www.ditl.org

Not as far as I remember.

It IS more deserving of mention. That is for the same reason that Seafort's analogies break down. We're talking about a change or advancement in the technology, not another incarnation of the same thing. Also, there were members of the crew who would have been unfamiliar with that particular advancement. Calling my statement tripe simply because you disagree is rather juvenile, and hardly advances your point or detracts from mine. And again, I am forced to wonder why you choose to participate in this debate if this point is so very unimportant to you.

BTW, Seafort - referencing the Star Wars EU to me is about as useful as referencing the Hubble telescope to a tree frog. I have never been involved in any of the books, etc., and never plan to be.

BTW, Thorin - don't be intentionally obtuse. I said "for all intents and purposes," which phrase implies the continuation "of this particular conversation." Playing dumb to that fact really doesn't advance your position.

All in all, the matter is really in the same category as the discussions we've had about the design of the NX-01. Like it or not, there is no consistent design lineage from that ship to its chronological successors. I will continue to hold that while there are (tenuous) logical paths from one to the next, the show shouldn't have forced us to blaze those paths. This is the same thing: I'm not asking for a detailed discussion in every episode - In one of the first few eps, a Starfleet crew member telling a Maquis "the swinging nacelles serve x function," or they operate like so," would have been sufficient.

Mikey wrote:It IS more deserving of mention. That is for the same reason that Seafort's analogies break down. We're talking about a change or advancement in the technology, not another incarnation of the same thing.

Everything in Star Trek is an advancement on the previous. Yet the writers know nothing about the theory of physics and make up a load of rubish, hence it being far better to leave us in the dark about a possible solution to FTL travel (etc), as any answer would soon by disproved. It is no more deserving of a mention. The fact they didn't put it in is, for once, a good part on Voyager's writers, and shows that it isn't worth of mention - by not getting one.

Also, there were members of the crew who would have been unfamiliar with that particular advancement. Calling my statement tripe simply because you disagree is rather juvenile, and hardly advances your point or detracts from mine. And again, I am forced to wonder why you choose to participate in this debate if this point is so very unimportant to you.

Whatever.

You're just a d1ck head.

Thorin wrote:You're just a d1ck head.

A very salient and well-thought response, Thorin. Thank you for elevating the intellectual level of this forum. I'm sure the Kennedys are proud to see the heights of philosophy to which you've brought this discussion.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Come to think of it, has Star Trek ever had a bathroom, or more specifically a toilet of some sort? On screen or even mentioned?

The only bathroom I can remember was in the special series finale of TNG hosted by Jonathan Frakes. The "head" was located on the bridge, on the starboard side, halfway down the ramp thingy. He showed it specifically. Also, it's in the Star Trek Galaxy Class Interactive Technical Manual on CD-ROM, and yes, I used to have it. Bought it back in '93 as a four disc set along with the Omnipedia Database, Episode CD, and Klingon Language Disc (you were taught Klingon by Gowron, not Worf, unfortunately).

Trouble is, those specials count in the same category as the tech manuals and the statement that Voyager's bendy pylons prevent subspace damage - they're all non-canon.

Mikey wrote:

Thorin wrote:You're just a d1ck head.

A very salient and well-thought response, Thorin. Thank you for elevating the intellectual level of this forum. I'm sure the Kennedys are proud to see the heights of philosophy to which you've brought this discussion.

Thank you for ever so perfectly confirming my assessment.

Thorin wrote:You're just a d1ck head.

That's uncalled for. He was providing a rational arguement. You are not.

I just realized what Thorin wrote...You aren't going to earn any friends that way, Thorin.

Anywho...what constitutes swearing at someone for constructing a reasoned argument...

Thorin, pack it in. This isn't a case of arguing the evidence, it's a question of preference over the degree of detail that goes into the script. Getting out of your pram over it and lobbing insults around for no reason is pointless.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:

Thorin wrote:You're just a d1ck head.

That's uncalled for. He was providing a rational arguement. You are not.

It's not for disagreeing with me. Read my post on the topic where he's seeking attention.

Thorin wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:

Thorin wrote:You're just a d1ck head.

That's uncalled for. He was providing a rational arguement. You are not.

It's not for disagreeing with me. Read my post on the topic where he's seeking attention.

I'm afraid I don't see how he's seeking attention. IMO he was right. In either case that's still no reason to call people names. I'm 19 and even I know that.(Teenagers tend to be very immature and call people names more often the the average adult.)

He's been awaiting such a response, provoking me constantly.

I don't particularly want to quote every little part, but with a quick glance over his posts if you can't tell where these damned annoying subtle digs are everytime he directs a response at me, I'll be only too willing to.

Thorin wrote:He's been awaiting such a response, provoking me constantly.

I don't particularly want to quote every little part, but with a quick glance over his posts if you can't tell where these damned annoying subtle digs are everytime he directs a response at me, I'll be only too willing to.

Even if he was, something i doubt, there is still no call to lower yourself to irrespectably vindictive methods of gettin you point across....in other words...you shouldn't have called him that & shut up so we can get on with our lives instead of dwelling on what has now become bloody pointless to follow...he's left...so he wont annoy you again...

Even if he was? He was. Look at his posts - it's not like it was a private conversation. This really has very little bearing on my life, I don't need to 'get on' with it. It really got to the point where I can hardly stand talking to him, he uses the same 'this pedestal is mine only' attitude every time he talks with me.