been *cool*!
What I was left wondering at the end of the episode was whether or not
they gave the farmer his truck back!
David White
dwh...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
Cal Jacobson
> : I don't like what I see on CNN, but I still watch it.
> CNN is news. Literate and informed citizens should know what's going on
> in the world. Star Trek is entertainment. You dont need entertainment
> in the first place and there are many sources in the second place. So if
> you dont like star trek, watch something else.
Like Babylon 5?
> : The TRUE bottom line is: if you don't like it, do something to CHANGE it.
> : And since most of us don't work at Paramount, venting our frustrations
> : about the absymal writing quality of Voyager's writers on the Internet is
> : the closest thing to a Hot Line to Rick Berman.
> Keep dreaming. The net is widely ignored by TPTB, and the longer I read
> the groups the less I blame them for ignoring the net. Its the most
> negative, hypercritical "fans" out there....this is not what's reflected
> by ratings or other fandom like clubs and conventions. And about 90% of
> the complainers, who have probably never written a short story much less
> a teleplay for a highly stylized TV series, think they could do better.
Has it ever occured to you and others who express the same disgust at the
"negativism" on the Net that there are thousands of Trek fans out there
who DON'T attend conventions or fan clubs because nobody wishes to discuss
the BAD points of a show?
Granted, while there are a lot of stupid posts on the Net there are also
scores of critical posts with good points that rabid fans ignore or
dismiss as being "hateful" just because they can't stand their quasi-
religion being questioned.
> : > : Land Voyager? No fucking way. Someone desperate for a new gimmick
> : > : invented that loser over the summer. There would be virtually no (NO)
> : > : reason to design the ability to land on a planet into a ship like
> : > : Voyager. Give me a break.
> : > Buzz. Thank you for playing.
>
> : Buzz yourself. David Walker is right on-target here: why design a
>
> <snip>
>
> What I was "buzzing" was the assertion (which you snipped) that
> "someone thought it up over the summer". Which was wrong, since the
> episode was filmed before the hiatus, and they had planned on Voyager
> being able to land before the show ever aired. I did not say anything
> about whether it was a good idea. You didnt read what I said.
And I snipped it because the point is moot. It doesn't matter WHEN the
idea was come up with. The idea ITSELF is questionable.
I've read elsewhere on r.a.s.c. today that the idea originated with
Gene Roddenberry before TOS, but the budgetary requirements for landing
the Enterprise were too high at the time, which is why the concepts of
shuttlecraft and transporters were devised.
NOW, with that in mind...does it make any more sense for a starship
with both shuttlecraft and transporters to have a landing capability?
In STIV:TVH, the Klingon Bird-of-Prey was a small starship with
transporters but no shuttles...a landing capability was required as
a back-up for the transporters. Why Voyager, though?
Because it was "cool."
> With that said, I disagree with you. TNG changed doctors over hiatus
> (twice) and did cosmetic changes (the Riker beard, doing away with the
> Troi bunhead etc.) Given the pace of series TV, I would say hiatus is the
> only time they have to make such changes.
Yes, but those were cosmetic changes. The Crusher/Pulaski switch was not
popular with the fans...that's (part of) the reason Gates McFadden came
back in the 3rd season.
Three months of vacation aren't going to drastically improve a series.
Just look at "SeaQuest."
Matthew Doig
<snip>
: Keep dreaming. The net is widely ignored by TPTB, and the longer I read
: negative, hypercritical "fans" out there....this is not what's reflected
: by ratings or other fandom like clubs and conventions. And about 90% of
: the complainers, who have probably never written a short story much less
: a teleplay for a highly stylized TV series, think they could do better.
Much to their discredit. It is the criticism of these fans that TPTB
should listen to. These are the people that have driven trek to its
current state of popularity, and if the producers are too blind and deaf
to heed their criticisms, the series is doomed to follow its current Lost
in Space trend.
: A true nitpick is something that is peripheral to the story. This is
: peripheral. You could come up with some other rationale for this
: happening (or not have it happen at all) without changing the major
: themes of the story - 1937 humans in the delta quadrant, and the crew
: willing to stay with the ship. That's what the episode was "about" - not
: the stupid truck.
Sorry, Lynn, thank you for playing!
Gerry Joseph Matthews
>: I'll start:
>: 1.) Whatever gasoline was left would have boiled away in the vacuum of space.
>
>2. Paris said the there was still *water* left in the engine. SHEESH!
> (Water would have boiled away too. I dunno, maybe it froze very quickly
> or something)
>
Question#1
Why would gasoline 'boil'away in a vacuum?
Question#2
Why would water 'boil away' in a vacuum??
Question#3
How could a 'combustion engine'start in a'vacuum'???
Hasn't anyone ever heard of a carburator?? You know-the 'thingy'
which mixes gas and 'AIR' in order to cause conbustion!!! Thereby
pushing the 'pistons'..................................
Forgive me for the 'Techno-babble'! %-(
David J. White
Well, I don't think the whole thing was very plausible either, but re:
your Question #3: they *didn't* show the engine starting in a vacuum.
Paris started the engine after they had brought the truck onto the ship,
and they were examining it in the pressurized cargo bay. So there *was*
air available when he started the engine.
David White
dwh...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
Tom Salyers
In a previous article, gmat...@Direct.CA (Gerry Joseph Matthews) says:
> Question#1
> Why would gasoline 'boil'away in a vacuum?
> Question#2
>Why would water 'boil away' in a vacuum??
Because of the relation between the pressure exerted on a fluid and the
boiling point of that fluid. Things boil pretty quickly in a vacuum.
Lloyd R. Parker
: : negative, hypercritical "fans" out there....this is not what's reflected
: : by ratings or other fandom like clubs and conventions. And about 90% of
: : the complainers, who have probably never written a short story much less
: : a teleplay for a highly stylized TV series, think they could do better.
: Much to their discredit. It is the criticism of these fans that TPTB
: should listen to. These are the people that have driven trek to its
: current state of popularity, and if the producers are too blind and deaf
: to heed their criticisms, the series is doomed to follow its current Lost
: in Space trend.
:
: : A true nitpick is something that is peripheral to the story. This is
: : peripheral. You could come up with some other rationale for this
: : happening (or not have it happen at all) without changing the major
: : themes of the story - 1937 humans in the delta quadrant, and the crew
: : willing to stay with the ship. That's what the episode was "about" - not
: : the stupid truck.
:
: Sorry, Lynn, thank you for playing!
: The truck is a valid gripe. It is not peripheral to the story because
: the truck *drives* (pardon the pun) the story. Without the truck's
: ability to start, the AM radio would not have worked, they would *not*
: have heard the SOS, they would *not* have followed the signal all those
: miles to the other planet, and they would *not* have found the 37's.
: Therefore, without the truck, you would have no story. Period. Griping
: that the truck would be in working order after 400 years in space is
: *not* nitpicking, since the '37's would not have been discovered if it
: hadn't. It is major plot motivation, not a peripheral element.
Simply not true. The ship could have picked up the SOS -- we have
already seen this happen on TOS "The Menagerie."
Andrew Arensburger
> Why would gasoline 'boil'away in a vacuum?
> Question#2
> Why would water 'boil away' in a vacuum??
Because at lower pressures, liquids boil more easily. If you
go up in the mountains, boils at 95 or 90 degrees, rather than 100.
You can (and I've seen this done) make a flask of water boil at room
temperature by pumping all of the air out of it.
The truck was in space, so any non-airtight containers would
have been under very low pressure, and the liquids therein would
have boiled away.
> Question#3
> How could a 'combustion engine'start in a'vacuum'???
It couldn't. In "The 37s," they brought the truck into an
atmosphere before starting it.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy Center for Automation Research
are...@cfar.umd.edu University of Maryland
Mind full of trivia. No room left for real knowledge.
Lynn Loschin
: In article <4229v6$c...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu: > : Have you heard the pathetic promotions on UPN? "...for the first time,
: > : forgotten the Klingon Bird of Prey from STIII and STIV).
: Really? I guess that means it doesn't travel between stars!
: Question: What, then, is the LACK of difference between the
: STARSHIP Enterprise (TOS), STARSHIP Enterprise (TNG),
: STARSHIP Defiant, and the STARSHIP Voyager?
: They are obviously of different sizes, yet are have all been called
: at one point or another "Starship".
: CJ
They are also all FEDERATION ships. Just like we say astronauts and
Russians say cosmonauts, different cultures have different ways of naming
things or people that have similar functions, I have heard "warship" for
Klingon vessels, but not "starship" so far as I recall.
Lynn Loschin
: > CNN is news. Literate and informed citizens should know what's going on
: > in the first place and there are many sources in the second place. So if
: > you dont like star trek, watch something else.
: Like Babylon 5?
Yes. Unlike many people, I dont think that you constantly have to
evaluate one series in relation to another. Why can't people like both,
or prefer one over the other without saying that the other "sucks"? with
the ever increasing number of sci fi shows around, soon these groups are
going to be nothing but "X sucks" or "Y sucks".
This juvenile stupidity has gone on much too long - since some moron
decided that people could not be both Star Wars and Star Trek fans. It
has only continued, and even escalated, since B5 has been on.
This is beside the point that just because two shows are set in space
they must have a lot in common. The trek shows are hour long character
based dramas. It makes as much sense to compare it to, say, "NYPD Blue"
or "ER" as it does to B5.
: > : The TRUE bottom line is: if you don't like it, do something to CHANGE it.
: > : And since most of us don't work at Paramount, venting our frustrations
: > : about the absymal writing quality of Voyager's writers on the Internet is
: > : the closest thing to a Hot Line to Rick Berman.
: > Keep dreaming. The net is widely ignored by TPTB, and the longer I read
: > the groups the less I blame them for ignoring the net. Its the most
: > negative, hypercritical "fans" out there....this is not what's reflected
: > by ratings or other fandom like clubs and conventions. And about 90% of
: > the complainers, who have probably never written a short story much less
: > a teleplay for a highly stylized TV series, think they could do better.
: Has it ever occured to you and others who express the same disgust at the
: "negativism" on the Net that there are thousands of Trek fans out there
: who DON'T attend conventions or fan clubs because nobody wishes to discuss
: the BAD points of a show?
But they are still watching, aren't they. TPTB have no motive to make
major changes as long as the ratings hold at whatever level they have
decided they should.
: Granted, while there are a lot of stupid posts on the Net there are also
: scores of critical posts with good points that rabid fans ignore or
: dismiss as being "hateful" just because they can't stand their quasi-
: religion being questioned.
