quote:

---

The change in the second digit of the stardate could indicate that they switched years on the way home.

---

quote:

---

he evidently came back as a full admiral

---

Huh? He never made it past Rear Admiral.
 

---

Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
 
I found this graphic in an old directory of mine. I added Nemesis. I have no clue what I was going to do with it, but here it is.


 

---

Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
 
It feels somehow wrong to regard the Enterprise-E as 10 years old already...
 

---

Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
It's 8 years old! Same as the E-D at the end of TNG.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
I could be losing my mind here, but wasn't Insurrection set in '74?

And it IS a little disconcerting to think they've been on the E-E longer than on the E-D...
 

---

Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
 
lets see. TNG lasted 7 years - the TNG films including the Enterprise-E have been 'around' from 1996 - Present, about 8 years.
 

---

Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
 
Your timeline is a bit off.

TMP - 2271

TWoK - 2285

TSfS - 2285

TVH - 2286

TFF - 2286

TUC - 2293

Generations - 2293 / 2371

First Contact - 2063 / 2373

Insurrection - 2375

Nemesis - 2379

TMP was 18 months after the NCC-1701 returned from her five year mission.

TWoK and TSfS take place within weeks of eachother. TVH is a few months later, possibly into 2286. TFF is sometime soon after that because Scotty makes reference to the comment Kirk made in TVH about "seeing what she's got" implying they are fairly close in time.
 

---

Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
 
14 years between TMP and TWoK? I don�t know man, doesn�t really make since to me. Our characters certainly didn�t age that much.

The Enterprise-B launched later in the year the Enterprise-A was decommissioned I can see.

TWoK and TSfS taking place within the same year works, with TSfS ending in late 2285.

An additional 7 years between TFF and TUC i find hard to believe though. The characters just don�t age that much. Especially since the movies were only filmed 24 to 30 months apart.

Let�s look at the original crew as they age. We get movies released in the following years:

1979 TMP
1982 TWoK
1984 TSfS
1986 TVH
1989 TFF
1991 TUC
1994 GEN

15 years. My timeline assumes 17, which is pretty close, but 22 is a bit out there.

I guess we can explain it away with �modern medical science� of the future. But damnit, that�s the easy way out!
 

---

Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
 
As to the age of the Ent E and how long they've been aboard, keep in mind that the E-E was already a year out of spacedock during the events of FC. Presumably the Picard crew was aboard the whole time.
 

---

Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
 
I always thought that 5 was in the 2290s.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
TMP, which takes place 2.5 years after the end of Kirk's 5 year mission, was cited as being in 2271 by the Chronology and other "official" works because Okuda was going with the assumption that Kirk's mission ended in 2269. However, since the last update to that book, a line in "Icheb" (VGR) revealed that the mission actually ended in 2270, meaning TMP actually occurs in 2273.

Meaning that Decker's line about the Voyager VI being launched "more than 300 years ago" is bunk. But oh well...

TWOK probably takes place in 2283, because IIRC the intention of the production staff was to have that be Kirk's 50th birthday at the beginning. Furthermore, that matches better with the continuous "15 years" references to how long after the original "Space Seed" the film occurred.

Seriously, I've got some pesky real-life things to attend to at the moment, but later today I'll post a complete run-down on movie dates based on indicators within the movies themselves and how it compares to the oft-cited "official" version. Get back to you in a few hours.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
TMP, which takes place 2.5 years after the end of Kirk's 5 year mission, was cited as being in 2271 by the Chronology and other "official" works because Okuda was going with the assumption that Kirk's mission ended in 2269. However, since the last update to that book, a line in "Icheb" (VGR) revealed that the mission actually ended in 2270, meaning TMP actually occurs in 2273.

