posted
Actually, wouldn't Odo be the perfect one to replace with a (loyal) Founder? It couldn't be detected...and he could be brought home and dealt with since he'd been "cured". He should have also had somewhat more useful access than the Doc one would think....
-------------------- Twee bieren tevreden, zullen mijn vriend betalen.
Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd imagine the real Odo thought of that and set up lots of nasty suprises for a replacment via security protocalls and with the command crew's help.
Passwords, overrides, things he does to Kira behind closed doors...he'd be discovered.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
And besides, wouldn't people be watching the local Changeling like a hawk anyway, not really totally trusting him? Compared to that, impersonating the slightly-weird station doctor probably made more sense.
posted
Lee, I never noticed that old post of yours. Maybe I can incorporate it (or part of it) into the article?
Maciej intentionally didn't incorporate estimations based on stardates, because they are not reliable (although it may work out with the 1000 units per year rule). Maybe watching "Inquisition" is a good idea, as more facts about the kidnapping may be revealed.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
I know that to say "36 days is one-tenth of a year, so it equals 100 stardates" is to assume a lot, but it's a good working hypothesis. I always remember some prat who tried to disagree with it by saying "well, Sloan must have been lying when he said Bashir was in captivity for 36 days." Why would he lie?! Bashir knows how long he spent as a prisoner!
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
well, besides the 'stardates have never been a useful data point' explanation (since TOS and TNG stardates jumped all over the damn chart going in no particular order) but wasnt there some problem with the dating of First Contact versus the advent of the FC uniforms on DS9 that makes the stardates that year particularly unreliable?
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, sure in the past stardates have been reliable, but in recent years in episodic Trek they've been able to manage to put progressing stardates to eps throughout a season.
So discounting all the stardates for a whole year just because a movie doesn't quite fit in with the dates established in that season of DS9 is daft. Especially since, as far as I can recall, the main problem with the stardate in ST:FC is that it doesn't leave enough time for the Defiant to have been repaired before "IPS/BIL," or that reference is made to the events of ST:FC in an ep that, by stardate, actually precedes it, or something.
posted
The whole stardate thing is a real pity, especially as it was originally one of the simplest elements of TOS (as planned). Stardates were supposed to just be the mission time of the ship, in months and days, and fractions thereof. E.g., "Where No Man..." was on stardate 1312 -- that made it thirteen months and twelve days into the Enterprise's five-year mission under Kirk.
For the most part TOS and TAS fit in that quite nicely. There are a half-dozen or so animated episodes with stardates waaay out there past the end of that timeframe, though. And many stardates over the course of TOS had "day" numbers higher than 31. So I don't pretend stardates as they made it to the screen have anything to do with months and days, but it is kind of fun to watch both series (overlapping) in stardate order.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I thought that was just one possible theory, and one that a lot of the writers tended to ignore?
TOS stardates are a lot more chronological though if you put the airdates in production order.
And for 24th century Trek, they've pretty much been sequential since season 2 of TNG. Even then, the first season only mucked up on about 4 or so episodes.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Obsessive nerdiness! In airdate order: Encounter at Farpoint - 41153 The Naked Now - 41209 Code of Honor - 41235 The Last Outpost - 41386 Where No One Has Gone Before - 41263 Lonely Among us - 41249 Justice - 41255 The Battle - 41723 Hide and Q - 41590 Haven - 41294 The Big Goodbye - 41997 Datalore - 41242 Angel One - 41636 11001001 - 41365 Too Short a Season - 41309 When the Bough Breaks - 41509 Home Soil - 41463 Coming of Age - 41416 Heart of Glory - 41503 The Arsenal of Freedom - 41798 Symbiosis - no stardate Skin of Evil - 41601 We'll Always Have Paris - 41697 Conspiracy - 41775 The Neutral Zone - 41986
So the first season stardates are all messed up, and Yar's death means we can't rearrange the episodes to match their stardates. (Possibly Wesley's "promotion" does too, but I can't be bothered to remember when that happened.)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: So I don't pretend stardates as they made it to the screen have anything to do with months and days, but it is kind of fun to watch both series (overlapping) in stardate order.
Of course, having them overlap makes no sense, since the ship was refitted with a second turbolift tube and a new engineering section prior to TAS, new shuttlecraft and equiptment such as the life-belts were put into use, and more importantly, Chekov was replaced by Arex and M'Ress joined the bridge crew. It's definitely post-TOS. (Immediately subsequent, by statements in TMP and VGR "Q2".)
Gene Roddenberry (not that I place infallible faith in a great deal of his statements, but nonetheless) says outright in sources as early as The Making of Star Trek that stardates are variable depending where you are in the galaxy and at what speed you're traveling and whatnot.
At least, that applies to TOS/TAS stardates. DS9 is a more-or-less fixed point in the galaxy, so its stardates naturally might not vary so much, and of course this ties in nicely with the fact that by the time that series came around the writers were paying more attention to the stardates. Perhaps this is a solution to discrepancies between First Contact and DS9 stardates? (The Enterprise-E in the Beta Quadrant and later Sector 001 might have been reading different stardates than DS9 was in the Bajor System.)
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
One alleged purpose of using stardates, though, is that they provide a universal timekeeping standard across the vast reaches of Federation space.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