There is nothing wrong with being critical. But the criticism, with some
notable exceptions, is mostly either technical nitpicks, or "this sucked"
with no reason why. Not to mention the incredible signal to noise
ratio, and the blatant racism, sexism, etc. that show themselves on a
regular basis.
Nobody seems to realize that Voyager is still a baby. Gods, does anyone
remember just how bad the first season of TNG was? Its because character
driven shows take time to develop. Interactions and chemistry take
time. The fact that they have the experience of DS9 and TNG behind them
helps some things, but the characters are new, the characters all
interacting together are new, and people seem to expect deep moments and
brilliance by episode 5. It took DS9 and TNG the first two years to
develop these things - why do people expect so much more so soon?
: > : > : Land Voyager? No fucking way. Someone desperate for a new gimmick
: > : > : invented that loser over the summer. There would be virtually no (NO)
: > : > : reason to design the ability to land on a planet into a ship like
: > : > : Voyager. Give me a break.
: > : > Buzz. Thank you for playing.
: >
: > : Buzz yourself. David Walker is right on-target here: why design a
: >
: > <snip>
: >
: > What I was "buzzing" was the assertion (which you snipped) that
: > "someone thought it up over the summer". Which was wrong, since the
: > episode was filmed before the hiatus, and they had planned on Voyager
: > being able to land before the show ever aired. I did not say anything
: > about whether it was a good idea. You didnt read what I said.
: And I snipped it because the point is moot. It doesn't matter WHEN the
: idea was come up with. The idea ITSELF is questionable.
The point is NOT moot, because you were challenging me on things I did
not say. I was talking about form, and you were challenging me on
substance. THere is a difference, if its beyond you, I'm sorry.
: NOW, with that in mind...does it make any more sense for a starship
: with both shuttlecraft and transporters to have a landing capability?
: In STIV:TVH, the Klingon Bird-of-Prey was a small starship with
: transporters but no shuttles...a landing capability was required as
: a back-up for the transporters. Why Voyager, though?
If I was designing a starship, I would want to make it as flexible as
possible. Maybe the designers are reading all those reports from the
enterprise about how often they have had problems with shuttles and
transporters :) Its a new class of ship, why not try it?
: Because it was "cool."
Even if true, so what. There's nothing wrong with people who write
ENTERTAINMENT shows from doing things they think might be cool, or at
least giving them a try.
: > With that said, I disagree with you. TNG changed doctors over hiatus
: > (twice) and did cosmetic changes (the Riker beard, doing away with the
: > Troi bunhead etc.) Given the pace of series TV, I would say hiatus is the
: > only time they have to make such changes.
: Yes, but those were cosmetic changes. The Crusher/Pulaski switch was not
: popular with the fans...that's (part of) the reason Gates McFadden came
: back in the 3rd season.
: Three months of vacation aren't going to drastically improve a series.
: Just look at "SeaQuest."
This is ironic. What's wrong with seaquest is that they didnt give it
time to develop! Instead, they have made major concept changes (and cast
changes) every season, and havent given the characters a chance to grow
or the audience to get to know and like the characters. It's ironic that
you would note seaquest's disastrous major changes when there have been
so many people here suggesting that Voyager do essentially the same
thing - make a major concept change after the first (not even) season.
Lynn Loschin
: : negative, hypercritical "fans" out there....this is not what's reflected
: : by ratings or other fandom like clubs and conventions. And about 90% of
: : the complainers, who have probably never written a short story much less
: : a teleplay for a highly stylized TV series, think they could do better.
: Much to their discredit. It is the criticism of these fans that TPTB
: should listen to. These are the people that have driven trek to its
: current state of popularity, and if the producers are too blind and deaf
: to heed their criticisms, the series is doomed to follow its current Lost
: in Space trend.
I disagree. One - nobody voted the net complainers into power. They
represent themselves, and just because they are vocal doesnt mean that
that millions of others agree with them. If people want the producers to
sit up and take notice, then stop watching the show. Ratings they will
listen to.
Second - somehow, DS9 and TNG managed to develop into good shows without
slavishly listening to the opinion of the loudest people complaining.
:
: : A true nitpick is something that is peripheral to the story. This is
: : peripheral. You could come up with some other rationale for this
: : happening (or not have it happen at all) without changing the major
: : themes of the story - 1937 humans in the delta quadrant, and the crew
: : willing to stay with the ship. That's what the episode was "about" - not
: : the stupid truck.
:
: Sorry, Lynn, thank you for playing!
: The truck is a valid gripe. It is not peripheral to the story because
: the truck *drives* (pardon the pun) the story. Without the truck's
: ability to start, the AM radio would not have worked, they would *not*
: have heard the SOS, they would *not* have followed the signal all those
: miles to the other planet, and they would *not* have found the 37's.
: Therefore, without the truck, you would have no story. Period. Griping
: that the truck would be in working order after 400 years in space is
: *not* nitpicking, since the '37's would not have been discovered if it
: hadn't. It is major plot motivation, not a peripheral element.
You are entitled to disagree, but I stand by my statement that the truck
was a plot DEVICE, not a motivation. They could have had some other way
to locate the people with the same results once they did. If you had to
summarize what the episode was about, it was about Voyager finding
humans from 1937, including Amelia Earhart, in the delta quadrant, and
the crew deciding to continue home after discovering that the planet
was a nice place. It was not about a truck. Another device could have
served the same plot function without changing what the show was about.
John P Pietrzak
>Tom Salyers (at...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
>
>
>: >2. Paris said the there was still *water* left in the engine. SHEESH!
>: > (Water would have boiled away too. I dunno, maybe it froze very quickly
>: > or something)
>
>: inversely as the the pressure exerted on it. (I once saw a glass of water boil
>: at a comfortable 72 degrees Fahrenheit in a vacuum, for example...)
>
>Not so. Look at a comet -- a big ball of basically ice. Doesn't boil
>away until it comes close to the sun.
Comets are already at drastically low temperatures. Now, if they
reduced the temperature of the truck and all it contained down to near
absolute zero, and _then_ exposed it to a vacuum, it might have kept
a bit more of the material in it...
John
Lloyd R. Parker
: In a previous article, gmat...@Direct.CA (Gerry Joseph Matthews) says:
: > Question#1
: > Why would gasoline 'boil'away in a vacuum?
: > Question#2
: >Why would water 'boil away' in a vacuum??
: Because of the relation between the pressure exerted on a fluid and the
: boiling point of that fluid. Things boil pretty quickly in a vacuum.
Gee, I guess comets don't exist, huh? After all, they're mostly water
(frozen) exposed to a vacuum!
Lloyd R. Parker
: Gerry Joseph Matthews (gmat...@Direct.CA) wrote:
: > Question#1
: > Why would gasoline 'boil'away in a vacuum?
: > Question#2
: > Why would water 'boil away' in a vacuum??
: Because at lower pressures, liquids boil more easily. If you
: go up in the mountains, boils at 95 or 90 degrees, rather than 100.
: You can (and I've seen this done) make a flask of water boil at room
: temperature by pumping all of the air out of it.
: The truck was in space, so any non-airtight containers would
: have been under very low pressure, and the liquids therein would
: have boiled away.
NO! NO! Stop showing such ignorance about science, all of you! Space =
3 K. Cold! Things do not boil away when cold. Comets are ice! They
don't boil until very close to the sun! Gee, you people think you're so
cool (pun intended) showing you know about a vacuum when you're really
showing you're as ignorant as a stump!
Lloyd R. Parker
: : (Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:
: : > Cal Jacobson (ja...@mystech.com) wrote:
: : > : Have you heard the pathetic promotions on UPN? "...for the first time,
: : > : a starship lands on a planet..." etc etc. (I guess everybody has
: : > : forgotten the Klingon Bird of Prey from STIII and STIV).
: : > It wasn't a starship. That term refers to a specific type of ship. Like
: : > calling a frigate a battleship.
: : Really? I guess that means it doesn't travel between stars!
: : Question: What, then, is the LACK of difference between the
: : STARSHIP Enterprise (TOS), STARSHIP Enterprise (TNG),
: : STARSHIP Defiant, and the STARSHIP Voyager?
: : They are obviously of different sizes, yet are have all been called
: : at one point or another "Starship".
: : CJ
: They are also all FEDERATION ships. Just like we say astronauts and
: Russians say cosmonauts, different cultures have different ways of naming
: things or people that have similar functions, I have heard "warship" for
: Klingon vessels, but not "starship" so far as I recall.
See "Bread and Circuses" for example. A starship is special, just like a
battleship today. That term isn't applied to every ship that goes into
battle.
Matthew Doig
:
: Simply not true. The ship could have picked up the SOS -- we have
The why weren't they scanning those frequencies *before*? If the signal
were strong enough that the truck could recieve it through the hull of
the voyager, it would have been a *hell* of a lot easier to detect than
the rust floating in space. They weren't even scanning those frequencies
until they knew about the signal. Don't you think a ship in unfamiliar
waters would have all its ears open? The truck was there to drive the
plot. All your excuses and justifications cannot change this.
Lloyd R. Parker
: In article <4229i6$a...@curly.cc.emory.edu> lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
: >Tom Salyers (at...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
: >
: >: In a previous article, br...@SEDS.LPL.Arizona.EDU (Bryce Burchett) says:
: >
: >: >2. Paris said the there was still *water* left in the engine. SHEESH!
: >: > (Water would have boiled away too. I dunno, maybe it froze very quickly
: >: > or something)
: >
: >: It'd boil way before it froze. The point at which a liquid boils varies
: >: inversely as the the pressure exerted on it. (I once saw a glass of water boil
: >: at a comfortable 72 degrees Fahrenheit in a vacuum, for example...)
: >
: >Not so. Look at a comet -- a big ball of basically ice. Doesn't boil
: >away until it comes close to the sun.
: Comets are already at drastically low temperatures. Now, if they
: reduced the temperature of the truck and all it contained down to near
: absolute zero, and _then_ exposed it to a vacuum, it might have kept
: a bit more of the material in it...
: John
Nope, still not good science. First, exposing something to 3 K cools it
down in a hurry! Ever see something dipped in liquid nitrogen? And
that's a lot warmer! Second, as the first molecules evaporate off, they
cool the remaining molecules even more. (Chemistry I, try it.)
Lloyd R. Parker
Well, why should a starship monitor the AM band? The Enterprise picked
up that radio message because it was designed to cause interference and
be read as something dangerous, remember? Go back and watch "The
Menagerie" if need be.
John P Pietrzak
>John P Pietrzak (piet...@bert.cs.byu.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4229i6$a...@curly.cc.emory.edu> lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>: >Tom Salyers (at...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
>: >
>: >: inversely as the the pressure exerted on it. (I once saw a glass of water boil
>: >: at a comfortable 72 degrees Fahrenheit in a vacuum, for example...)