---

quote:

---

Meaning that Decker's line about the Voyager VI being launched "more than 300 years ago" is bunk. But oh well...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
TWOK probably takes place in 2283, because IIRC the intention of the production staff was to have that be Kirk's 50th birthday at the beginning. Furthermore, that matches better with the continuous "15 years" references to how long after the original "Space Seed" the film occurred.
-MMoM

---

I got ST2 figured around mid-2281 (give or take a few months...so late 2280 up to early 2282, likely the latter).Reference:
KIRK
He wants to kill me for passing sentence on him 14 years ago -- and he doesn't care who stands between him and his vengeance.


This seems more specific than '15 years'. "Space Seed" was mid2267 (+14 = mid2281). Give or take a few months in the it could very easily be earily 2282, this varies from the Chronology which doesn't seem to indicate what it uses for the 2285 reference.

Also...

Generations (24th C.) takes place 78 years after Kirk is lost. Picards log states: "stardate 48650.1." or mid-2371. Doing the math, that makes the Enterprise-B launch in mid-2293-ish.
 

---

Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
 
It can't be 2281 because IIRC, McCoy's Romulan Ale had 2283.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Correct. 2283 is the earliest the film could occur based solely on internal references.

Futurama Guy, that line (from the script, the sickbay scene with Kirk, Scotty, and McCoy after Preston's death) was changed to "15 years" in the film. (That scene is in the Director's Edition/ABC edit.)

However, I've realized that there's a snag in having it 2283 when you take into account references from Generations. See below.

PsyLiam:
The Voyager I and Voyager II probes were launched in 1977, meaning that unless TMP takes place later than 2277---which it can't, being that it is set 2.5 years after the end of the 5 year mission---Decker's "more than 300 years" is incorrect. He must have meant to say "nearly 300 years ago."

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
Correct. 2283 is the earliest the film could occur based solely on internal references.

Futurama Guy, that line (from the script, the sickbay scene with Kirk, Scotty, and McCoy after Preston's death) was changed to "15 years" in the film. (That scene is in the Director's Edition/ABC edit.)

---

• Kirk's 5-year mission ran from 2265 to 2270.
  Icheb mentioned in "Q2" (VGR) that the mission ended in 2270.
• The 24th century sequences of Star Trek Generations occur in 2371.
  Seven years after TNG's first season, stated in "Conspiracy" (TNG) to have taken place in 2364.
• More specific dates take precedence over less specific ones.
  You'll see how this comes into play.

• Star Trek: The Motion Picture
  18 months (2.5 years) after the end of the 5-year mission.

• The Okudas conjecture that Kirk commanded a second 5-year mission following TMP, based on the fact that the film was originally to serve as a pilot for the Star Trek: Phase II television series. There is no canonical reference which confirms or refutes this, but if it did occur then Kirk's retirement would most likely follow it.

• At some point within this range, Kirk retires from Starfleet.

• Kirk meets Antonia near his uncle's farm in Idaho on Earth. The two will fall in love.
  Eleven years prior to the launch of the Enterprise-B (2293) as stated in GEN.

• A bottle of Romulan Ale, which Dr. Leonard McCoy will eventually give to Kirk for his birthday, is vinted.
  Vintage was read off the bottle in TWOK.

• Kirk returns to Starfleet, joining the staff at the Academy.
  Nine years prior to the launch of the Enterprise-B (2293) as stated in GEN. We know he became Academy staff from TWOK. As you can see, we're already past either of the two "alternative" dates for TWOK. Looks like the GEN writers were looking at their copy of the Chronology when they dropped in Kirk's references. More's the pity, considering that the date the Okudas had for TWOK wasn't supported by anything prior to said references.

• Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
  This is the "official" date, but it admittedly *could* have taken place near the end of 2284, although that makes the spacing of the dates for the next three films even more unlikely. 2285 allows time for Kirk to become established Academy faculty, etc., anyway. But it does stretch all the "15 year" references to actually mean 18 years, if we accept that "Space Seed" (TOS) occurred in 2267, which we should, since it was in the second half of TOS's first season. Perhaps Kirk thinks of the 5-year mission not in terms of the individual years it comprised, but simply as one block of time which ended 15 years earlier, in 2270.
• Star Trek III: The Search For Spock
  We don't know exactly how much time passed between these two films, but it was enough time for Saavik and David to transfer to the Grissom and for most of the battle damage sustained in TWOK to be repaired. As mentioned by another poster, the second digit of the stardate changed between films, but the same change occurs with each successive film, so unless you want to say there is a full year between III and IV, and similarly between IV and V, I don't recommend placing much significance on this. Besides, the stardates aren't consistent between films. (Witness Carol Marcus' Genesis report having been made a year before TWOK but with a stardate lower than that of TMP or the Enterprise flight recorder giving a stardate for Spock's death lower than the one stated at the beginning of TWOK.) Face it people, stardates do not make sense.

• Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
  Again, the official date, supported by Gillian's statement that she had "300 years of catch-up learning to do" following their return from 1986. Needless to say, that's not a particularly specific figure, but 2286 works if TWOK and TSFS were both in 2285, since the most specific placement we can give TVH is three months after TSFS, as stated by Kirk's opening log.

• Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
  Of any of the "official" dates, this one is probably the most arguable. Some have argued that it actually takes place only three weeks after TVH, given Kirk's line to Scotty when they come aboard that he had given Scotty that amount of time to get the ship fixed up. But we don�t know how long it took the ship�s flaws to present themselves after they flew off at the end of TVH, anymore than we know where exactly they were flying off to.

• Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
  27 years after McCoy became ship�s surgeon aboard the original NCC-1701, in 2266. Whether by coincidence or design, this also fits nicely with Geordi having said in "Reunion" (TNG) that the Klingons and Romulans had become enemies circa 2292, explaining the willingness of the Romulan government to destabilize the Klingon government in the film.
• Star Trek Generations (23rd century events)
  78 years prior to the 24th century events of the film.

Yeah, sorry I took so long with that. Been a busy day.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
 
^^^ 18 months is only a year and a half by the way, not two and a half years.

18 months was the period of time Scotty had been refitting the Enterprise while 2 & 1/2 years was the length of time that Kirk had "not logged a single star hour".

The first five year mission was from 2264-2269. If they returned home in 2269, Kirk was promoted to Admiral, the Enterprise sat in drydock for a year (or was an Academy training vessel or was under the command of someone else, etc.) before they started working on it in 2270, and TMP took place in 2271 then all the quotes from the movie would make sense, no offense to Icheb's research skills.

Stardates are hardly reliable but there is one overheard in TMP.

One of the barely-audible messages at the Epsilon 9 station mentions a rendezvous between two Federation ships to take place on stardate 7411.4. If you listen carefully it is also possible to make out the ships' names and registry numbers -- scout Columbia NCC-621 and scout Revere NCC-595.

Now it could be a rendezvous scheduled for much later I suppose but I think that gives a pretty good ballpark figure for TMP's date. That stardate corresponds with late 2271.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bond, James Bond:
The first five year mission was from 2264-2269.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bond, James Bond:
^^^ 18 months is only a year and a half by the way, not two and a half years.

18 months was the period of time Scotty had been refitting the Enterprise while 2 & 1/2 years was the length of time that Kirk had "not logged a single star hour".

---

quote:

---

The first five year mission was from 2264-2269.

---

quote:

---

If they returned home in 2269, Kirk was promoted to Admiral, the Enterprise sat in drydock for a year (or was an Academy training vessel or was under the command of someone else, etc.) before they started working on it in 2270, and TMP took place in 2271 then all the quotes from the movie would make sense, no offense to Icheb's research skills.

---

quote:

---

Stardates are hardly reliable but there is one overheard in TMP.

One of the barely-audible messages at the Epsilon 9 station mentions a rendezvous between two Federation ships to take place on stardate 7411.4. If you listen carefully it is also possible to make out the ships' names and registry numbers -- scout Columbia NCC-621 and scout Revere NCC-595.

Now it could be a rendezvous scheduled for much later I suppose but I think that gives a pretty good ballpark figure for TMP's date. That stardate corresponds with late 2271.

