www.ditl.org

Tyyr wrote:And it's important to remember the kind of accelerations we're dealing with. Shot from a cannon doesn't even come close to covering it. These ships accelerate from a dead stop to a 1/4 the speed of light in a matter of moments. Accelerations of hundred of kilometers per second at a bare minimum. 100,000 G's easy.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but I couldn't disagree more with this bit. The most we've seen out of a starship is the 30G the newly refitted E-nil pulled in TMP.

At that rate it would take the Enterprise about three days to get to full impulse.

Tyyr wrote:At that rate it would take the Enterprise about three days to get to full impulse.

Assuming that "full impulse" a) refers to a speed rather than an acceleration and b) that speed is 0.25c.

[/quote]
Ok, so what you're saying is that anyone who says Enterprise is crap is either misinformed or a liar? That's a bold claim.[/quote]

Not at all, i am saying that a number of persons who have decried the series either have:
1) confessed to not watching it in its entirety, (therefore a holistic judgement on the entire series is inappropriate)
2) some persons who express a distaste for the series have by measure of what they have said overtly or implicitly, clearly watched a great deal and unless that person is a masochist would seem incongruent that the person watched so many episodes and series yet disliked it.
I did not call or claim anyone to be a liar, not say any 'enterprise' critic is misinformed.
i find your remark inaccurate, offensive and confrontational

Granitehewer wrote:Not at all, i am saying that a number of persons who have decried the series either have:
1) confessed to not watching it in its entirety, (therefore a holistic judgement on the entire series is inappropriate)

Which to me is just another of saying that unless you've watched the entire series you're not qualified to make a judgment on its quality as a whole. You lack the necessary information to make that judgment call, in other words you're misinformed.

2) some persons who express a distaste for the series have by measure of what they have said overtly or implicitly, clearly watched a great deal and unless that person is a masochist would seem incongruent that the person watched so many episodes and series yet disliked it.

In other words, "If you thought it was crap why did you watch so much of it?" You're implying the person is either a masochist or secretly enjoyed it enough to keep watching it which would make them a... liar.

I did not call or claim anyone to be a liar, not say any 'enterprise' critic is misinformed.

Directly, no. Implied, you certainly did.

i find your remark inaccurate,

It wasn't.

offensive

That's your problem.

and confrontational

Always.

To make a judgement about an entire series unless having seen the entire series, is inappropriate, I did not say that was dishonest.
To watch an entire series run yet absolutely detract it, is incongruous to a non-masochistically cognitive mind, but incongruity does not equate to dishonesty nor did I state it did.
Why should you be confrontational, I was not using persuasive linguistic devices or emotive and inflammatory terms like 'liar' nor implying such.

Granitehewer wrote:To make a judgement about an entire series unless having seen the entire series, is inappropriate, I did not say that was dishonest.

And that was not the portion I was ascribing the word liar to. That was the misinformed part. It suggests that you watched the crappy parts and missed the good. At the very least it insists that everything must be viewed prior to someone forming a personal opinion which is at the very least, just wrong. If someone watched all of season 1 and was thoroughly disappointed why should their opinion of the show's quality be less valid? Could it have gotten better? Maybe, but that in no way changes their opinion of it or the validity of their opinion. Might you take it with a grain of salt that they've on seen X% of a show? Maybe, but if someone watches 20+ episodes and it all sucks it's the height of foolishness to say they are not qualified to form an opinion on a show because they didn't subject themselves to the entire thing.

Now if someone saw one or two episodes and declared the show scholck I would agree with you but once you reach a certain point, say the first season of a four season show, and its been crap so far no reasonable person is going to blame someone for forming an opinion, "This show is crap," and walking on it.

To watch an entire series run yet absolutely detract it, is incongruous to a non-masochistically cognitive mind, but incongruity does not equate to dishonesty nor did I state it did.

Incongruity does not mean dishonest but it does suggest that something's not right. Incongruities are typically how lies are exposed. You're using soft language to try and make it seem gentler but in the end you're implying that the person of whom you speak is either a masochist or something is not quite right with what they're saying, aka they're not being entirely honest, aka they're a liar. You soften it up with pretty words but at the core you're calling someone a liar, though admittedly in the nicest terms and an oblique way.

Well, I suppose I could amend my earlier statement to, "...misinformed, a lair, or irrational." Would that suit you better?

Why should you be confrontational, I was not using persuasive linguistic devices or emotive and inflammatory terms like 'liar' nor implying such.

Because I am and because I rather despise double speak. You have an opinion, say it. Don't pull punches or try to soften it down.

Firstly from an academic cognitive perspective according to the reconstructive nature of memory, congruities are actually how lies are exposed, rather than incongruities which honest persons would produce more of via dependence on schemas, so your statement to the contrary is not academically substantiated or 'proven', this applies both to the apa and bps.

Incongruous behaviour is not irrational behaviour it contains many elements including cognitive dissonance or distortion, this does not relate to irrationality nor dishonesty.

My suggestion is that a judgement is only appropriately made on what has been seen not what have not been seen which has nothing to do with external validity or internal reliability just a measure of appropriateness, for example that can be extrapolated to a suitable quantitative example like if you have seen series 1 then a judgement on series 1 is valid but a judgement on series 2 is not valid if you have not seen it. That is a simple paradigm and i fail to see how you could distort that.

I do not pull punches nor speak in doubles, if you cannot grasp what i am saying then so be it, the fault either lies with individual cognitive differences or in idiosyncratic aspects of social constructionism/linguistic devices.

It is mutually acceptable to disagree but it is not mutually acceptable to accuse.
However if you believe me to be speaking in doubles or pulling punches and won't accept my explanation than so be it. I respect and like everyone here including you and can only assure that i would not do so.

Behave you two. To close to Christmas to get personal. 8)


Now, lets be honest. Enterprise basically hacked a big lugie in the eye of canon. Phase pistols, photon torps, holo-tech, Borg, and Ferengi were all inexcusable and flagrent slaps in the faces of Trekkies. B & B have been quoted as having said "Nobody would notice" when suggesting the actual Akira be used for the NX-01. As a fan of the show, I've spent countless hours of mental excercise trying to reconcile Enterprise into the main timestream. Now, I'm a pretty bright guy and more than a little creative, and the best I could come up with was an alternate timeline. Nothing else fits all the changes that were inconsideratley wrought.

Mark wrote:Behave you two.

Beat me to the punch, but you missed a comma.

Mark wrote:...the best I could come up with was an alternate timeline.

Same here. Works for me, and the show might be more enjoyable to watch with that theory in mind.

BTW, Granite, you forgot a third option: people who watched all 4 seasons because they love the spirit of Trek (and there was no other Trek available to them), but still were mostly dissatisfied with the end product.

There are also those of us who watched all four seasons because we have a website to maintain.

GrahamKennedy wrote:There are also those of us who watched all four seasons because we have a website to maintain.

Which sacrifice can never be repaid. Bless you, GK.

I was actually surprised to note that no more Articles appeared on the main site, "regarding" Enterprise