Mikey wrote:Tiberius wrote:And you are missing my point.
it is not canon that Picard goes to the toilet, because as you say, it is only canon if it is seen onscreen, and we never saw Picard going to the toilet on screen. However, we can look at the facts we DO know, and use them as a basis for concluding that Picard does, at fairly regular intervals, go to the toilet.
And this is my point.
How am I missing the point if this is exactly what I just said, with the addition of the caveat that we can't call that conclusion - no matter how logical - canon of itself?
The point I was making is what I said immediately afterwards - If we can use canon information to reach the non canon conclusion that Picard poops, the we can also use canon information to reach the non-canon conclusion that there is a lineage of starship designs that goes from the NX class to the Akira class.
Tiberius wrote:If we can use canon information to reach the non canon conclusion that Picard poops, why can't we also use canon information to reach the non-canon conclusion that there is a lineage of starship designs that goes from the NX class to the Akira class?
I answered this before you asked. Please read my previous post. If you can't, then I'll reiterate: there is canon evidence, both direct and circumstantial, to support the idea that Picard shits. There is no evidence for a continuous design lineage between the NX and the Akira; there is only evidence of the existence of both the NX and Akira. The other day, my son and another boy were playing tag at the park. The other boy tagged my son, and my son fell down. It would be irresponsible to accuse the other boy of pushing my son down without having observed such an act to happen, wouldn't it?
There is only circumstantial evidence that Picard shits. You never saw him do it, did you?
Likewise, there is only circumstantial evidence that there is a design lineage between the NX and Akira classes.
Tiberius wrote:I have always been well aware what canon is, and I don't know where you got the idea that I was trying to pass off non canon as canon. Where did I say that it was canon that there was a lineage between the two?
Actually, I didn't claim that you had. You have, however, said in a number of ways that the assumption of a continuous design lineage between the two classes may be treated as canon. The apparent lack of understanding of what comprises canon comes from this:
Tiberius wrote:So, just the same way that we can assume that it is canon that Picard goes to the toilet
See the problem? If we have to assume or deduce something, then it's not canon.
I admit, a slip of the fingers, tongue, whatever. I meant fact, not canon.
It can be reasonably concluded that the existence of a continuous design lineage between the NX class and the Akira class is a fact. I've provided a wealth of evidence to support this conclusion, such as the several other vessel designs that fit the category.
Tiberius wrote:Well, for a start, the very existence of the NX class and the Akira class indicates it.
All that this fact indicates is the existence of both classes. This doesn't provide evidence for a continuous design lineage between the two.
Are you actually suggesting that Starfleet tried the twin-boom design, then abandoned it for a few centuries before coming back to it is just as likely as the existence of a continuous design lineage between the NX class and the Akira class?
Tiberius wrote:There are also other ship designs that have the "Warp nacelles attached to a saucer by booms and no engineering hull" layout, such as the Norway class, and possibly even the Miranda class and Defiant classes.
All of these are canon. And just as we use canon evidences to support the non-canon conclusion that Picard poops, we can use these canon evidences to support the non-canon conclusion that there is a design lineage that goes from the NX class to the Akira class.
This is sort of a red herring. None of the examples which you mention are ships with the intended role of either the NX or the Akira - both of which seem to have widely different roles as it is - and it ignores the fact that immediately subsequent canon ships which DO have the same role as the NX have a very different design aesthetic.
I think you need to read my posts more carefully.
My suggesting was that the twin-boom design was well suited for starships which were used for limited mission types. So it's good for an exploration vessel like the NX class because it isn't meant to be called on for carrying colonists, ferrying cargo, evacuating people, diplomatic missions, waging war etc. The NX class is meant to do one basic thing - boldly go where no one has gone before, and it wasn't designed with the intention that it would do anything far outside the scope of this.
It's good for a battleship like the Akira class because it isn't going to be called on to explore, or ferry colonists, etc. The Akira class is meant to do one basic thing - shoot at things until they blow up, and it wasn't designed with the intention that it would do anything far outside the scope of this.
On the other hand, a ship like the Connie or the Galaxy is indeed going to be called on to have a wide range of missions. The Connies were designed to be able to serve as a diplomatic vehicle one week, then repel a Romulan incursion the next, then carry a supply of medicine to a colony the next, the rescue people from a damaged ship the next, then explore some strange signals the next...
So we have the twin boom design for limited role ships (be they science vessels, fighters, cargo ships, whatever) and the saucer and engineering hull layout for ships that will have to be able to perform a wide range of missions, which is exactly what we saw the Connies and the Galaxies doing.
I've already explained that several times. Please remember it this time.
