www.ditl.org

Lighthawk wrote:We're gunna need a bigger airlock

Thanks, Sherriff Brody.

Reliant121 wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:Maybe its just me but as far as characters go, Pulaski just didn't really bother me that much. She had a habit of stepping out of her place as CMO and trying to boss the Ship's Captain... though it could be argued he needed a talking down from time to time.

I think this is one of the reasons I didn't mind her. Generally, she picked a fight with Picard when he was being a pompous, self righteous cock and needed someone to tell him that.

The CMO's place is to question - even override - the skipper when his status is medically in doubt, NOT when she takes it upon herself to assume herself equal in rank to the captain.

As far as I am aware, she did no such thing. She merely challenged when perhaps Picard hoisted himself upon his petard. Sure enough, this is more appropriate to the role of XO, But she was equally entitled in terms of rank to Riker. My memory of early TNG is sketchy, I've only seen the odd rerun but she never seemed to be particularly insubordinate.

I guess my issue isn't with her in particular, but with the apparent attitude of Starfleet in general to the chain of command. Insubordination, or at least disrespect of spoken commands, seems to be par for the course in degrees of magnitude which I didn't allow when I ran a simple record store.

Now that I can understand. Although, if my captain was Janeway I'd be glad of the leniency on insubordination.

Pulaski didn't bug me too much. It just bugged me how she initially treated Data. I always felt that was forced.

McAvoy wrote:Pulaski didn't bug me too much. It just bugged me how she initially treated Data. I always felt that was forced.

I agree. Mostly because Data was one of my favourite characters back then, her attitude towards him bugged me. But I think I liked her more because she wasn't such a goody goody utopian a lot of the others seemed to be.

McAvoy wrote:Pulaski didn't bug me too much. It just bugged me how she initially treated Data. I always felt that was forced.

I agree. Mostly because Data was one of my favourite characters back then, her attitude towards him bugged me. But I think I liked her more because she wasn't such a goody goody utopian a lot of the others seemed to be.

I was going to say Eddington but I think I was more annoyed by the actor who played him.

thelordharry wrote:I was going to say Eddington but I think I was more annoyed by the actor who played him.

Really? I thought he was an awesome addition to Trek. So so so so SOOOOO often we see the image that everyone has to love the UFP if they are a part of it. Eddington, and the Maquis as a whole... but really it came out with Eddington, just spit in the face of that. He was also a great reminder of what Sisko had lost in his friend Hudson.

The idea of Eddington wasn't bad... but the character was so preachy and annoying about it.

The anti-UFP preachy, a nice slap in the face to the preachy Federation.

I have no issue with t idea of the character and the idea of the Maquis, but Eddington (or the actor who played him) was portrayed as a downright creepy, sycophantic, almost sadistic little asshole who spent most of his time trying to fly his high and mighty ideals with the nation formed on high and mighty ideals; usually not doing a very good job of it. He was just...unpleasant or grating to me.

I think Starfleet Academy must have an entire required course track for Monologuing.

Tyyr wrote:I think Starfleet Academy must have an entire required course track for Monologuing.

Tyyr wrote:I think Starfleet Academy must have an entire required course track for Monologuing.

I wouldn't doubt it honestly. Problem is that Kirk was the last person to pass it.