www.ditl.org

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.

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.

A "personal" canon that you can't really use in debate? Isn't that like kissing your sister?

Mikey wrote:A "personal" canon that you can't really use in debate? Isn't that like kissing your sister?

Well I do live in cousin frakker county.

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.

Personaly, I like to consider ENT as being one of Riker's holodeck fantasies. That way, I can just shrug the whole stupidity off.

KuvahMagh wrote:I also think that it should be the first series to have Season 1-3 listed as Non-Cannon alongside TAS while S4 is allowed to remain in the Cannon area.

What was wrong with season three?

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.

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..

Basically the entire programme must be temporally altered.

*switches on flux capacitor*

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?

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?

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.

So it wouldn't be too hard to belive naming and numbering conventions changed relativly often in the early years of space exploration.

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.

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.

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.

That's very true. Wait...Canada has a Navy? You learn something new everyday.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:That's very true. Wait...Canada has a Navy? You learn something new everyday.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The two largest navies in the world are the US and the UK, look at the massive difference between the two.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
That's very true. Wait...Canada has a Navy? You learn something new everyday.

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.

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.

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.

The two largest navies in the world are the US and the UK, look at the massive difference between the two.

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.