>: >
>: >Not so. Look at a comet -- a big ball of basically ice. Doesn't boil
>: >away until it comes close to the sun.
>
>: Comets are already at drastically low temperatures. Now, if they
>: reduced the temperature of the truck and all it contained down to near
>: absolute zero, and _then_ exposed it to a vacuum, it might have kept
>: a bit more of the material in it...
>
>down in a hurry! Ever see something dipped in liquid nitrogen? And
>that's a lot warmer! Second, as the first molecules evaporate off, they
>cool the remaining molecules even more. (Chemistry I, try it.)
Uhm, I believe you've just defended my point. Lowering temperature
while keeping pressure constant tends to solidify a material (thus, ice
cubes in the freezer). Lowering pressure while keeping temperature
constant tends to lead towards a gas (thus, boiling water at 72
degrees F).
So, If you dump a hot truck into space, lots of the liquids are going
to evaporate away. But, if you cool the truck down while it's still
under some sort of pressure (cold in this case being relatively close
to the 0 K level) and dump it into space, you'd seem to keep a lot more
around.
(Finally, cooling via exposure to liquid nitrogen is accomplished
using conduction, but most cooling in space has to occur by radiation.
So they aren't directly comparable. But, I'm getting a bit out of
my league here...)
John
John P Pietrzak
>Andrew Arensburger (are...@cfar.umd.edu) wrote:
>
>NO! NO! Stop showing such ignorance about science, all of you! Space =
>3 K. Cold! Things do not boil away when cold. Comets are ice! They
>don't boil until very close to the sun! Gee, you people think you're so
>cool (pun intended) showing you know about a vacuum when you're really
>showing you're as ignorant as a stump!
Exactly, things do not boil away when cold, they boil away when hot.
However, in a vacuum (and depending on the material), hot can be as low
as room temperature (or less). If the truck was at room temperature
when dumped, the liquids would have boiled away...
John
CptRoLaren
lousy ideas, writing, and directing, there are spoilers here for those of
you who care to watch the first episode without knowing anything about it.
In article <41uve0$h...@blackbird.afit.af.mil>, jhen...@resumix.portal.com
(Jim Henderson) writes:
>>: >I am willing to suspend disbelief to a point, but the 1936 Ford
started
>>: >faster than my 1984 Chevy does on a cold morning. There is a laundry
>>: >list of reasons that the truck would not start.
>>
>>: I'll start:
>>: 1.) Whatever gasoline was left would have boiled away in the vacuum of
>space.
>>
>>2. Paris said the there was still *water* left in the engine. SHEESH!
>> (Water would have boiled away too. I dunno, maybe it froze very
quickly
>> or something)
>
>3. The seals would not have held in vacuum due to the extreme
>difference in pressures.
>
>4. It's still trailing gasoline 3-400 years later?
>
>5. It hasn't hit any asteroids (even small ones)?
>
>6. Why is the truck in space, but the plane is on the planet?
I agree with all of the above. I was willing to give the ep. a chance,
since the cryo. ep. seems to be something each ST has to try at some point
(not on DSN, yet, I don't think). But the entire ep. was so hokey and
poorly written, I can't imagine the series could get any worse. Therefore,
maybe it'll get better.
What about those cities we never see but that are supposed to be so great?
No wonder no one wanted to stay except the "37s"--the scenes where the
crew are talking about staying are very unconvincing, too low key, and
they lack much description neccesary to make us understand why this place
is so great. And those "future" humans on the planet were really dorky,
but they seemed to have better tech. than could be supported by a pop of
100,000, or begun by the mere few hundred that originally populated the
planet--and why the hell would the Briori *want* these humans for slaves,
in the first place? What were they supposed to be doing as slaves? Why not
get some primitives closer to home? How could a few hundred humans
overthrow their masters--unless this were just some small subset of
Briori, and the rest of the Briori weren't allied with them, so they all
were killed or kicked out (like in Haiti way-back-when).
We got no sense of what "shore leave" was like on this planet, nor any
idea of what the natives thought of Voyager, or may have wanted from their
visitors--history books, medical knowledge, literature from their
ancestors' past, etc. And *no one* from the planet felt adventurous enough
to join the Voyager crew--or at least ask to?
And I don't care what kind of pseudo-scientific explanation people want to
come up with, to have Voyager land would require more than just those few
little legs--any kind of compensating mechanism would eat far too much
energy.
Best part of the ep: the blue sky outside the windows *or* Neelix actually
makes something edible for the 37s (at least I assume it was. . .:^)
<<rant on>>
Worst part: tie: Janeway's expression when she sees the truck floating in
space (maybe she was caught in its headlights??:)
*or*: Janeway's expression when she walks into the empty cargo bay (that,
in and of itself, may have been an appropriate reaction, but I'm sick of
Janeway tearing up in public all the time--does she have an affective
disorder, or something, that she can't control herself a little better?
How'd she ever become captain? Tears are fine, in life and on the show,
but overdo it, and it just becomes annoying and predictable).
<<rant off>>
BTW, I live in, and grew up in, a cold climate, and even if we grant that
there could still be water (in the form of ice) and gasoline (also frozen)
in the truck when they picked it up (thus keeping it from totally
dissipating into space--though then we'd have the problem of the trail of
gas), I cannot believe that a battery frozen for 400 years would possibly
still
CptRoLaren
Matthews) writes:
> Question#1
> Why would gasoline 'boil'away in a vacuum?
>
> Question#2
>Why would water 'boil away' in a vacuum??
>
>
Ever heard of barometric pressure? Ever cooked at different altitudes?
Boiling point isn't carved in stone--it's also a factor of the pressure
the liquid is under.
David Serchay
: David Walker (dswa...@panther.us.com) wrote:
: : Well, if there was any doubt up to this point, it should be clear now:
: : "Voyager" stinks.
: :
: : I am willing to suspend disbelief to a point, but the 1936 Ford started
: : they put that into the show.
: The battery is still alive after 400 years. I don't think so either.
: Voyager has sunk so low that it has become comical. I think I will
: start watching relgularly again just for laughters.
: Eugene
I don't know. I'm suprised that Ford doesn't try to use this episode for
a commercial. I mean talk about "Built to last." :)
Dascoser
--
David Serchay
a013...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Tom Salyers
In a previous article, lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) says:
>NO! NO! Stop showing such ignorance about science, all of you!
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> Space =3 K. Cold! Things do not boil away when cold.
But things *do* boil away when they're suddenly exposed to a vacuum.
The entire truck wouldn't be at 3 degrees Kelvin instantaneously, you know...
Matthew Doig
:
: Well, why should a starship monitor the AM band? The Enterprise picked
: be read as something dangerous, remember? Go back and watch "The
: Menagerie" if need be.
But the Voyager is in completely unfamiliar territory, looking for a way
home. Wouldn't it make sense to monitor the entire frequency spectrum
just in case *something* that could take them home faster was on it? The
situation in The Menagerie aside, the truck was silly and should *not*
have been included if they wanted anyone to take this series seriously.
Tom Salyers
In a previous article, lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) says:
>Gee, I guess comets don't exist, huh? After all, they're mostly water
>(frozen) exposed to a vacuum!
Water that starts boiling away when the comet comes into sunlight or
other energy.
Martin Goodson
>In a previous article, lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) says:
>
>>Gee, I guess comets don't exist, huh? After all, they're mostly water
>>(frozen) exposed to a vacuum!
>
> Water that starts boiling away when the comet comes into sunlight or
>other energy.
>
I don't remember much from my school physics class, so I'm probably in
very dangerous territory here, so I will tread carefully.
But I thought comets were not made of frozen H2O, but rather other
frozen gasses. Can anybody confirm or deny this?
Just inquisitive. Please don't shoot me down in flames. Thank you.
mar...@dial.pipex.com (Windows 95 user and proud of it!)
Bruce Willis & Babylon 5's Mr. Garibaldi - Separated at birth?
Matthew White
> ... if
> you dont like star trek, watch something else...
>
Don't let the sponsors hear you say this.
KURT J. TISCHER
JC>>>I am willing to suspend disbelief to a point, but the 1936 Ford
JC>>>started faster than my 1984 Chevy does on a cold morning. There
JC>>>is a laundry list of reasons that the truck would not start.
JC>>
JC>>I'll start:
JC>>
JC>>1.) Whatever gasoline was left would have boiled away in the vacuum
JC>of space. >
JC>2.) Battery would have lost its charge over 400 years and
JC>temperatures near absolute zero.
1.) No, the gas would not have boiled away. Space is cold, very cold, as
well as being a vacuum. All the air and gas would have been sucked from
the tank and the tank would have imploded, as well as the tires and any
air would have been sucked from the upholstery. Any place in the car
that had an air/liquid mixture which was not properly vacuum sealed
would have imploded.
2.) Not if it was a DIE HARD! :)
---
* CMPQwk #1.42-R2 * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
Greg Nash
llos...@netcom.com (Lynn Loschin) writes:
> Matthew Doig (grun...@ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
> : The truck is a valid gripe. It is not peripheral to the story because
> : the truck *drives* (pardon the pun) the story. Without the truck's
> : ability to start, the AM radio would not have worked, they would *not*
> : have heard the SOS, they would *not* have followed the signal all those
> : miles to the other planet, and they would *not* have found the 37's.
> : Therefore, without the truck, you would have no story. Period. Griping
> : that the truck would be in working order after 400 years in space is
> : *not* nitpicking, since the '37's would not have been discovered if it
> : hadn't. It is major plot motivation, not a peripheral element.
>
> You are entitled to disagree, but I stand by my statement that the truck
> was a plot DEVICE, not a motivation. They could have had some other way
> to locate the people with the same results once they did. If you had to
> summarize what the episode was about, it was about Voyager finding
> humans from 1937, including Amelia Earhart, in the delta quadrant, and
> the crew deciding to continue home after discovering that the planet
> was a nice place. It was not about a truck. Another device could have
> served the same plot function without changing what the show was about.
Yes, they could easily have had some other way to locate the people.
That's precisely what irks me about the truck sequence. The way the
episode is written, the viewer has to accept all of the following
inaccuracies and inconsistancies in order to proceed to the main part
of the story:
1) A 1936 pickup truck exposed to deep space for 400 years is still in
working condition.
2) While enclosed in Voyager's hull, the truck's still-functioning AM
radio is able to receive a distress signal from an aircraft radio on a
planet several billion miles away.
3) The Voyager, a starship lost in an uncharted region of the galaxy,
does not routinely monitor a portion of the EM spectrum that is very
likely to be used by technological civilizations.
These are fairly basic issues of physics and spaceflight, and a show
with the prestige and budget of Star Trek ought to be able to get them
right. Even so, I'd be willing to overlook these flaws if they were
necessary for the telling of a good, interesting story, but that's not
the case here. As you point out, the truck is irrelevant to the main
plot. The first two technical blunders were completely unnecessary and
the same results could have been achieved by having Voyager's sensors
detect the S.O.S. The writers were obviously aware of this simpler
solution, since they specifically included dialogue (and a third
technical blunder) to explain why Voyager didn't detect the signal.
This is just sloppy writing, and I feel that the gripes about this
scene are completely justified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nash \ The above opinions are mine and mine alone.
greg...@atk.com \ I do not speak for Alliant Techsystems.
John Soo-Hoo
>In article <42a9to$4...@curly.cc.emory.edu>
>lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>
>> Matthew Doig (grun...@ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
>>
>> up that radio message because it was designed to cause interference and
>> be read as something dangerous, remember? Go back and watch "The
>> Menagerie" if need be.
>
>technological civilizations are extremely likely to make use of the
>radio frequency portion of the EM spectrum. Voyager's crew should be
>using every means possible to search for intelligent life that might be
>able to help them on their journey home. Also, keep in mind that,
>assuming Voyager eventually makes it home, its sensor logs will contain
>the only data ever gathered from that part of the galaxy. Wouldn't it
>make sense to gather as much data as possible along the way?
>Exploration is one of the primary goals of Starfleet, after all.
Well IMHO, Voyager should be monitoring the AM band just to locate
other intelligent life. After all, didn't Uhura do this is TOS? She
monitored and listened to all different modes and bands of communications.
Apparentely this is a lost skill or not done by the "new breed" of Star
Fleece Officers during a routine check.
I doubt anyone that relies on AM communications would have the technology
to get Voyager home. But one thing is clear this episodes had some
MAJOR flaws and sloppy work that others have pointed out.
--
Attention Star Fleet Surplus Shoppers!! There will be a special on
anti-matter, photon torpedoes casings, and trilithium resin on
aisle 4 level 10. And please do NOT service your spaceships or assemble
items purchased in the parking lot... And will the owner of the Nova Class
starship, ship registry NCC-1701E please turn off your phasers?
Lloyd R. Parker
: >John P Pietrzak (piet...@bert.cs.byu.edu) wrote:
: >: In article <4229i6$a...@curly.cc.emory.edu> lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
: >: >Tom Salyers (at...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
: >: >
: >: >: It'd boil way before it froze. The point at which a liquid boils varies
: >: >: inversely as the the pressure exerted on it. (I once saw a glass of water boil
: >: >: at a comfortable 72 degrees Fahrenheit in a vacuum, for example...)
: >: >
: >: >Not so. Look at a comet -- a big ball of basically ice. Doesn't boil
: >: >away until it comes close to the sun.
: >
: >: Comets are already at drastically low temperatures. Now, if they
: >: reduced the temperature of the truck and all it contained down to near
: >: absolute zero, and _then_ exposed it to a vacuum, it might have kept
: >: a bit more of the material in it...
: >
: >Nope, still not good science. First, exposing something to 3 K cools it
: >down in a hurry! Ever see something dipped in liquid nitrogen? And
: >that's a lot warmer! Second, as the first molecules evaporate off, they
: >cool the remaining molecules even more. (Chemistry I, try it.)
: Uhm, I believe you've just defended my point. Lowering temperature
: while keeping pressure constant tends to solidify a material (thus, ice
: cubes in the freezer). Lowering pressure while keeping temperature
: constant tends to lead towards a gas (thus, boiling water at 72
: degrees F).
But an ice cube in your freezer evaporates a lot slower than one out in
the room, even though there's a lot less water vapor in the freezer which
tends to speed evaporation (actually, sublimation). Moral: Things
evaporate extremely slowly at low temp. And water on a mountain
evaporates no faster; at 25 C, for example, it would evaporate exactly as
fast as water at sea level. It just reaches its boiling point at a lower
temperature. But is vapor pressure all the way to the b.p. is identical
with the water at sea level.
: So, If you dump a hot truck into space, lots of the liquids are going
: to evaporate away. But, if you cool the truck down while it's still
: under some sort of pressure (cold in this case being relatively close
: to the 0 K level) and dump it into space, you'd seem to keep a lot more
: around.
But some liquids will remain because (1) cooling occurs very fast at 3 K,
and (2) the first molecules escaping cools the remaining ones even more.
Lloyd R. Parker
: >Andrew Arensburger (are...@cfar.umd.edu) wrote:
: >
: >NO! NO! Stop showing such ignorance about science, all of you! Space =
: >3 K. Cold! Things do not boil away when cold. Comets are ice! They
: >don't boil until very close to the sun! Gee, you people think you're so
: >cool (pun intended) showing you know about a vacuum when you're really
: >showing you're as ignorant as a stump!
: Exactly, things do not boil away when cold, they boil away when hot.
: However, in a vacuum (and depending on the material), hot can be as low
: as room temperature (or less). If the truck was at room temperature
: when dumped, the liquids would have boiled away...
: John
Depends on how fast it cooled, and neither you nor I know the rate of
cooling vs the rate of evaporation. So for you to call it an error is a
gross assumption on your part that you have no proof for.
Lloyd R. Parker
: What about those cities we never see but that are supposed to be so great?
I guess you don't believe in the machine planet in TMP either then. It
wasn't shown. Or the underground complex in "Shore Leave" -- it wasn't
shown either.
: No wonder no one wanted to stay except the "37s"--the scenes where the
: crew are talking about staying are very unconvincing, too low key, and
: they lack much description neccesary to make us understand why this place
: is so great. And those "future" humans on the planet were really dorky,
: but they seemed to have better tech. than could be supported by a pop of
: 100,000,
They specifically said they took the Briori's technology.
: or begun by the mere few hundred that originally populated the
: planet--and why the hell would the Briori *want* these humans for slaves,
: in the first place?
Why does anybody want slaves?
: What were they supposed to be doing as slaves? Why not
: get some primitives closer to home?
Why didn't Americans use fellow Americans, or Mexicans, or Indians, or
Canadians, instead of going all the way to Africa for slaves?
: How could a few hundred humans
: overthrow their masters--unless this were just some small subset of
: Briori, and the rest of the Briori weren't allied with them, so they all
: were killed or kicked out (like in Haiti way-back-when).
How did the Irish win independence from the British? Or the Vietnamese
from France?
: We got no sense of what "shore leave" was like on this planet, nor any
: idea of what the natives thought of Voyager, or may have wanted from their
: visitors--history books, medical knowledge, literature from their
: ancestors' past, etc. And *no one* from the planet felt adventurous enough
: to join the Voyager crew--or at least ask to?
Amelia talked about it.
: And I don't care what kind of pseudo-scientific explanation people want to
: come up with, to have Voyager land would require more than just those few
: little legs--any kind of compensating mechanism would eat far too much
: energy.
Yeah, like that's ever stopped them before? Replicators instead of a
galley? A holodeck just for fun? (Whatever happened to VCRs or just
plain books?)
: Best part of the ep: the blue sky outside the windows *or* Neelix actually
: makes something edible for the 37s (at least I assume it was. . .:^)
: <<rant on>>
: Worst part: tie: Janeway's expression when she sees the truck floating in
: space (maybe she was caught in its headlights??:)
: *or*: Janeway's expression when she walks into the empty cargo bay (that,
: in and of itself, may have been an appropriate reaction, but I'm sick of
: Janeway tearing up in public all the time--does she have an affective
: disorder, or something, that she can't control herself a little better?
: How'd she ever become captain? Tears are fine, in life and on the show,
: but overdo it, and it just becomes annoying and predictable).
: <<rant off>>
Hey, it was an emotional moment. Kirk got emotional too -- remember
Edith Keeler? Rayna?
: BTW, I live in, and grew up in, a cold climate, and even if we grant that
: there could still be water (in the form of ice) and gasoline (also frozen)
: in the truck when they picked it up (thus keeping it from totally
: dissipating into space--though then we'd have the problem of the trail of
: gas), I cannot believe that a battery frozen for 400 years would possibly
: still
And after you warmed the battery back up? They didn't try to start it
with the battery still at 3 K, you know.
Lloyd R. Parker
: Well IMHO, Voyager should be monitoring the AM band just to locate
: other intelligent life. After all, didn't Uhura do this is TOS? She
: monitored and listened to all different modes and bands of communications.
: Apparentely this is a lost skill or not done by the "new breed" of Star
: Fleece Officers during a routine check.
NO! The only time the Ent. intercepted a radio wave, the wave was one
designed to cause interference and attract attention. Remember, the
ship went to alert, thinking they were under attack.
Please get your facts straight before criticizing.
Lloyd R. Parker
: Lloyd R. Parker (lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu) wrote:
: :
: : Well, why should a starship monitor the AM band? The Enterprise picked
: : be read as something dangerous, remember? Go back and watch "The
: : Menagerie" if need be.
: But the Voyager is in completely unfamiliar territory, looking for a way
: home. Wouldn't it make sense to monitor the entire frequency spectrum
: just in case *something* that could take them home faster was on it? The
: situation in The Menagerie aside, the truck was silly and should *not*
: have been included if they wanted anyone to take this series seriously.
No. They explained that. A civilization which could only transmit at
light speed probably wouldn't have the tech to get them home.
Lloyd R. Parker
: In a previous article, lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) says:
: >Gee, I guess comets don't exist, huh? After all, they're mostly water
: >(frozen) exposed to a vacuum!
: Water that starts boiling away when the comet comes into sunlight or
: other energy.
Uh huh. And what about the other 99% of the comet's life? Solid water,
even in a vacuum.
Lloyd R. Parker
: In a previous article, lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) says:
: >NO! NO! Stop showing such ignorance about science, all of you!
: Pot. Kettle. Black.
: > Space =3 K. Cold! Things do not boil away when cold.
: But things *do* boil away when they're suddenly exposed to a vacuum.
: The entire truck wouldn't be at 3 degrees Kelvin instantaneously, you know...
No, but the water would cool down pretty quick, especially since
evaporation itself is a cooling process. As the first molecules escape,
they cool the remaining molecules. This is why your windshield washer
fluid can be a liquid in the tank but freeze on your windshield when
you're driving fast in the winter.
CptRoLaren
writes:
>In a previous article, lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) says:
>
>>I guess you don't believe in the machine planet in TMP either then. It
>>wasn't shown. Or the underground complex in "Shore Leave" -- it wasn't
>>shown either.
