Originally the TOS Enterprise is clearly designated Starship Class. It's on the dedication plaque, on screen schematics (Day of the Dove), etc. Years later, we have her designated Constitution Class in the Franz Joseph Blueprints, and then later in one or more of the films.
So, should there be a ship that is a predecessor to the Enterprise called the U.S.S. Starship?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
No.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
This has been debated here before, and recently too, even w/my short time here. It's pretty silly to think that there's a U.S.S. Starship flitting about the Federation. Instead, it would likely be that "Starship Class" designates a very general classification of ships.
Supposedly, there is a TOS Era reference for the Constitution class moniker in "Space Seed". The display that Khan is looking at while in Sick Bay supposedly shows the phaser emitters for the Constitution class starships. Or was that as early as "Where No Man Has Gone Before"...? I forget for sure, but I'm thinking it was "Space Seed".
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
The display mentioned is seen in "The Troubles with Tribbles".
Starship Class is the family name for a type of large heavily armed ships with a balanced mix of offensive and defensive weaponry. Other family names known are Scout, Dreadnought, and Runabout.
MKIX, referenced in the above display, is a more specific designator for ships of the Constitution class and Enterprise sub-class.
A further, more specific designation is the designation of the Constitution Class as Class 1 Heavy Cruisers. Class 1 Heavy Cruisers, like the Class 3 Galor Class warships, are the top-of-the-line heavy cruisers. Other classes of heavy cruisers, starting at Class 2 and descending are less heavily armed and shielded.
A less-well known designator is starships identified by alpha-designators, such as Class J. This reference was used once and has never been explained.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Consider shuttles - once there were "Types" of Shuttle, now there are "Classes" (although I think only in Voyager, which was pretty screwed up most of the time anyway; were there any references to Class-whatever shuttles on DS9?). The Enterprise was probably originally called a Constitution-type. 8)
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: The display mentioned is seen in "The Troubles with Tribbles".
If you're referring to my comment above, the T-Negative article that Greg Jein wrote references "Space Seed". And there's no "s" at the end of "Trouble" in the title.
Hope that clarifies....
Posted by Sargon (Member # 1090) on :
Sorry, I don't accept as read GJ's chart interpretation. Very coll as it is, I don't concur that 16xx or 18xx registries are the same class as Enterprise.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
But that doesn't matter with regards to the original point of this thread, since that picture from "Space Seed" shows that the Enterprise herself is a Constitution Class.
Posted by Sargon (Member # 1090) on :
Wait a sec, every TOS episode, without exception, identifies the U.S.S. Enterprise as being Starship Class on her dedication plaque. What is that, 72 episodes plus The Cage? But then we have one small viewscreen graphic where the words Constitution Class are not readable.
Okay, I am confortable with the Enterprise being upgraded at some point in her history and she is designated Constitution Class thereafter. But originally, she was Starship Class. That doesn't change on her dedication plaque because that was what she was when she was comissioned.
So why is there such resistance to a ship, probably a design pathfinder, called U.S.S. Starship?
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
Everyone - "StarShip" could have been used as a specific type back then - equivalent to "Explorer" in the TNG era.
So - the Enterprise is a "StarShip" class vessel, meaning that it is a multipurpose explorer/defense ship. Others could have been:
Cruisers Destroyers Escorts Scouts...etc...
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Sargon . . . do you want there to be a Starship Starship?
(It sounds like the gag from Hot Shots, the aircraft carrier USS Yuessess (sp?).)
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I seem to remember it being the S.S. Essess, and that I recall thinking USS Yuessess would have been funnier and more appropriate.
quote:"StarShip" could have been used as a specific type back then
That's basically what I said. But wait! I forgot! Eeveryone in this Forum ignores me! I can say things like "The Enterprise-refit is an Enterprise-class vessel!" and no-one reacts!
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
Oh Lord, please kill this thread before it goes any further, I still have waking nightmares about the last 50 discussions we have had about this.
Okay, once and for all, "Constitution Class" was specifically spoken on screen in blatant reference to the USS Enterprise (TOS) in, for sure, "Relics" [TNG] and "Trials and Tribble-ations" [DS9]..., thank you very much, END OF ARGUMENT!!!!!!!! Posted by Sargon (Member # 1090) on :
Starcruiser: Although Starship could be a type of some sort, Cruiser is what a the Starship Class is.
Guardian 2000: I never thought about what I wanted before. You know, it would tidy things up a bit if there was a U.S.S. Starship. I think that will be the first Polar Lights 1/1000 scale version I will do.
Futurama Guy: If this topic makes you uncomfortable because it challenges your precious treknology beliefs, then you don't have to participate. The argument will end when no one continues it. Chill pal.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
OK I'll play your game....
To think that there's a U.S.S. Starship flitting about the Federation is pretty silly.
Wait, there's an echo in here. Didn't I already say that...? And in this very thread?!?
I agree w/the thinking that the nomenclature of "Starship Class" was meant to represent the basic "Everyman" concept for large Federation starships. Basically, the small, auxiliary scouts, shuttlecraft, freighters, etc... don't fall in to the "starship family", being mission specific and not at all versatile like their larger cousins. Constitution class starships fit that classification.
End of argument. Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I wonder if the Shuttlecraft Shuttlecraft is stowed in the U.S.S. Starships's shuttlebay.
Crewed by Captain Kap Tin, Ensign Ens In and Science Officer Cy'ints Awf'isser.
Of course there is no U.S.S. Starship.
They hadn't even thought of the 'lead ship becomes class name' stuff yet. It's why I call my pencil a pencil and not an 'Eagle HB **** LX.'
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
IT IS A VULGAR PENCIL.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: They hadn't even thought of the 'lead ship becomes class name' stuff yet. It's why I call my pencil a pencil and not an 'Eagle HB **** LX.'
Actually, if the Space Seed picture is correct, and the Constitution being NCC-1700 in behind the scenes reference stuff is also correct, then it's quite possible that they were, indeed, already on the "lead ship becomes class ship".
The reason they didn't do it is simply due to the fact that they wanted to get the whole "starship" concept across. The Enterprise wasn't a mere "spaceship", it was a "starship", a more romantic and thrilling name, conjouring up images of ships that travel between stars as easily as ships today travel between countries.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I have seen maybe three episodes of TOS, beginning to end.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Groan. The subject of this thread is pretty nit- picky if you ask me. Next, we are going to start arguing about the Enterprise being the first starship, or bird as Matt Jefferies described it, in the sevententh starship class hence NCC-1701. Is it supposed to be United Earth Space Probe Agency or the United Federation of Planets?
I agree with Griffworks and others on this point, the Starship part of Starship Class was to differentiate the type of space ship the Enterprise was from the lesser and mediocre spaceships flying aound. Remember in "Bread and Circuses" how Captain Merrick talked about Kirk with a certain reverence calling him a starship captain and how he considered Kirk, and starship captains in general, to have more fortitude and stronger morals than he did. I don't think that the intention was to ever have a U.S.S. Starship in Star Trek.
I think it's also unfair to show this plaque as proof of a U.S.S. Starship when the details of the Star Trek universe were still being worked out and revised and even before the Constitution-class moniker was ever given to the U.S.S. Enterprise. Cut the creators a little slack here.
At least later episodes of the original series maintained continuity and although it isn't perfect, some continuity is maintained throughout the four otherStar Trek spin off series and movies. At least now it's clear that the class is named for the lead starship of that class.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sargon: Futurama Guy: If this topic makes you uncomfortable because it challenges your precious treknology beliefs, then you don't have to participate. The argument will end when no one continues it. Chill pal.
Wha??!! This topic ended, in one of its various incarnations over two months ago...
I never said anything about being uncomfortable, I said something more to the effect that this has been talked to death, and people really need to learn the search feature of flare instead of inundating us with long dead thoroughly discussed topics (unless, of course new, relavent, information is presented/discussed).
Your arguement is simply:
quote: Wait a sec, every TOS episode, without exception, identifies the U.S.S. Enterprise as being Starship Class on her dedication plaque. What is that, 72 episodes plus The Cage? But then we have one small viewscreen graphic where the words Constitution Class are not readable.
We have more than "one small viewscreen graphic"...as I said before: "Constitution Class" was specifically spoken on screen in blatant reference to the USS Enterprise (TOS) in "Relics" [TNG] and "Trials and Tribble-ations" [DS9]...easily nullifying the entire topic.
Be it or not that all 79+1 episodes had the plaque on the bridge, the ship by no means was ever certified as anything verbally until it was indentified in the aforementioned episodes, therefore seeming to supercede any 'behind the scenes' information from TOS; especially during an era of an overly generic Trek universe...
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
FG, might I also add that E-nil was referred to as Constitution class in the TNG episode "The Naked Now", the second episode of the 1st season and of the entire TNG series. So they had already established the class that early in the trek saga... ignoring the "Space Seed" display which fans didn't really know about until recently.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: FG, might I also add that E-nil was referred to as Constitution class in the TNG episode "The Naked Now", the second episode of the 1st season and of the entire TNG series. So they had already established the class that early in the trek saga... ignoring the "Space Seed" display which fans didn't really know about until recently.
Does anyone have a clear image of this display?
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: FG, might I also add that E-nil was referred to as Constitution class in the TNG episode "The Naked Now", the second episode of the 1st season and of the entire TNG series.
I thought so...but I didn't feel like taking the time to double check and face to ridicule of misinforming the masses. Thank you for the correction/addition.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Sure. As I recall, Picard had gone through the historical database because he remembered a very similar incident happening before. He finds out the E-nil had the similar incident and read aloud to the effects of "Constitution class Enterprise under the command of Captain James T. Kirk."
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Although they show a picture of the refit, rather than the original. SILLY FOOLS!
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Although they show a picture of the refit, rather than the original. SILLY FOOLS!
Ironically, in ST3 when Chekov was watching the security blinky (when McCoy broke into Spocks quarters) they showed a picture of the original (out of FJ Tech Man), rather than the refit.... Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Perhaps it showed a most recent picture and not a picture for the relative time period?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: I have seen maybe three episodes of TOS, beginning to end.
Not to worry: you might have caught the three GOOD episodes after all....
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: >SNIPPERINO< ignoring the "Space Seed" display which fans didn't really know about until recently.
To be totally fanboyish here: the article in T-Negative was written by Greg Jein in the mid-70's. Thus, the information contained in the display has been known about for some years, just not by the general public.
Sorry, couldn't resist... Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
This falls right in with the "USS Discovery" thread o' nonsense. face it: there's no new classes of TOS ,TMP, TNG or VOY era ships to be unearthed and grasping at straws or incorrect grammar will not change that. Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
So certain are we? Have you seen all the computer displays ever made? I don't think so. Until we do, this statement is premature.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Shut Down.
BURN.
SHOVE IT UP YOU A-R-S-E!! Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: So certain are we? Have you seen all the computer displays ever made? I don't think so. Until we do, this statement is premature.
Premature prahaps: there could concievably be a display clearly stating a new class. Mabye. This however, is just making classes from thin air. Example: Picard says "Hail them, Mr Worf." so someone here decides to start a thread about the USS Them. The USS Them is undoubtly of the Us class. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: I wonder if the Shuttlecraft Shuttlecraft is stowed in the U.S.S. Starships's shuttlebay.
Crewed by Captain Kap Tin, Ensign Ens In and Science Officer Cy'ints Awf'isser.
Of course there is no U.S.S. Starship.
They hadn't even thought of the 'lead ship becomes class name' stuff yet. It's why I call my pencil a pencil and not an 'Eagle HB **** LX.'
My thoughts exactly.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: I wonder if the Shuttlecraft Shuttlecraft is stowed in the U.S.S. Starships's shuttlebay.
Crewed by Captain Kap Tin, Ensign Ens In and Science Officer Cy'ints Awf'isser.
Of course there is no U.S.S. Starship.
They hadn't even thought of the 'lead ship becomes class name' stuff yet. It's why I call my pencil a pencil and not an 'Eagle HB **** LX.'
Why wouldn't they have thought of the "Lead ship becomes class name stuff yet"?!? THAT makes no sense, given that GR had based the bulk of his StarFleet thinking off of modern day US Navy terminology and basic doctrine. In fact, most navies of the world name a class of ship after the lead ship from the 'yards.
Posted by Sargon (Member # 1090) on :
So am I safe in assuming there is no Good class starship U.S.S. Lollipop?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
The U.S.S. Enterprise was a Constitution Class Mk IX Starship, fullfilling the role of a Class I Heavy Cruiser. And the U.S.S. Federation would for example be a Class I Dreadnought of the Mk X Federation Class Starship.
It's just that this system only allows for about 10 major Starship types in the first decades of the 23rd century (when the Constitution and it's cousins were developed). You could say that it took a few decades for the Federation Starfleet to fully integrate into one agency with one classification system and that this particular system was already abandoned by mid to late 23rd century.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sargon: So am I safe in assuming there is no Good class starship U.S.S. Lollipop?
You would be safer with a mental patient holding a screwdriver then with this group if that is what you believe....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yes, that's what he believes. And Simon is, in reality, a collection of planets orbiting a sun.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
He does have a celestial body.
Woo!
I HAVE SEEN IT IN A PHOTOGRAPH!
Well, shoulders up. Neck and round, round head.
Teasers.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
T.M.I. Mr. Mayor.....T.M.I. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
That was hardly any information at all. Good thing you didn't actually see the photograph, or you might actually explode.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No man makes any part of my anatomy "explode". Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Simon would.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Nope. Gothic women, nerdy women, business women, domaniatrixs, insane women, latin women, asian women, Blonde women, brunette women, red haired women and possibly women that hate me or want to kill me all come before I could consider any man vaguely attractive. And dead women. Can't forget necrophillia. Dead girls can't say "no". Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"possibly women that hate me or want to kill me"
ALl ofthem1!11 ha ah
im so n33t
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"Simon would."
The voice of experience. B)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Nope. Gothic women, nerdy women, business women, domaniatrixs, insane women, latin women, asian women, Blonde women, brunette women, red haired women and possibly women that hate me or want to kill me all come before I could consider any man vaguely attractive.
YOU ARE NOT GAY! SUBTLE TO THE MAX!!!!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
M'kay. You got it. Nothing wrong with gay guys, mind you. They cut down on the competition for all those women.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
YOU ARE NOT AFRAID OF GAYS!!!!! OR CLICHES!!!!! YOU ARE HETRO TO THE MAX!!!!!!!
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
They are tidy and neat, too.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: They are tidy and neat, too.
Now there's a false sterotype if I've ever heard one. Some are neat freaks but some I know are total slobs....just like everyone else.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
But you wouldn't sleep with a caucasian woman, so you are racist and not gay.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sargon: Originally the TOS Enterprise is clearly designated Starship Class. It's on the dedication plaque, on screen schematics (Day of the Dove), etc. Years later, we have her designated Constitution Class in the Franz Joseph Blueprints, and then later in one or more of the films.
So, should there be a ship that is a predecessor to the Enterprise called the U.S.S. Starship?
I know you guys don't like this subject rearing its ugly head again, but after stumbling across this thread while searching for something else, it occured to me that something was being left out of the discussion.
While I favor the idea that "starship class" referred to the broad categry of spacecraft the ship belonged to (e.g. "class one starship of the line versus class two spacecraft, etc) there is an easy explanation for this if you insist that "starship class" refers to an actual class of ships.
The Royal Navy has classes of ships that are named after categories of things. For example, there are "Weapon class destroyers" with names like HMS Battleaxe, Broadsword, Carronade, Culverin, Crossbow, Halberd, Musket, and Tomahawk. There are also "Town-class destroyers" -- HMS Leeds, Campbeltown, Lancaster, Lincoln, Bath, Brighton, and Newport. And yet there is no HMS Town, or HMS Weapon.
Is it so farfetched that Starfleet has named a class of ships after famous retired starships? And that, when variations on that class are developed that no longer follow that "named for famous old starships" scheme, the classes are renamed for the lead ships?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Thanks for bringing some class back to this discussion, aridas!
I think the idea was bandied about a long time ago in the Usenet realm, but largely forgotten afterwards. Certainly it holds a lot of merit. The main question probably would be whether such a class designation would make it to the dedication plaque. What would the plaque of, say, a L class RN destroyer say? Would it really read "L Class"?
Okay, perhaps that's a bit too severe... What would the plaque of an old County class cruiser or Tribal class destroyer say?
Not that Starfleet would be bound to remain true to RN practices, of course.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Thanks for bringing some class back to this discussion, aridas!
I firmly expected that sentence to be followed by one compacting aridas' powers and personality down to a neat little soundbite. I am jaded.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Thanks for bringing some class back to this discussion, aridas!
I think the idea was bandied about a long time ago in the Usenet realm, but largely forgotten afterwards. Certainly it holds a lot of merit. The main question probably would be whether such a class designation would make it to the dedication plaque. What would the plaque of, say, a L class RN destroyer say? Would it really read "L Class"?
Okay, perhaps that's a bit too severe... What would the plaque of an old County class cruiser or Tribal class destroyer say?
Not that Starfleet would be bound to remain true to RN practices, of course.
Whatever the origins of that plaque, it seems a bit too extensive to have been part of the ship during her active career. It's conceptually a bit different from, say, these. I haven't managed to find anything similar online for actual real-world warships yet, but the ones shown here are pretty close to the Trek ones conceptually. No class names there, though.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
People have come up with lists of names for pretty much every one of the 80 000 or so theoretical Starfleet ships, and I don't think they've ever had to descend to something like "Aid to Navigation".
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Then again, christening a barge like that as USCG Magnificient or USCG Invincible would not markedly improve the situation...
Anyway, Starfleet is somewhat unlike both USN and RN in its naming practices. It's the latter that has favored silly names in the past, principally because it has hesitated to name its mass-produced fighting vessels after former soldiers of 15-minute fame, the preferred USN naming system. The canonical Starfleet doesn't thematically name ships after flowers or fish, nor does it honor past demiheroes - unless one looks at the most insignificant vessels, the Danubes and the Oberths.
Can we view the "1700 class" as a mass-produced attrition type comparable to RN Flower corvettes, USN Gearing destroyers or SF Danube runabouts? Perhaps we can - the RN did extend thematic naming to its big cruisers and battleships, and the USN did maintain a town/state naming system for its ships in those categories. We simply have to assume that later generations of Starfleet decisionmakers would abandon such thematic policy and would start applying highly diverse names on all large and medium starship classes. Or then we have to assume that these classes are thematically named, but the theme is obscure and based on future history - say, "named after starships that surveyed waterworlds in the 23rd century".
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
My question is why we haven't had an "KplztchnK" or anything similar. All the names are Earth names and yet this IS a federation of multiple worlds and cultures.
Perhaps starfleet should do a Saavik class. One that looks good in the beginning but has an aft end that expands over time.
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
Starfleet is not only guilty of ignoring non-human derived names, but also of using predominately western names. With the exception of the Yamato, how many ships have had Chinese, Japanese, or Korean names? It's the same with crewmembers. With crews that are almost entirely composed of humans, why is it that there are only a few asians here and there? You would think that crewmembers of asian descent would dominate any ship's human complement, assuming that the current population distributions are roughly the same in the future.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Akagi, Akira, Kyushu, Hokkaido (in TNG TM), Onizuka (a shuttle), at least. Can't think of any Chinese or Korean ships off the top of my head.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Musashi, Hiroshima, Tian An Men.
And don't think that Japanese, Chinese, and Korean are the only Asian cultures.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No, but they are the ones most american audiences might recognise names from.
What bugs me is the USS Cortez. Must be a sister ship to the USS Hitler and USS Stalin.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
But does USS Cortez necessarily celebrate the achievements of Hernan Cortez?
I mean, USS Tian An Men by that logic celebrates the violent crushing of democracy (or, in the broader context, the successful tyranny of glorious Chinese emperors over a vast populance across millennia). And something like USS Gettysburg is even worse.
But the rationale for the naming could be commemorating rather than celebrating. USS Holocaust would not be out of place in the fleet of a society that abhors the concept of genocide...
Alternately, UFP may indeed be in awe of the achievements of Mr Cortez. Or it may feel that the positive aspects of past "heroes" can stand on their own, while the negative context is recognized and silently condemned. A USS Himmler might celebrate "brilliant execution of highly demanding logistics" without celebrating the actual execution part!
Certainly Starfleet is above condemning political movements that happen to be in disfavor as of the late 20th or early 21st century. USS Zhukov is a powerful starship of the same class as USS Gandhi...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
Well, in Spanish Cortez is an exceptionally common name. The USS Cortez could easily be celebrating some Juan Luis Cortez whose brilliant theories made possible the Heisenberg Compensator, or something like that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, that's true, some future "Cortez" might redeem the name, but you'd think it would cause the starship to be named after the person's proper name (like the USS Tomas Paine).
If my family name were "Hitler" or even a jerk like "Custer", I'd definitely change it.
Some things are amatter of perspective but the murder of thousands of native people is not one.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I went to grade school with a girl named "Hittler".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So....she's in therapy now?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Not that I know of. I heard she got married a few months ago, though, so I guess it isn't a problem anymore.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Except that her new name is Milosevic.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Her husband can now bemoan "I married Hittler!
...and he can always answer his mother-in-law with a sarcastic "Yaowl!"
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
And do that funny walk in front of her, and the hand-greeting thing, and... oh, the possibilities.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
And when his family visits, should he tell them, "Whatever you do, don't mention the war. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it."?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
"This is her family they're from "South America", (nudge nudge, wink-wink)" Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
If my family name were "Hitler" or even a jerk like "Custer", I'd definitely change it.
Doesn't "Abbadon" mean "Angel from the Pit of Hell" in Revelations? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No...it translates closer to "Angel of Destruction", though "Angel of the Bottomless Pit" was later tacked on as well.
It's all a cultural assimilation of the Greek's God of Destruction (Just as "Cherubs" were originally Assytian tomb-gurading monsters and not cue lil' babies with wings).
Besides, being named after a religous or mythological creature is a far cry from sharing the honorific if some human scumbag.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Actually, "abaddon" means "destruction". "Abbadon" doesn't mean anything, as far as I know.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
There is a fair chance that Jason has spelt his surname wrong.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Well, since he refused to spell it right two years ago...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
So we're repeating a conversation we had two years ago?
People should be complaining that we're written by Braga, or something.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Jason's spelling alone could keep a whole series going for decades.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
But does it justify six pages on this forum?
Umm. Forget that I asked. And I guess any discussion is better than no discussion at all... I just fear that the real question today isn't whether to close down the ENT forum or not - it's whether to maintain any Trek forum at all. After all, Jason's new series notwithstanding, we already know everything about everything, right?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I do. Don't know about everyone else.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Talk about self-contradiction, Mr Omniscient...
Can God write a note He Himself cannot read?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
I've always wondered if God could create a burrito so spicy that He Himself could not eat it without the aid of Maalox.
There's still some stuff to explore in the Star Trek universe. For example, how all the future tech Janeway stole from herself works and whether or not it'd be deployed anytime soon. Or whether Odo can really bring calm and and pro-solid sentiment to the Great Link. Or whether Worf is going to be found dead in a sleazy charge-by-the-hour motel on Ferenginar with a couple Andorian prostitutes after a drug binge caused by the realization that every women he's ever loved has abandoned him or died.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: But does it justify six pages on this forum?
Everything I do is worth six pages of discussion. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...every women he's ever loved has abandoned him or died."
Or both.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Seriously. My love life is only slightly worse than Worf's love life, and that's not saying much for his.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
He did get to sleep with both Troi and Jadzia for at least a few months each. I'd take them leaving/dying just for that.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
I thought you disliked Deanna Troi? Didn't we just have a thread on that topic, also?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Didn't he also wrestle with Ezri once?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siegfried: I thought you disliked Deanna Troi? Didn't we just have a thread on that topic, also?
Er, no. In fact, I believe I once made a comment about the inherent advantages her skant bought to the table of hot loving. Or something.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Yes. Keep up, Love Boy.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Oh, yeah, that thread. I got an irate PM from you-know-who for using 'shikness' as a. . . noun? adjective? . . . for pederasty. And I'm amazed Timo didn't lock that thread, usually more than two off-topic posts in a row and clamp goes that little padlock.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Corollary to this: Why is this thread still open?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
It's supposed to keep this forum alive until the next Trek TV show premieres.
Or until aridas again decides to bump it, and do one of his "oh, and by the way, here are some six-way drawings of my Frobisher class, plus a never before seen Jeffries booklet on the functionings and innards of TOS warp nacelles, and a .wav of my old Wah Chang interview, in case anybody is interested" drive-by shootings.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Never interviewed Wah. Only Roddenberry. Got a lot'a good dirt in that one. Gonna pull it out one of these days, too. :devil:
Hey! Why doesn't the devil gremlin work? You'd think here of all places that one would get a lot of use. Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote:Originally posted by Timo: But does it justify six pages on this forum?
Everything I do is worth six pages of discussion.
The biblical Destroyer and the number SIX.... The symbolism just keeps coming.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yes, but how many actual posts is that? I think the numerology breaks down at that point.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I thought all numerology broke down after Number Nine... Number Nine... Number Nine... Number Nine... Number Nine... Number Nine... Number Nine...Number Nine... Number Nine...Number Nine... Number Nine... Number Nine...Number Nine... Number Nine...Number Nine... Number Nine... Number Nine... Number Nine... Number Nine...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I am not a number....I am a sarcastic fuck!
And a Flarite, of course.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Flareite. Flarite (flah'reet'ay) saounds like an Italian ice cream.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I am not a number....I am a sarcastic fuck!
And a Flarite, of course.
Another redundant statement.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
...And with these merry sentiments, we end our transmission. Good night, everybody!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
The argument will end when no one continues it. Chill pal. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Thank you for the correction/addition.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)