Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
USS Endeavour, 1895 or 1695?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The First One: [QB] Ah, Stephen, Stephen, Stephen. . . you really do need to learn to relax a little now and then! None of this really means anything. But it would be nice to hear your own opinions now and then, instead of parroting what some other fan thought up 20 years ago. You obviously have a talent for this, so put it to good use. Let's hear something original! But I digress. I still don't think the available evidence justifies arbitrarily assuming the [i]Endeavour's[/i] registry is wrong just because another ship of the same class with a similar registry turned out to be wrong. Now, there are several ways we could go with this: 1. Accept it for what it is. I don't know whether there's any on-screen evidence for this number. If there is, end of story. 2. Acknowledge it as a mistake. Okuda had to think of a number, and he chose the wrong one. But aren't there enough real big mistakes in the Encyclopaedias without going looking for small inconsequential - for that's what this is - ones? 3. Damn the Encyclopaedia for making another boo-boo, and add it to the list, and give the [i]Endeavour[/i] its new number. I'm hovering between 1 and 2 right now, if someone can convince me it's 3 then please do so. Because maybe this is the problem with the Encyclopedias - why should they try to get them exact when no matter how many massive howlers are eliminated, there will still be people worrying over every little niggling detail that doesn't quite fit? No wonder the Okudas don't want to do anymore. . . [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3