>
> Neither of those plots hinged on how wonderful those places were
supposed
>to be to the respective crews in each episode, either.
>
>>Why does anybody want slaves?
>
> If you have the technology to cross thousands of light years of
>interstellar space, it's a pretty safe bet that you can replace slave
labor
>with machines. *We* don't even use slaves, and we haven't made it past
the
>moon.....
>
>>Why didn't Americans use fellow Americans, or Mexicans, or Indians, or
>>Canadians, instead of going all the way to Africa for slaves?
>
> Lloyd, you're talking about trillions and trillions of miles here.
It's
>not like the Briori made a six-month sea voyage over to Africa to grab
some
>slaves--they expended enough energy to travel all the way across the
galaxy
>and back to grab some Earthers when a couple hundred Ocampa or Kazon
would
>have been much cheaper to get.
> Kidnapping humans doesn't make *sense*.
>
>>How did the Irish win independence from the British? Or the Vietnamese
>>from France?
I *did* mention the slave revolt on Haiti as an example of under-equipped
people winning a revolt against oppressors with a superior technology.
>
> Neither of those cases was chemical projectile weapons against
hideously
>advanced energy weapons, either.
>
>>: And I don't care what kind of pseudo-scientific explanation people
want to
>>: come up with, to have Voyager land would require more than just those
few
>>: little legs--any kind of compensating mechanism would eat far too much
>>: energy.
>>
>>Yeah, like that's ever stopped them before? Replicators instead of a
>>galley? A holodeck just for fun? (Whatever happened to VCRs or just
>>plain books?)
>
> Bringing up other inconsistencies doesn't excuse the ones we're already
>discussing. You're undermining your own argument.
>--
>Tom Salyers "Now is the Windows of our disk contents
>IRCnick: Aqualung made glorious SimEarth by this Sun of Zork."
>Denver, CO ---Richard v3.0
>
>
Thanks, Tom! My response, but done better!
(Like you sig, BTW!:)
Tom Salyers
In a previous article, lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) says:
>I guess you don't believe in the machine planet in TMP either then. It
>wasn't shown. Or the underground complex in "Shore Leave" -- it wasn't
>shown either.
Neither of those plots hinged on how wonderful those places were supposed
to be to the respective crews in each episode, either.
>Why does anybody want slaves?
If you have the technology to cross thousands of light years of
interstellar space, it's a pretty safe bet that you can replace slave labor
with machines. *We* don't even use slaves, and we haven't made it past the
moon.....
>Why didn't Americans use fellow Americans, or Mexicans, or Indians, or
>Canadians, instead of going all the way to Africa for slaves?
Lloyd, you're talking about trillions and trillions of miles here. It's
not like the Briori made a six-month sea voyage over to Africa to grab some
slaves--they expended enough energy to travel all the way across the galaxy
and back to grab some Earthers when a couple hundred Ocampa or Kazon would
have been much cheaper to get.
Kidnapping humans doesn't make *sense*.
>How did the Irish win independence from the British? Or the Vietnamese
>from France?
Neither of those cases was chemical projectile weapons against hideously
Lloyd R. Parker
: In article <42a9to$4...@curly.cc.emory.edu>
: lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
: > Matthew Doig (grun...@ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
: >
: > : The why weren't they scanning those frequencies *before*? If the signal
: > : were strong enough that the truck could recieve it through the hull of
: > : the voyager, it would have been a *hell* of a lot easier to detect than
: > : the rust floating in space. They weren't even scanning those frequencies
: > : until they knew about the signal. Don't you think a ship in unfamiliar
: > : waters would have all its ears open? The truck was there to drive the
: > : plot. All your excuses and justifications cannot change this.
: >
: > Well, why should a starship monitor the AM band? The Enterprise picked
: > up that radio message because it was designed to cause interference and
: > be read as something dangerous, remember? Go back and watch "The
: > Menagerie" if need be.
: Why should a starship monitor the AM band? How about because
: technological civilizations are extremely likely to make use of the
: radio frequency portion of the EM spectrum. Voyager's crew should be
: using every means possible to search for intelligent life that might be
: able to help them on their journey home. Also, keep in mind that,
: assuming Voyager eventually makes it home, its sensor logs will contain
: the only data ever gathered from that part of the galaxy. Wouldn't it
: make sense to gather as much data as possible along the way?
: Exploration is one of the primary goals of Starfleet, after all.
Any civilization that still uses radio to communicate almost certainly
has no FTL capability and couldn't help Voyager get home.
Besides, the ship might monitor radio if it were actually studying a
planet at the time.
Cal Jacobson
: Cal Jacobson (ja...@mystech.com) wrote:
: : Really? I guess that means it doesn't travel between stars!
: : Question: What, then, is the LACK of difference between the
: : STARSHIP Enterprise (TOS), STARSHIP Enterprise (TNG),
: : STARSHIP Defiant, and the STARSHIP Voyager?
: : They are obviously of different sizes, yet are have all been called
: : at one point or another "Starship".
: They are also all FEDERATION ships. Just like we say astronauts and
: Russians say cosmonauts, different cultures have different ways of naming
: things or people that have similar functions, I have heard "warship" for
: Klingon vessels, but not "starship" so far as I recall.
Well, Russian ships are referred to as "he" while American ships are
referred to as "she", yet the assignment of one gender or another doesn't
effect the capabilities of either one bit. The Russian Navy (just like
the U.S. Navy or the U.K. Navy) has destroyers, escorts, frigates and
carriers but obviously has different words (in Russian) for those classes.
The nouns may change, but the tonnage doesn't.
At risk of making this sound like a flame (which is not my intent),
calling a chicken a turkey not only fails to make the bird bigger, but
results in quite a dissapointment come Thanksgiving day.
CJ
Cal Jacobson
: NO! NO! Stop showing such ignorance about science, all of you! Space =
Maybe you should direct such advice to Voyager's writing staff,
Captain Chemistry.
CJ
Cal Jacobson
: CptRoLaren (cptro...@aol.com) wrote:
: : What about those cities we never see but that are supposed to be so great?
: shown either.
Ah, but it isn't a matter of "believing" whether or not they exist.
In both cases, it wasn't the producer of V'Ger (the Machine Planet in
ST:TMP) or the "Shore Leave" (TOS) devices, but the *creations* themselves.
The focus of TMP was V'Ger, not the Machine Planet. The wonder of
"Shore Leave" surrounded the lifelike 'replicants' of people and animals
churned out by the underground complex, not the factories themselves.
In "The 37ers," all we see of the planet surface is the cryo chamber,
a couple dirt paths, a 400-year-old airplane, and the Voyager landing
site. The magical, wonderous cities built by the humans were never seen,
nor was anything regarding the Briori (sp?) ever shown.
A two-second shot of a well-done matte painting depicting a human city
would have not only brought the viewer more in touch with the crew's
desire to stay, but would have silenced all this bickering.
: : And those "future" humans on the planet were really dorky,
: : but they seemed to have better tech. than could be supported by a pop of
: : 100,000,
: They specifically said they took the Briori's technology.
That doesn't mean that they know how to use all of it. Give a laptop
computer to a 16th century serf. What would he do with it?
: : or begun by the mere few hundred that originally populated the
: : planet--and why the hell would the Briori *want* these humans for slaves,
: : in the first place?
: Why does anybody want slaves?
And why would they go roughly 70,000 light years out of their way to get
them from some backwater planet called Earth?
: : What were they supposed to be doing as slaves? Why not
: : get some primitives closer to home?
: Why didn't Americans use fellow Americans, or Mexicans, or Indians, or
: Canadians, instead of going all the way to Africa for slaves?
Would the slavers still have gone to Africa if it were 70 years' of sailing
away?
: : *or*: Janeway's expression when she walks into the empty cargo bay (that,
: : in and of itself, may have been an appropriate reaction, but I'm sick of
: : Janeway tearing up in public all the time--does she have an affective
: : disorder, or something, that she can't control herself a little better?
: : How'd she ever become captain? Tears are fine, in life and on the show,
: : but overdo it, and it just becomes annoying and predictable).
: Hey, it was an emotional moment. Kirk got emotional too -- remember
: Edith Keeler? Rayna?
Yes, but Kirk knew that Edith Keeler was going to die (and knew that he
couldn't change that fact) and then had to watch her die. Given that he
was pretty emotionally attached to someone just killed, I think we can
cut old James T. some slack here. As for Rayna (from the "Gamesters of
Trisk"-whatever)...I don't recall him getting all that worked up.
Kirk got emotional sometimes (as did Picard and Sisko), but not every week...
CJ
Greg Nash
> Matthew Doig (grun...@ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
>
> : The why weren't they scanning those frequencies *before*? If the signal
> : were strong enough that the truck could recieve it through the hull of
> : the voyager, it would have been a *hell* of a lot easier to detect than
> : the rust floating in space. They weren't even scanning those frequencies
> : until they knew about the signal. Don't you think a ship in unfamiliar
> : waters would have all its ears open? The truck was there to drive the
> : plot. All your excuses and justifications cannot change this.
>
> Well, why should a starship monitor the AM band? The Enterprise picked
> up that radio message because it was designed to cause interference and
> be read as something dangerous, remember? Go back and watch "The
> Menagerie" if need be.
Why should a starship monitor the AM band? How about because
technological civilizations are extremely likely to make use of the
radio frequency portion of the EM spectrum. Voyager's crew should be
using every means possible to search for intelligent life that might be
able to help them on their journey home. Also, keep in mind that,
assuming Voyager eventually makes it home, its sensor logs will contain
the only data ever gathered from that part of the galaxy. Wouldn't it
make sense to gather as much data as possible along the way?
Exploration is one of the primary goals of Starfleet, after all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John P Pietrzak
>I wrote:
>: If the truck was at room temperature
>: when dumped, the liquids would have boiled away...
>
>cooling vs the rate of evaporation. So for you to call it an error is a
>gross assumption on your part that you have no proof for.
I actually do know enough that it is a significant problem which was
completely ignored by the writers of the show. That a 400 year old
truck is able to run is bad enough; that a truck exposed to space for
400 years is able to run is amazing. Assuming that it would survive
in the manner it did is a gross assumption on the part of the writers.
John
John P Pietrzak
>: while keeping pressure constant tends to solidify a material (thus, ice
>: cubes in the freezer). Lowering pressure while keeping temperature
>: constant tends to lead towards a gas (thus, boiling water at 72
>: degrees F).
>
>But an ice cube in your freezer evaporates a lot slower than one out in
>the room, even though there's a lot less water vapor in the freezer which
>tends to speed evaporation (actually, sublimation). Moral: Things
>evaporate extremely slowly at low temp.
