For both encyclopedias, Mr. Okuda has stated that the registries and classes of many ships are conjectural. I feel this has become overlooked by the readers of the encyclopedias and the writers of the magazines.
The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, 1985
"Conjectural. Based on or involving conjecture." "Conjecture. Inference based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence".
This means that most of what we believe to be true about starships may not be true. So the question is, are we arguing about the "truth" of starships as known to the characters of the shows or the "truth" of starships as believed by a tech writer in the production offices of Star Trek? If the tech writer admitted to having a knowledge level equal or greater than the characters (he is a TPTB, isn't he?), I wouldn't be now wondering if we are arguing in a void of ignorance and misunderstanding. I believe very strongly to know the characters and their reality in a fiction, the reader or viewer needs to have information that is equal or greater then the characters. We are, after all, the observers of the characters and their reality and have the vision to see the characters' past, present, and future and the ability to experience their reality.
[This message was edited by Trinculo on June 14, 1999.]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The "conjectural" info in the encyclopedia is basically all we have for most things. Therefore, we assume it's right. If there is onscreen evidence to the contrary, that obviously takes precedence...
------------------ "Silence, you contemptible shrew!" -Stewie, The Family Guy
Posted by Trinculo on :
There is also the imagination. From reading a number of threads, I would say a good many of the posters are using their imagination. I think this is good and I would be never one to attack one's imagination.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Uh... I'm afraid I'm not following you. Are you suggesting that we ignore anything labelled "conjectural", and come up w/ our own conjectures?
------------------ "Silence, you contemptible shrew!" -Stewie, The Family Guy
Posted by Trinculo on :
When you come to a theory about facts in Star Trek, you are are using conjecture based upon conjecture or based upon canonical facts. To connect the disparate elements, you use imagination and reason. If the TPTB decide to make many elements of Star Trek conjectural and not "fixed in stone", they are leaving the door open for the fans to make their own conjectures and create their own versions of classes and ships. In one of the threads, the posters are speaking about a Constitution Class prototype in the 900's. This is pure conjecture by the writer who is using his imagination and ability to reason to fill in the gaps. There is no canonical evidence either way for a Constitution bearing a registry that says NCC-9xx. And the conjecture that the USS Constitution NCC-1700 is the class ship is being replaced by another conjecture that says the ship isn't. I feel for many of you that this is your way to make the shows more "real". There is much room for imagination and reason to fill in the gaps in Star Trek.