---

Oh it does, does it? And pray tell how you arrived at that conclusion? I'm sure it was a perfectly logical process, considering that Carol Marcus' Genesis report was star-dated 7130.4. I'm sure your same logical system will explain how that date "corresponds" to 2284.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
That is because Dr. Marcus really recorded that report in 2268...quite simple, actually.
 

---

Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bond, James Bond:
Stardates are hardly reliable but there is one overheard in TMP.

One of the barely-audible messages at the Epsilon 9 station mentions a rendezvous between two Federation ships to take place on stardate 7411.4. If you listen carefully it is also possible to make out the ships' names and registry numbers -- scout Columbia NCC-621 and scout Revere NCC-595.

---

Yes, but what about the stardates in Kirk's Captain's log? He gives 7412.6 at 1,8 hours from lauch, 7413.4 when Spock helps fix the warp drive, and 7414.1 when Decker and the Ilia probe are in the Rec Deck.

And the title on the San Francisco scene of the DE says

STARFLEET HEADQUARTERS
STARDATE 7410.2
 

---

Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
Yeah, so that would be like five days then...
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MirrorCaptainMike:
Of course, I am branded a lughing madman when I bring up advanced concepts such as the fact that the mission could have begun in November 2264 and ended in January 2270, and lasted 5 years and two months, because of travel time and scheduling.

---

quote:

---

Are you perchance one of those people who continues to argue that first contact with the Klingons occurred in 2218?

---

*raises hand* I am! I am!



Marian
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
I'd love it if you'd cite a source that suggests this to be the case...
 

---

Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
 
I would like that as well.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Don't hold your breath.
 

---

Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
 
Why, the same source that originally led to the 2218 date, whatever it is. I don't have the book in front of me, but I think it was a line from "Day Of The Dove." You know bloody well by now that I don't give a rip about "canon."


Marian
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Well, FYI, the Okudas' Star Trek Chronology was the original source of the date. The annotations in the book claim that Dr. McCoy stated that humans and Klingons had been adversaries for 50 years in "Day of the Dove" (TOS).

However, at least according to this transcript, no such line was spoken in the episode. Now, it's possible that there was such a line and that this transcript omits it. (It occasionally happens that closed-captions abbreviate certain lines, and alternatively the transcript may be of a version of the episode that had certain scenes trimmed in television syndication.) I think it would be exceedingly helpful if someone who actually owns the full DVD version of the episode would please verify whether or not it exists.

Even in the case that McCoy did utter such a line, though, it doesn't necessarily tell us anything about when Klingon first contact happened. Just because there was a period of hostility going back half a century before 2268 doesn't mean that first contact couldn't have predated that particular period of hostility.

Furthermore, the only line that ever explicitly referred to first contact with the Klingons was in the TNG episode "First Contact," and described it as having taken place "centuries ago." Being that the episode was set in 2367, and being that first contact occurred at least two centuries before that date, it cannot have occurred in 2218. Rather, it must have occurred at least as far back as 2167.

"Broken Bow" (ENT) nailed it down more precisely as 2151, a date which is in no way inconsistent with any of the above lines, and there can now be no question whatever as to when first contact between Earth and the Klingon Empire canonically took place.

End. Of. Story.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
However, at least according to this transcript, no such line was spoken in the episode. Now, it's possible that there was such a line and that this transcript omits it. (It occasionally happens that closed-captions abbreviate certain lines, and alternatively the transcript may be of a version of the episode that had certain scenes trimmed in television syndication.) I think it would be exceedingly helpful if someone who actually owns the full DVD version of the episode would please verify whether or not it exists.

---

quote:

---

End. Of. Story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarianLH:
I'm more interested in the "disasterous" part of Picard's line than the "centuries" part, which I ignore as a goof. Maybe Picard thought "centuries" sounded better than "seventy-five years or so." Maybe he's just not the sharpest student of early Federation history. Maybe the writer should be flogged. It's happened before.