Ah, but we're not talking about evaporation/sublimation. We're talking
about phase change due to boiling. Drop the pressure and the boiling
point goes down, enough so that at least some of the liquids on the
truck should have been boiling.
(Actually, Lloyd brings up another point -- sublimation of remaining
volatile substances would have occured as well. Over 400 years, this
could also have made a significant impact on the truck.)
>But some liquids will remain because (1) cooling occurs very fast at 3 K,
>and (2) the first molecules escaping cools the remaining ones even more.
(Actually, I don't think water even has a liquid phase in a vacuum, but
that's beside the point.) In either case, the radiator's a lost
cause. If the water boils away, it doesn't work. If the water stays,
the radiator cracks and again, it doesn't work. The interesting thing
here is how gasoline would react in space. I never took organic
chemistry, so I have no idea what happens to things like gas in a
vacuum: does it actually have a solid state? Would it boil? etc.
John
Lloyd R. Parker
: In a previous article, lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) says:
: >I guess you don't believe in the machine planet in TMP either then. It
: >wasn't shown. Or the underground complex in "Shore Leave" -- it wasn't
: >shown either.
: Neither of those plots hinged on how wonderful those places were supposed
: to be to the respective crews in each episode, either.
Neither did how the cities LOOKED. The allure was a planet with no war,
with few people so no overcrowding or pollution, and a sure-fire
earth-like setting vs the unknown risks of getting home.
: >Why does anybody want slaves?
: If you have the technology to cross thousands of light years of
: interstellar space, it's a pretty safe bet that you can replace slave labor
: with machines. *We* don't even use slaves, and we haven't made it past the
: moon.....
The Cardassians used Bajorans in labor camps as slaves. Ergo, your
argument falls apart, unless you're going to claim the Cardys have no
high tech.
: >Why didn't Americans use fellow Americans, or Mexicans, or Indians, or
: >Canadians, instead of going all the way to Africa for slaves?
: Lloyd, you're talking about trillions and trillions of miles here. It's
: not like the Briori made a six-month sea voyage over to Africa to grab some
: slaves--they expended enough energy to travel all the way across the galaxy
: and back to grab some Earthers when a couple hundred Ocampa or Kazon would
: have been much cheaper to get.
: Kidnapping humans doesn't make *sense*.
And apparently those trillions of miles made no more difference to the
Briori than the thousands did to 18th century sea captains.
: >How did the Irish win independence from the British? Or the Vietnamese
: >from France?
: Neither of those cases was chemical projectile weapons against hideously
: advanced energy weapons, either.
The show specifically said the slaves captured Briori weapons and used
them against their captors. There was no evidence the rebels used firearms.
: >: And I don't care what kind of pseudo-scientific explanation people want to
: >: come up with, to have Voyager land would require more than just those few
: >: little legs--any kind of compensating mechanism would eat far too much
: >: energy.
: >
: >Yeah, like that's ever stopped them before? Replicators instead of a
: >galley? A holodeck just for fun? (Whatever happened to VCRs or just
: >plain books?)
: Bringing up other inconsistencies doesn't excuse the ones we're already
: discussing. You're undermining your own argument.
No, it's entirely relevant. You're saying the use of energy YOU want to
criticize is wrong, when other frivolous uses of energy are apparent in
Trek too. Your problem is, you don't want anybody pointing out your
arguments don't hold up. Either there is a scientific explanation, an
established Trek explanation, or a plausible explanation in terms of
alien and human motivations, for all of them. And since you seem to have
this great gnawing desire to put down Voyager, it sticks in your craw,
doesn't it?
: --
Lloyd R. Parker
: Lloyd R. Parker (lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu) cleared their throat and cried:
: : CptRoLaren (cptro...@aol.com) wrote:
: : : What about those cities we never see but that are supposed to be so great?
: : shown either.
: Ah, but it isn't a matter of "believing" whether or not they exist.
: In both cases, it wasn't the producer of V'Ger (the Machine Planet in
: ST:TMP) or the "Shore Leave" (TOS) devices, but the *creations* themselves.
: The focus of TMP was V'Ger, not the Machine Planet. The wonder of
: "Shore Leave" surrounded the lifelike 'replicants' of people and animals
: churned out by the underground complex, not the factories themselves.
: In "The 37ers," all we see of the planet surface is the cryo chamber,
: a couple dirt paths, a 400-year-old airplane, and the Voyager landing
: site. The magical, wonderous cities built by the humans were never seen,
: nor was anything regarding the Briori (sp?) ever shown.
Like all we've seen of Vulcan was a desert shrine. How do we know
there's anything else there? Nobody said the cities were magical, btw.
It was the entire planet that was the allure, not just the cities.
Please listen to the dialogue.
: A two-second shot of a well-done matte painting depicting a human city
: would have not only brought the viewer more in touch with the crew's
: desire to stay, but would have silenced all this bickering.
Yeah, that really convinced me all the time's they've used it!
: : : And those "future" humans on the planet were really dorky,
: : : but they seemed to have better tech. than could be supported by a pop of
: : : 100,000,
: : They specifically said they took the Briori's technology.
: That doesn't mean that they know how to use all of it. Give a laptop
: computer to a 16th century serf. What would he do with it?
The Bajorans figured out how to use Cardassian tech to win a revolt, right?
: : : or begun by the mere few hundred that originally populated the
: : : planet--and why the hell would the Briori *want* these humans for slaves,
: : : in the first place?
: : Why does anybody want slaves?
: And why would they go roughly 70,000 light years out of their way to get
: them from some backwater planet called Earth?
Why did 17th century Europeans and Americans go to Africa for slaves?
They could have taken other Europeans, Canadians, Native Americans, etc.
We saw no evidence the Briori considered 70,000 ly overly large, btw.
Are you so ethnocentric you assume they're using standard warp technology?
: : : What were they supposed to be doing as slaves? Why not
: : : get some primitives closer to home?
: : Why didn't Americans use fellow Americans, or Mexicans, or Indians, or
: : Canadians, instead of going all the way to Africa for slaves?
: Would the slavers still have gone to Africa if it were 70 years' of sailing
: away?
It was never, repeat, NEVER mentioned that it took the Briori 70 years.
We've already seen one culture in the delta quadrant that could travel
much faster, remember? And we've seen the Ent. in TNG go faster using
wormholes.
: : : *or*: Janeway's expression when she walks into the empty cargo bay (that,
: : : in and of itself, may have been an appropriate reaction, but I'm sick of
: : : Janeway tearing up in public all the time--does she have an affective
: : : disorder, or something, that she can't control herself a little better?
: : : How'd she ever become captain? Tears are fine, in life and on the show,
: : : but overdo it, and it just becomes annoying and predictable).
: : Hey, it was an emotional moment. Kirk got emotional too -- remember
: : Edith Keeler? Rayna?
: Yes, but Kirk knew that Edith Keeler was going to die (and knew that he
: couldn't change that fact) and then had to watch her die. Given that he
: was pretty emotionally attached to someone just killed, I think we can
: cut old James T. some slack here. As for Rayna (from the "Gamesters of
: Trisk"-whatever)...I don't recall him getting all that worked up.
Then review the last 5 minutes. Spock has to remove those memories from
Kirk.
: Kirk got emotional sometimes (as did Picard and Sisko), but not every week...
Picard never did.
: CJ
Lloyd R. Parker
: Ah, but we're not talking about evaporation/sublimation. We're talking
: about phase change due to boiling. Drop the pressure and the boiling
: point goes down, enough so that at least some of the liquids on the
: truck should have been boiling.
I never claimed they weren't. Only that some remained -- frozen solid in
space, thawed out on the deck.
Tom Salyers
In a previous article, lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) says:
>: Bringing up other inconsistencies doesn't excuse the ones we're already
>: discussing. You're undermining your own argument.
>
>No, it's entirely relevant. You're saying the use of energy YOU want to
>criticize is wrong, when other frivolous uses of energy are apparent in
>Trek too.
I criticize *those* just as strongly, Lloyd. You're not paying attention.
> Your problem is, you don't want anybody pointing out your arguments don't
>hold up.
*My* arguments hold up, and they do it without appealing to magical Trek
tech that's never mentioned in the story.
> And since you seem to have this great gnawing desire to put down Voyager,
>it sticks in your craw, doesn't it?
*sigh* You just can't write a rational post without a personal attack, can
you? Understand this, Lloyd, and tattoo it on your forearm for future
reference:
Just because someone criticizes a particular episode of Voyager does not
mean that that person has a "great gnawing desire to put down Voyager". It
simply means that he or she doesn't like plotting or technical errors and
complains about them.
As for sticking in craws, perhaps you'd like to explain just why it is that
you're defending this particular episode of Voyager so vehemently? Did you
have a hand in writing it, by any chance?
Lynn Loschin
: Lynn Loschin (llos...@netcom.com) cleared their throat and cried:
: CJ
Thats all fine and dandy, but you are ignoring what the original gripe I
was responding to was about. I am not saying that anything you are
saying is wrong. Its also certainly possible that groups beside
the Federation use another term beside "starship" to describe their
ships, which was the point. I am NOT saying they are different
functionally - but just like you wouldnt call an American who travels in
space a cosmonaut, Klingons may think the idea of calling their ships
"starships" is incorrect.
Please read the context of a post before you challenge it, because you
responded to the wrong thing.
--
-========================================================================-
/ Lynn Loschin, 2L |E-mail: llos...@netcom.com (preferred) /
/ UC Davis School of Law| bllo...@ucdavis.edu /
/ Davis, CA 95616 |http://www.microserve.com/PlanetX/lloschin.html /
-========================================================================-
CptRoLaren
writes:
<stuff cut>
I *really*, *really* _want_ to like _Voyager_. I would like to see the
series have absorbing, credible stories, characters I can care about (love
or love to hate), and science fiction that is maximally internally
consistent.
I do not believe in a blind faith or loyalty in a show (or in anything
else) that would preclude my criticizing it. I don't believe in "throwing
the baby out with the bathwater," but neither do I believe that just
because I like something (eg, Star Trek), I must like everything that they
do on the show. In fact, if I value something enough, I think I have
a*duty* to criticize it when I think it's wrong--I don't think I have any
such duty vis-a-vis Star Trek, since it is _just_a_TV_show_, but I do
think that I have every *right* to value Star Trek and its universe and to
criticize it without being accused of some sort of "heresy," or being told
I'm not a "true ST fan," or some such nonsense.
So, Lloyd, why don't *you* lighten up a bit. If criticism of a Star Trek
episode bothers you, *don't* *read* *it*! (What a novel idea!:^) If you
need to be a True Believer, go ahead. I would never presume to tell you
that you can't love every little thing Paramount does in every Star Trek
series. Do what makes you happy here. Please, though, don't presume to
tell *me* how *I* should or should not feel or react.
BTW, I thought "Initiations," while not perfect, was an order of magnitude
better than "37s". But that's another post . . .
Mike Lemons
>Tom Salyers (at...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
>: In a previous article, lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) says:
>: >NO! NO! Stop showing such ignorance about science, all of you!
>: Pot. Kettle. Black.
>: > Space =3 K. Cold! Things do not boil away when cold.
>: But things *do* boil away when they're suddenly exposed to a vacuum.
>: The entire truck wouldn't be at 3 degrees Kelvin instantaneously, you know...
>No, but the water would cool down pretty quick, especially since
>evaporation itself is a cooling process. As the first molecules escape,
>they cool the remaining molecules. This is why your windshield washer
>fluid can be a liquid in the tank but freeze on your windshield when
>you're driving fast in the winter.
Oh, I see now. The truck cooled very fast because it was driving so fast
through that vacuum.
--
Mike Lemons | "In 20th-century Old Earth, a fast food chain
mi...@crash.cts.com| took dead cow meat, fried it in grease, added
| carcinogens, wrapped it in petroleum-based foam,
| and sold 900,000,000,000 units. Human Beings.
| Go figure." Dan Simmons - Hyperion
Mike Lemons
There is more than one episode where the Enterprise detects radio
transmissions.
>Please get your facts straight before criticizing.
Take your own advise!
Lloyd R. Parker
: So, Lloyd, why don't *you* lighten up a bit. If criticism of a Star Trek
: episode bothers you, *don't* *read* *it*! (What a novel idea!:^) If you
: need to be a True Believer, go ahead. I would never presume to tell you
: that you can't love every little thing Paramount does in every Star Trek
: series. Do what makes you happy here. Please, though, don't presume to
: tell *me* how *I* should or should not feel or react.
Hmm... I've gotten flamed for criticizing TNG and the God Picard on this
group. I don't recall you coming to my defense....
Scott Gastineau
In article <42b8sc$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cptro...@aol.com (CptRoLaren) writes:
> SPOILERS. (cut)
> In article <41uve0$h...@blackbird.afit.af.mil>, jhen...@resumix.portal.com
> (Jim Henderson) writes:
>
>>>: >I am willing to suspend disbelief to a point, but the 1936 Ford
> started
>>>: >faster than my 1984 Chevy does on a cold morning. There is a laundry
>>>: >list of reasons that the truck would not start.
>>>: I'll start:
>>>: 1.) Whatever gasoline was left would have boiled away in the vacuum of
>>>2. Paris said the there was still *water* left in the engine. SHEESH!
>>> (Water would have boiled away too. I dunno, maybe it froze very
>>3. The seals would not have held in vacuum due to the extreme
>>difference in pressures.
>>4. It's still trailing gasoline 3-400 years later?
>>5. It hasn't hit any asteroids (even small ones)?
No it wouldn't have hit any asteriods given a four hundred
year period. It probably wouldn't have hit anything if it were in the
solar system and this truck was really in *deep* space.
>>6. Why is the truck in space, but the plane is on the planet?
The truck was regarded as unneccessary by the aliens and
dumped after the human inside had been retrieved. There's probably a
story behind the plane being taken all the way to the planet, but it
wasn't important to the episode so it was cut. Like "Caretaker," this
episode seemed rushed to me.
Your other objections seem valid though. There was no mention
of a protective coating being found on the truck, so it shouldn't have
worked.
> I agree with all of the above. I was willing to give the ep. a chance,
> since the cryo. ep. seems to be something each ST has to try at some point
> (not on DSN, yet, I don't think).
The DSN crew was placed into suspended animation once, but
they didn't know it until the end of the episode, so I doubt this
counts.
>But the entire ep. was so hokey and
> poorly written, I can't imagine the series could get any worse. Therefore,
> maybe it'll get better.
Even though this episode seemed rushed, as I mentioned before,
the guest actors performed well and the story untroduced a completely
different story line of another people, which is much more realistic
of a story about explorers than developing a problem every week and
solving it in forty-five mintues plus commercials. I liked this
episode.
> What about those cities we never see but that are supposed to be so great?
Great by their standards would have only been so-so to us.
There wasn't any point in seeing them if they were human cities.
> No wonder no one wanted to stay except the "37s"--the scenes where the
> crew are talking about staying are very unconvincing, too low key, and
> they lack much description neccesary to make us understand why this place
> is so great.
I have to agree there. Harry and B'Ellana's scene just didn't
work.
>And those "future" humans on the planet were really dorky,
> but they seemed to have better tech. than could be supported by a pop of
> 100,000, or begun by the mere few hundred that originally populated the
> planet--
There tech waas okay, but not fabulous. Think aobut what we
saw -- a generator, some type of energy weapons (probably stole this
weapons technology from their masters during the Great Revolt), and
some stealth suits which amplified the sensor scrambling effect of the
atmoshpere.
>and why the hell would the Briori *want* these humans for slaves,
> in the first place?
Genetic experiments? Inferiority complex? Since we never met
the Briori, we have no way of knowing. They may end up in another
episode a season from now.
>What were they supposed to be doing as slaves? Why not
> get some primitives closer to home?
If you can zoom across the galaxy like the Briori appearantly
can, then Earth *is* close to home.
>How could a few hundred humans
> overthrow their masters--unless this were just some small subset of
> Briori, and the rest of the Briori weren't allied with them, so they all
> were killed or kicked out (like in Haiti way-back-when).
I was thinking more along the lines of stealing Briori
technology, but I like your idea better. I'm impressed.
> We got no sense of what "shore leave" was like on this planet, nor any
> idea of what the natives thought of Voyager, or may have wanted from their
> visitors--history books, medical knowledge, literature from their
> ancestors' past, etc. And *no one* from the planet felt adventurous enough
> to join the Voyager crew--or at least ask to?
Well, Heirheart *did* ask to fly the Voyager. Besides, the
Voyager was not intending to ever return back, so it would have been a
one-way trip.
> And I don't care what kind of pseudo-scientific explanation people want to
> come up with, to have Voyager land would require more than just those few
> little legs--any kind of compensating mechanism would eat far too much
> energy.
>
> Best part of the ep: the blue sky outside the windows *or* Neelix actually
> makes something edible for the 37s (at least I assume it was. . .:^)
I disagree. The best part was the truck scene in the
cargo-bay.
> <<rant on>>
> Worst part: (cut)
>
> BTW, I live in, and grew up in, a cold climate, and even if we grant that
> there could still be water (in the form of ice) and gasoline (also frozen)
> in the truck when they picked it up (thus keeping it from totally
> dissipating into space--though then we'd have the problem of the trail of
> gas), I cannot believe that a battery frozen for 400 years would possibly
Okay, okay already. The truck wouldn't work.
C U on the other side,
SCG Zaboem
free-lance speech writer
Lloyd R. Parker
: Lloyd R. Parker (lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu) wrote:
: >Tom Salyers (at...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
: >: In a previous article, lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) says:
: >: >NO! NO! Stop showing such ignorance about science, all of you!
: >: Pot. Kettle. Black.
: >: > Space =3 K. Cold! Things do not boil away when cold.
: >: But things *do* boil away when they're suddenly exposed to a vacuum.
: >: The entire truck wouldn't be at 3 degrees Kelvin instantaneously, you know...
: >No, but the water would cool down pretty quick, especially since
: >evaporation itself is a cooling process. As the first molecules escape,
: >they cool the remaining molecules. This is why your windshield washer
: >fluid can be a liquid in the tank but freeze on your windshield when
: >you're driving fast in the winter.
: Oh, I see now. The truck cooled very fast because it was driving so fast
: through that vacuum.
Cute, but dumbass. Now, pay close attention, I'll go slow: As the first
water molecules escape, that removes kinetic energy from the remaining
ones. Temperature is a measure of kinetic energy. Therefore, the
remaining molecules cool down.
Lloyd R. Parker
: >: Well IMHO, Voyager should be monitoring the AM band just to locate
: >: other intelligent life. After all, didn't Uhura do this is TOS? She
: >: monitored and listened to all different modes and bands of communications.
: >: Apparentely this is a lost skill or not done by the "new breed" of Star
: >: Fleece Officers during a routine check.
: >NO! The only time the Ent. intercepted a radio wave, the wave was one
: >designed to cause interference and attract attention. Remember, the
: >ship went to alert, thinking they were under attack.
: There is more than one episode where the Enterprise detects radio
: transmissions.
In deep space? Nope.
Minoc Drakkir
>: Kirk got emotional sometimes (as did Picard and Sisko), but not every week...
>Picard never did.
Never got emotional? What about the episode where he goes home to
visit his brother after Best of Both Worlds? What about Generations?
He was pretty broken up when the aliens exposed their deception in
"The Inner Light."
Sincerely,
Drakkir
dra...@texas.net
Mike Lemons
>: Well IMHO, Voyager should be monitoring the AM band just to locate
>: other intelligent life. After all, didn't Uhura do this is TOS? She
>: monitored and listened to all different modes and bands of communications.
>: Apparentely this is a lost skill or not done by the "new breed" of Star
>: Fleece Officers during a routine check.
>NO! The only time the Ent. intercepted a radio wave, the wave was one
>designed to cause interference and attract attention. Remember, the
>ship went to alert, thinking they were under attack.
>Please get your facts straight before criticizing.
You are basing your so-called "facts" on an event that never really
happened.
It's pretty clear that the distress call in "Menagerie" was really an
illusion from the Talosians. The survivors camp that supposedly sent
the distress call was just an illusion.
When Captain Pike failed to take the bait, another distress call
magically appeared that addressed all of the Captain's objections. A
real radio message could not have been transmitted and received in so
short a time.
Lloyd R. Parker
: lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:
: >: Kirk got emotional sometimes (as did Picard and Sisko), but not every week...
: >Picard never did.
: Never got emotional? What about the episode where he goes home to
: visit his brother after Best of Both Worlds?
Didn't seem emotional to me.
: What about Generations?
Yes, for the first time he displayed emotions, and they looked as
artificial as Data's. He's so broken up that he can't stay on the
bridge? Give me a break.
: He was pretty broken up when the aliens exposed their deception in
: "The Inner Light."
Under the influence of an alien mind device. Doesn't count.
: Sincerely,
: Drakkir
: dra...@texas.net
David L. Jaroslav
cptro...@aol.com says...
>
>I can't imagine the series could get any worse.
I can't imagine HOW it will get worse, but, believe
me, it will. <sigh, grumble, moan>
--
David L. Jaroslav
<dj7...@american.edu>
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him."
-C.G. Jung
David L. Jaroslav
lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu says...
>
>A starship is special, just like a battleship today.
>That term isn't applied to every ship that goes into
>battle.
That analogy is *really* pressing it. If you can call
both a 200-crew Intrepid-class and a 1000+-crew
Galaxy vessels "Starships," then that term is nowhere
near as tightly restricted in definition as
battleship.
Generally, I would say that starship means
capital ship. This is why HMS Bounty in STIII+IV,
with its complement of officers and crew
at approximately 12, doesn't qualify as a Starship.
Minoc Drakkir
>Minoc Drakkir (dra...@texas.net) wrote:
>: Never got emotional? What about the episode where he goes home to
>: visit his brother after Best of Both Worlds?
>Didn't seem emotional to me.
I guess crying on your brother's shoulder while explaining the terrors
of the Borg isn't emotional.
>: What about Generations?
>Yes, for the first time he displayed emotions, and they looked as
>artificial as Data's. He's so broken up that he can't stay on the
>bridge? Give me a break.
Well gee wiz, his nephew and brother were only burned alive. (If I
remember correctly.)
Sincerely,
Drakkir
dra...@texas.net
Cal Jacobson
: Cal Jacobson (ja...@mystech.mystech.com) wrote:
: : Lloyd R. Parker (lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu) cleared their throat and cried:
: : desire to stay, but would have silenced all this bickering.
: Yeah, that really convinced me all the time's they've used it!
This from the guy who has been defending the 1936 Ford pickup from Space?
Oh, please....
: : That doesn't mean that they know how to use all of it. Give a laptop
: : computer to a 16th century serf. What would he do with it?
: The Bajorans figured out how to use Cardassian tech to win a revolt, right?
I don't know; do you happen to have a history of the Bajoran revolt handy?
: Why did 17th century Europeans and Americans go to Africa for slaves?
: They could have taken other Europeans, Canadians, Native Americans, etc.
: We saw no evidence the Briori considered 70,000 ly overly large, btw.
: Are you so ethnocentric you assume they're using standard warp technology?
'Ethnocentric?' BWAHAHAHAHA!!
What has that got to do with warp technology?
17th Century slavers went to Africa for slaves for several reasons, two
of which were that many native tribes near the coast would capture tribes
further inland and sell them to the slavers for a profit, thus saving the
slavers a lot of work and encouraging the coastal tribes to keep capturing
new tribes to sell into slavery. Another reason was simply that the slavers
had superior technology (read: gunpowder) compared to the tribes of central
Africa.
The other groups you mentioned: Europeans, Canadians, and Native Americans
all had access to the same level of technology; only the Native Americans
suffered from the same kind of racism that fueled African slavery, and the
U.S. Army figured out the hard way what happens when you try to get the
Indians to do something they don't want to do.
Now, as for your argument: 'we saw no evidence the Briori considered 70,000
light years overly large'....we saw no evidence of the Briori at all, Lloyd!
But whether they're using some kind of super warp-drive or wormholes or
jump gates or whatever, looking for slaves on YOUR OWN SIDE OF THE GALAXY
seems more efficient than taking a 140,000 light-year round trip.
And I find it hard to believe the Delta Quadrant is devoid of any low-tech
races...or was lacking any in 1937.
: It was never, repeat, NEVER mentioned that it took the Briori 70 years.
Fine. Maybe it took them 7 years. Or 7 months. Or 7 DAYS.
Why go to the other side of the galaxy? Why not hop on over to the Ocampa
homeworld (surely a short day-trip if a 70,000 ly journey is brief) and get
LOTS of slaves?
Face it, Lloyd: the episode was a farce.
[snipped]
: : Yes, but Kirk knew that Edith Keeler was going to die (and knew that he
: : couldn't change that fact) and then had to watch her die. Given that he
: : was pretty emotionally attached to someone just killed, I think we can
: : cut old James T. some slack here. As for Rayna (from the "Gamesters of
: : Trisk"-whatever)...I don't recall him getting all that worked up.
: Then review the last 5 minutes. Spock has to remove those memories from
: Kirk.
...and your point is...?
: : Kirk got emotional sometimes (as did Picard and Sisko), but not every week...
: Picard never did.
Obviously you haven't followed TNG that much.
CJ
Cal Jacobson
Gee Lloyd, after all that browbeating we thought that -- in your eyes --
none of us was WORTHY of coming to your defense.
CJ
Lloyd R. Parker
: : The Bajorans figured out how to use Cardassian tech to win a revolt, right?
: I don't know; do you happen to have a history of the Bajoran revolt handy?
Well, I've watched DS9 as long as it's been on. Apparently, you missed some.
: The other groups you mentioned: Europeans, Canadians, and Native Americans
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: all had access to the same level of technology; only the Native Americans
Huh? Native Americans had firearms, cannons, sabers? Only what they got
from the Europeans! Sounds like you missed a few months of your history
course, Cal.
: suffered from the same kind of racism that fueled African slavery, and the
: U.S. Army figured out the hard way what happens when you try to get the
: Indians to do something they don't want to do.
Huh? Now you're implying the Amerinds defeated the US Army? Missed more
than just a few months of history, Cal!
: Now, as for your argument: 'we saw no evidence the Briori considered 70,000
: light years overly large'....we saw no evidence of the Briori at all, Lloyd!
: But whether they're using some kind of super warp-drive or wormholes or
: jump gates or whatever, looking for slaves on YOUR OWN SIDE OF THE GALAXY
: seems more efficient than taking a 140,000 light-year round trip.
Not necessarily. People farther from home would have less incentive to
escape, and you minimize the chance of rescuers coming from their home
world or their allies.
: And I find it hard to believe the Delta Quadrant is devoid of any low-tech
: races...or was lacking any in 1937.
: : It was never, repeat, NEVER mentioned that it took the Briori 70 years.
: Fine. Maybe it took them 7 years. Or 7 months. Or 7 DAYS.
: Why go to the other side of the galaxy? Why not hop on over to the Ocampa
: homeworld (surely a short day-trip if a 70,000 ly journey is brief) and get
: LOTS of slaves?
Would the Organians, or Q, consider it a longer journey? Nope. Do you
go to the 7-11 for milk or the cheaper grocery? If you're walking, to
the convenience store. If you're driving, a few more blocks doesn't
make it a substantially longer journey.
And as for the Ocampa, forgot about the caretaker already, Cal?
: : : Kirk got emotional sometimes (as did Picard and Sisko), but not every week...
: : Picard never did.
: Obviously you haven't followed TNG that much.
Picard displayed less emotion than Data. Witness "The Lower Decks." He
read that announcement like a newscaster.
: CJ
Cal Jacobson
: : The other groups you mentioned: Europeans, Canadians, and Native Americans
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: : all had access to the same level of technology; only the Native Americans
: Huh? Native Americans had firearms, cannons, sabers? Only what they got
: from the Europeans!
They had firearms, had no use for cannons, and had their own hand-to-hand
weapons - they didn't need sabres. And yes, they got them from the
Europeans. Your problem...?
: : suffered from the same kind of racism that fueled African slavery, and the
: : U.S. Army figured out the hard way what happens when you try to get the
: : Indians to do something they don't want to do.
: Huh? Now you're implying the Amerinds defeated the US Army? Missed more
: than just a few months of history, Cal!
Oh, please. I'm implying nothing of the sort; you're ASSuming.
The Native Americans eventually lost to the U.S. Army, but not after many
bloody battles (Little Big Horn being the ugliest for the U.S. forces).
: : And I find it hard to believe the Delta Quadrant is devoid of any low-tech
: : races...or was lacking any in 1937.
: : : It was never, repeat, NEVER mentioned that it took the Briori 70 years.
: : Fine. Maybe it took them 7 years. Or 7 months. Or 7 DAYS.
: : Why go to the other side of the galaxy? Why not hop on over to the Ocampa
: : homeworld (surely a short day-trip if a 70,000 ly journey is brief) and get
: : LOTS of slaves?
: Would the Organians, or Q, consider it a longer journey? Nope.
Would they need slaves, if they could (like Q) create anything they wanted
by wishing it? Nope.
: Do you
: go to the 7-11 for milk or the cheaper grocery? If you're walking, to
: the convenience store. If you're driving, a few more blocks doesn't
: make it a substantially longer journey.
Right. But I sure as hell don't drive across the country to save an
extra $0.50 on a quart of 2%.
CJ
Lloyd R. Parker
: Lloyd R. Parker (lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu) cleared their throat and cried:
: : Cal Jacobson (ja...@mystech.mystech.com) wrote:
: : : The other groups you mentioned: Europeans, Canadians, and Native Americans
: : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: : : all had access to the same level of technology; only the Native Americans
: : Huh? Native Americans had firearms, cannons, sabers? Only what they got
: : from the Europeans!
: They had firearms, had no use for cannons, and had their own hand-to-hand
: weapons - they didn't need sabres. And yes, they got them from the
: Europeans. Your problem...?
My point is the Amerinds did not have the same level of tech as the
Europeans until they got weapons from the Europeans, and even then they
had nothing to match the long-range cannons.
: : Would the Organians, or Q, consider it a longer journey? Nope.
: Would they need slaves, if they could (like Q) create anything they wanted
: by wishing it? Nope.
"Need"? Does anybody "need" slaves? Want slaves, maybe.
: : Do you
: : go to the 7-11 for milk or the cheaper grocery? If you're walking, to
: : the convenience store. If you're driving, a few more blocks doesn't
: : make it a substantially longer journey.
: Right. But I sure as hell don't drive across the country to save an
: extra $0.50 on a quart of 2%.
: CJ
But again, we don't know if this was comparable to a jaunt across the
country or to the next block for the Briori. Again, you make an
assumption and then use it as though it were fact to bolster your argument.
David G. Homerick
: You are basing your so-called "facts" on an event that never really
: happened.
: It's pretty clear that the distress call in "Menagerie" was really an
: illusion from the Talosians. The survivors camp that supposedly sent
: the distress call was just an illusion.
: When Captain Pike failed to take the bait, another distress call
: magically appeared that addressed all of the Captain's objections. A
: real radio message could not have been transmitted and received in so
: short a time.
Heh...
ENSIGN SIMPSON: Captain, I'm picking up an AM distress call from
Talos IV!
CAPTAIN PIKE: Nonsense, Ensign. We don't monitor AM radio transmissions.
Therefore you can't possibly be picking one up.
SIMPSON: <slaps head> D'OH!
--David Homerick