www.ditl.org

Nah, that's just a futuristic "2".

Pretty much to what I was referring when I said "long history."

Sanehouse wrote:Speaking of deck inconsistencies...

Welcome to the USS Enterprise-A, with decks numbering in the twenties.

WOW

I guess I need to watch TMP again.

LaughingCheese wrote:I guess I need to watch TMP again.

That's from the abomination that was The Final Frontier.

It must be purged.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

LaughingCheese wrote:I guess I need to watch TMP again.

That's from the abomination that was The Final Frontier.

OH

No wonder I don't remember it.

Reliant121 wrote:It must be purged.

Agreed.

Praeothmin wrote:Don't try to apply too much logic to Star Trek, or you will risk spraining your brain and bleeding from your ears...

Just enjoy the SFX and you'll be fine...

Recall my photon torpedo page and issue with super-dense deuterium? I think it is exactly what happened there.

Lt. Staplic wrote:tbh I don't think I have a problem with a Federation ship having 26 decks but the bottom deck being named number 29. kinda like how hotels in the US don't have a '13th' floor. With all the cultures in Trek and the happy-go-lucky attitude of the Federation and respecting every cultures superstitions that could lead to deck 26 being called deck 29

MSD still shows 23 1/2 decs.

Picard, as a friendly piece of advice, could I point you towards one of the forum guidelines:

If you wish to contribute to a topic that has been dead for a while please make sure you have something of value to add to the topic and are not just posting for the sake of it. Posting in an old topic is referred to as Necroing and can be annoying if done often and without reason. Generally it is preferred that you start a new topic and summarise the existing points in the first topic. Please include a link to the previous discussions in your introduction.

You've done this in several different threads. The last post in this topic, for example, was over three months ago and while you will be well up to speed on the content, having just read it, no-one else will be.

In addition to this, this comment of yours:

Recall my photon torpedo page and issue with super-dense deuterium? I think it is exactly what happened there.

Means absolutely nothing to anyone who hasn't read that page, and so it would be useful if you either explained your theory (the preferable option) or, if absolutely necessary, linked to the page.

Actually, my first comment was directed specifically at Praethomin, and I think he already knows what I'm talking about from SFJ forum. But to sum it up, I tried to rationalize various pieces of evidence while doing some calculations for Star Trek (firepower, power production etc), and ended up in blind street.

EDIT: Link is here.

A comment aimed specifically at Praethomin is of no help to anyone else who might wish to get involved in the debate, especially as he said it over four months ago. It also does not change the fact that this thread is dead, and has been for months. If you wish to restart subjects covered in dead threads it's much better to start a new one than to answer posts no-one remembers making.

Makes sense. I'll try to remember it.

Picard wrote:Makes sense. I'll try to remember it.

Yeah, we're not nagging or something; it just makes it easier for the majority to follow the topic you're trying to discuss.

Especially since I'm about to ask what "SFJ" is

Mark wrote:Especially since I'm about to ask what "SFJ" is

I assume it means starfleetjedi.net, a 'Trek vs. 'Wars forum.

Ahh...

:::moves cautiously away from that area:::