---

quote:

---

And as for ENT, one of the top ten reasons I hate that show with such unrelenting passion is the way it's fucking up Star Trek's history. I could care diddly about what any ENT episode says about anything.

---

But, as I just pointed out above, there was never any line regarding the date of first contact with the Klingons other than Picard's. Not in "Day of the Dove" and not in any other episode. IT'S A MYTH. A mistake on the part of the authors of the Chronology. So there's no "fucking up of Star Trek's history" taking place, at least not on this issue.

Is this not making sense to you? If there is a logical flaw anywhere in my argument, please point it out directly. Tell me WHY you take issue with it. My hopes that you are not just bashing ENT for the sake of bashing it are dwindling.
 

---

Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
 
This, more than anything, is what really bugs me about "canon" and its defenders. This messianic drive to make everyone toe the party line.

Why are you trying to convince me? Why do you care? Essentially all I said was, "I'm sticking with the original story, regardless of ENT." The original post was even meant to be whimsical, not to kick off a rehash of the same evidence everyone already knows all of and has already drawn whatever conclusions they are going to draw from. Why can't you leave it at that? Why do you have to try and force me to accept your version?


Marian
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Because your argument has no validity to it. It's equivalent to someone deciding to believe "the original story" that the Sun revolves around the Earth and not vice versa. I am reacting to your misconception of this issue the same way I would react to any other misconception, regardless of whether it's Trek-related or not.

You (and Okuda, et. al.) drew an incorrect conclusion based on incomplete or faulty evidence, just as those who originated the Earth-centric model of the universe did. It wasn't illogical based on what data was available to work with at the time, but now additional and more complete information has come to light. You sitting with your hands over your eyes screaming "THIS IS MY OPINION!! I'M ENTITLED TO MY OPINION!!" is as ridiculous as someone saying that in their opinion the Sun revolves around the Earth. It doesn't change the facts, and to put it quite bluntly, the facts of the matter show that you are wrong.

Now, that being said, I would like to note that I am not trying to personally attack or belittle you, but merely to stop the spread of these woefully incorrect conceptions that have circulated for so long. As others on this board can readily point out, I too was once deadset on taking everything in the Chronology and Encyclopedia as firm and true. I even railed against the idea of ENT showing Klingon first contact when I first heard about it. But once I went back and examined all the evidence for myself, I discovered that it was I (along with the authors of the texts) who was in error, and I adjusted my views accordingly. It is in this scientific manner which a healthy and objective knowledge of the universe (be it the real one or the Trek one) is gained.

And yes, I think a scientific manner of thinking is important whenever discussing a science fiction series. I know some of that last sounded a little high and mighty of me, but I assure you it was not intended as such.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
 
1. I am not screaming. I never once used an !, let alone all caps, and I have to say I am unhappy with the (mis)characterization.

2. Your argument is based on the assumption that one must base the conclusion on all of the "evidence" that has appeared in a film/movie, and none from any other source. As I have said before, I do not share this assumption.

Star Trek is fiction. Therefore the comparison to actual fact, i.e. the sun, is a false one. The game of science (i.e., facts A and B lead to conclusion C) changes greatly when you can choose to ignore some of the "facts," because they are in fact not facts, and draw your conclusion solely from those "facts" that you want to.

My conclusion is not an incorrect conclusion, because there is no correct conclusion. It is not a misconception, because each person's conception of the Star Trek universe is their own, subjective conception, defined by whatever parameters they see fit to impose on themselves. I object strongly to having someone else's parameters imposed on me from without.

Or, as Okuda allegedly put it, "it is really up to each fan to decide what is "canon" and what isn�t, based upon personal enjoyment."

I personally enjoy a Star Trek universe with the 2218 first contact date, with Rihannsu-based Romulans, and with one-nacelled scout ships. Among other things. I fail to see why I should not. And I fail to see why I should not share this point of view, for others to use or ignore as they wish, so long as I present it as a point of view, rather than the "right" one.

And this is why I think the very concept of "canon" is such a toxic addition to Star Trek fandom. The very idea that there is some "official" version of a fictional future history inevitably leads to contentious disagreements between otherwise nice, sane, well-adjusted people who might under other circumstances happily have a beer together*. It's the difference between saying "I disagree, because of A, B, and C," and "you're wrong, because of A, B, and C." The latter is far less congenial, and really rather pointless.


Marian


*I don't, actually, drink beer. Yuck. But you get the idea.

[ June 05, 2004, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: MarianLH ]
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Why am I about to get involved in this...?

What's the point of watching the show and spending your free time thinking about it, discussing it, etc., if you're going to ignore it? If you're just going to make things up on your own that contradict the actual show, what do you need the show for in the first place?
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
I once ignored the second season of MacGyver until Dick Butkis appeared, then it was all OK.
 

---

Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
 
Ummm....I don't watch ENT.

And I'm not, for the most part, making stuff up, either. I didn't make up the 2218 date. I didn't make up the Rihannsu, either.


Marian
 

---

Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
 
No, someone else made up the Rihannsu. Someone that had nothing to do with the show.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
I also can't believe I'm getting involved in this...

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarianLH:
And as for ENT, one of the top ten reasons I hate that show with such unrelenting passion is the way it's fucking up Star Trek's history. I could care diddly about what any ENT episode says about anything.

---

Sooooo, you hate the show because it's fucking up Trek history, except that it isn't actually fucking up the history at all. As pointed out, there was no "original story" about first contact with the Klingons occuring in 2218. There was conjecture in a book. A book only read by people concerned about "canon". If you don't care about canon, why do you care about what that book says in the first place?
 

---

Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
 
"Fucking up Trek history" was a commentary on ENT in general, not the Klingon business in particular. Because of which, any specific data from the show does not move me. Clear now?

And as for the Chronology being a book only for people concerned about canon, where did you get that idea? When I bought it (1993), the concept of canon didn't even exist yet. Or if it did, it hadn't yet troubled my neck of the fandom woods. It certainly had no bearing on my decision to buy it.

I don't take all of the stuff in the Chronology as gospel--I don't take all of anything as gospel. But it'll do unless something better comes along. IMHO, ENT does not constitute "something better."

I don't get why this is such a big deal, either. Back in the old days, people didn't think twice about Star Trek V "not counting." Not everyone agreed that it shouldn't count, but nobody, I mean nobody, was arguing that everyone had to accept the film, whether they liked it or not, just because Paramount had made it.

I don't accept ENT as a genuine part of the Star Trek universe, and I never will. No one seems to be under the impression that I'm forcing this view on anyone else (right?), or arguing that it's the only right one, so where is the fucking problem? Why can't you just acknowledge the first sentence of this paragraph, agree to disagree, and move the fuck on? Why do you have to prosletize? Why does someone have to be "right?" I feel like I'm being stoned for heresy at the edge of the village.

My last post on page 4 is the best and most complete statement I can make on the subject. Read it again, because I'm offically making it my last word on the subject.


Marian
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
Today, on the swings, when I was swinging on them, I fell off and skinned my knee.

Anyway, when I was busy outside there was all this talk about Canon, I guess.

I was so busy outside I seemed to have let all complications of canon slip me by.

Because I was outside, the importance of canon in my life decreased.

I was on the swings, yo.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
"Proselytize", by the way.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
I think UM is on massive doses of some sort of drug. Or needs to be.

Marian:
That's just the way the cookie crumbles. It's the way the franchise is set up. All of the series and films, collectively, represent the valid and "actual" depiction of the Star Trek universe. The novels, games, comics, records, etc., do not. It's a basic governing principle, like gravity. The rules are set by the folks who own Trek and all its related characters, marks, and indicia. Not by the fans.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
I have heard good things about those drugs that are called like "Spank" or "Smack" or "Whack" or whatnot.
 

---

Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
Hell, a small fleet of Klingon vessels even invaded the Sol system and engaged a small fleet of Starfleet vessels!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
...or the one vessel that invaded the Sol system.

---