posted
Well, to be more specific, stardates for events that predate the beginning of a specific series tend to not match up with the progression of stardates within the series. Or, I suppose, family of series. For instance, any stardate between 41 and 55 or so (or wherever Voyager got up to) can be pegged to a reasonably high degree of accuracy. But, for events that happened before "Encounter at Farpoint" things get messy. Take the Tsiolkovsky, which should by all appearences be a much older ship than the Enterprise D, but which had a stardate on its plaque that placed its launch in the same year.
This can only be expected, since the 4XXXX structure chosen for TNG was arbitrary, and not designed with back-dating in mind. And TOS stardates show the same pattern, being (relatively) predictable over the course of the series, but breaking down when it comes to dates prior to "Where No Man Has Gone Before," such as the good captain's birthdate.
I don't think I'm saying anything anyone isn't aware of it, but I just wanted to point out that it isn't the case that stardates are wholly nonsensical, just that the sense they can make is (perhaps purposefully) limited.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Rather than think he's ignoring me, which he's never done before, I'm going to be optimistic and hope that he's just been REALLY busy or something.
I suppose if, say, Spikey were to send him a similar inquiry to mine and see if he replies, that might not be too out of line. Maybe my message didn't get through or something...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Maybe my message didn't get through or something...
That's possible. You should try again.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged