You create a personal canon, and in a debate you use the official canon. There's plenty of Trek that I don't count as such.Mikey wrote:Nice idea, but how can you justify it? I mean both the canon/non-canon aspect as well as ignoring the fact that ENT is unfortunately a 'Trek franchise.
Enterprise Ramblings
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10988
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
- Contact:
Well I do live in cousin frakker county.Mikey wrote:A "personal" canon that you can't really use in debate? Isn't that like kissing your sister?
Anywho, it's not of any use in a debate but it gives you the satisfaction of not being tied to the crappier aspects of the show. People invoke it in regular discussions all the time, SDN especially.
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 26014
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
- Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath
Personaly, I like to consider ENT as being one of Riker's holodeck fantasies. That way, I can just shrug the whole stupidity off.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
-
- Banned
- Posts: 5594
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:53 pm
- Reliant121
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 12263
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:00 pm
Such negativity...yet wasted on simply ignoring it!...you must go back in time and Destroy the enterprise...or at least redisgn her...and give her a better crew...and mor interesting plot lines...and better director...and better aliens...and more suitable technology..Rochey wrote:Personaly, I like to consider ENT as being one of Riker's holodeck fantasies. That way, I can just shrug the whole stupidity off.
Basically the entire programme must be temporally altered.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 5594
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:53 pm
If I remember correctly there are early submarine classes with that naming style. In WWII I don't think the German U-Boats even had names. Just numbers.stitch626 wrote:I have what may be a stupid question: what does NX stand for? I mean, sure it is used to designated experimental Starfleet classes, but why would Earth name a whole class after two letters?
So it wouldn't be too hard to belive naming and numbering conventions changed relativly often in the early years of space exploration.
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
If I interpret Stitch correctly (LOVE the screen name, BTW) he's asking why the class is named for the registry prefix; for example, no TOS or later ship classes are called the "NCC class" or anything like that. It's a good point, Stitch, but remember that the NX/NCC registry convention was a UFP/Starfleet convention, and that the "NX class" was so named before those bodies or conventions were around.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10988
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
- Contact:
NX may be a project number or some other holdover term. It's common practice that the class be named for the lead ship, yes but there are quite a few exceptions. The Tribal class destroyers from WWII and the modern Canadian Navy for example, technically the class name should be Algonquin but in practice their referred to as Tribals. There's also the City, Town, Flower and the letter classes of UK destroyers. Russia and the Soviet Union also refer to their classes by project number.
The Earth SF doesn't have to draw it's class names from US tradition.
The Earth SF doesn't have to draw it's class names from US tradition.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 5594
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:53 pm
That's very true. Wait...Canada has a Navy? You learn something new everyday.Cpl Kendall wrote:NX may be a project number or some other holdover term. It's common practice that the class be named for the lead ship, yes but there are quite a few exceptions. The Tribal class destroyers from WWII and the modern Canadian Navy for example, technically the class name should be Algonquin but in practice their referred to as Tribals. There's also the City, Town, Flower and the letter classes of UK destroyers. Russia and the Soviet Union also refer to their classes by project number.
The Earth SF doesn't have to draw it's class names from US tradition.
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 21747
- Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
- Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
- Contact:
Technically, Iran has a navy as well, never mind that it's just a few patrol boats. Canada's isn't too bad, but it's hardly an armada.ChakatBlackstar wrote:That's very true. Wait...Canada has a Navy? You learn something new everyday.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10988
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
- Contact:
That never gets old. Yes we have a Navy, Army and Airforce. If you look at my avatar you'll discover that I was a member of our Army.ChakatBlackstar wrote:
That's very true. Wait...Canada has a Navy? You learn something new everyday.
Three Destroyers, twelve frigates and four subs (and a bunch of smaller craft). That puts us at around par with other NATO countries with our population and GDP.Technically, Iran has a navy as well, never mind that it's just a few patrol boats. Canada's isn't too bad, but it's hardly an armada.
The two largest navies in the world are the US and the UK, look at the massive difference between the two.
- Duskofdead
- Captain
- Posts: 1913
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:06 pm
My "username" in multiplayer Star Trek: Bridge Commander was USS Athabaskan. I got DOZENS of chats/whispers from Canadians asking if I was Canadian or in the Canadian navy. Apparently they have a ship named the Athabaskan. Was a total coincidence though, I did some study on linguistic groups in college and just always thought the word "Athabaskan" was neat.Cpl Kendall wrote:That never gets old. Yes we have a Navy, Army and Airforce. If you look at my avatar you'll discover that I was a member of our Army.ChakatBlackstar wrote:
That's very true. Wait...Canada has a Navy? You learn something new everyday.
Three Destroyers, twelve frigates and four subs (and a bunch of smaller craft). That puts us at around par with other NATO countries with our population and GDP.Technically, Iran has a navy as well, never mind that it's just a few patrol boats. Canada's isn't too bad, but it's hardly an armada.
The two largest navies in the world are the US and the UK, look at the massive difference between the two.