posted
This guy's almost as annoyimg a Mountain Man was. Quite an accomplishment, really.
How can you favor the varied quality (by "varied", I mean "mostly inane") of fanfic ideas on Trek but despise the (mostly) well thought out tech manuals?
Senseless.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by aridas: If you think an episode -- or even a whole series -- sucks, disregard it. It didn't happen. Paramount can't treat their productions with such disregard, but you can, and anyone else can. And probably should.
(...)
And if anyone brings out their canon sword, ignore them. Let those that are hidebound in their adherence to these artificial limits stay blissfully ignorant of the pleasures a free mind can provide. You're never gonna change that kind of mind anyway.
You know what I just realized? This argument is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!"
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
You have no reason at all to apologise. You asked a simple question. I'm not sure the answer was ever given, but here it is:
*clears throat*
It's not canon because it's a book. And none of the books are canon, with the slight exception of the tech books and chronologies done by Okuda and co (and they are only slightly canon because they are written by people who did and still do work on the show).
That's not to say that it isn't possibly what the ships of Starfleet did look like in those years. However, that's fairly redundent since, well, the Star Trek universe isn't real. It is created and modified to suit the whims of the writers. If, for some reason, they do an episode detailing the ships shown in 2290, they might match this book. They probably won't though. And the ships capabilities will be whatever they need to be to fulfil the story.
You said "So if it's not blessed by Paramount it can't possibly have ever happened." That's not what we are saying at all. The following is:
"If it's not blessed by Paramount, then it probably hasn't happened, and the current team has no compulsion to look at it."
Or...
"If it's been shown on TV, then it has happened." This is different from saying "If it hasn't been shown on TV, it's never happened". But remember, Star Trek is a TV show. And, essentially for the writers, if it hasn't been shown, then it hasn't happened.
Got that?
-------------------- 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
"Getting that" isn't going to be one of the features of this discussion. I think the *technical* questions posed to aridas have been conclusively answered, so it's time for the good old padlock... As regards the non-technical issue of canonicity, the Flameboard eagerly awaits your further contribution on this fascinating subject.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic