We have agreed that there are issues about starships. With the list of issues, should we prepare a list of what is accepted or acknowledged by each of us about starships? I will list one of my acceptances. Registries are not chronological.
[This message was edited by Trinculo on May 04, 1999.]
Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :
I don't understand. What are you asking? Is this the reverse of Frank's thread, what we DO agree on? Because your first suggestion ain't one of them. Or is this a thread for things which you firmly belive to be true and won't accept anyone else's arguments to the contrary? I think it's the latter, in which case this will be a long and pointless thread with endless repetition.
Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
Re: registries, isn't it by now accepted that they are at least roughly chronological, especially in the recent times?
I see them as being chronologically *contracted*, with every ship taking a different time to build. Prometheus has been explained by Sternbach as contracted decades ago and taking all this time to be finalized, probably because nobody needed that kind of a ship before Dominion came along (too costly to maintain or work out sep problems?). Same with the Thunderchild and other ships of the Dominion-war patch-together era. Nowdays, however, it's less costly to fix maintain older ships than build new ones.
Otherwise, how about this:
1) Deck heights 10-14'
2) Window *sizes* (as opposed to spacing) not a good yardstick, because the former are out of scale.
3) The Bridge is on Deck 1.
In general, pretty homogenous between each other; every ship has to have a shuttlebay, phaser arrays, and a bunch of other elements we can look for upon seeing it for the first time. Some recent structural innovations, but everything is still there as far as systems are concerned.
Boris
[This message was edited by Boris on May 04, 1999.]
Posted by Montgomery (Member # 23) on :
I accept that Starships kick ass! Federation starships kick the largest quantity of ass. Federation starships with the name "Enterprise" written on their hulls displace galactic-sized bodies of ass. In particular, the 1701 and 1701-E could singlehandedly implode an ass-based parallel universe.
Everything else is negotiable.
------------------ "Plagues extinguished, the world becomes smaller. For a long time there is peace in empty lands. People will walk safely by air, land, sea, waves. Then again wars will be stirred up..."
- Nostradamus, 1568
Posted by Dan (Member # 129) on :
Everyone here believes the Defiant to be 120 m. long.
*secures kevlar armor and asbestos suit*
------------------ Daniel Henderson Senior Babylon 5 Editor http://www.myrkr.com
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
*lets Dan breath in that asbestos suit for a Long time...*
*sticks Frank in one too, before he makes some sort of smart-ass remark*
------------------ "......" �������������-The Breen at Internment Camp 371
Posted by Dan (Member # 129) on :
Spoilers:
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ..
. . . .
Well, one things for sure, it's not 120 meters anymore. That's for sure.
Either way, she's floating in Chintoka, or displayed in a Dominion Museum showing how great a vicory it was.
------------------ Daniel Henderson Senior Babylon 5 Editor http://www.myrkr.com
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
I acknowledge that starships have a saucer and at least one nacelle. Some have drive sections, some don't.
------------------ "Just who the hell do you think you are?!" -Stewie
Posted by Trinculo on :
First One: 1. What are you asking? I am asking for individual's beliefs on starships. An individual's beliefs textures the arguments that he or she has about starships. (For instance, my belief is that registries are not chronological. My reasoning is based on the canonical evidence-dedication plagues, stated ages of ships, etc. This is a belief.) 2. Or is this a thread for things for which you firmly believe to be true and won't accept anyone else's arguments to the contrary? No.
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
*muffled ship length lecture*
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Walter Barnett: "D-Did that thing just shatter an overpass into dust?" Donny Finkleberg: "No, I...I think it was an entrance ramp."
Posted by Trinculo on :
First One: My belief is that you have a difficulty in reading the written word. The title of Frank's thread is "Stuff We Don't Agree On".
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'm also not seeing how this is any different...
------------------ "I'm not stubborn. I'm just right." -me
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I would like to say that I agree with all of Monty's comments, especially those that were ass-based.
------------------ "Fishing promotes a clean mind, healthy body and leaves no time for succumbing to Communistic or Socialistic propaganda." -- Ivar Hemmings, chairman, South Bend Bait Company
Posted by Trinculo on :
The difference- An individual forms opinions based on beliefs and assumptions. These beliefs and assumptions form the basis of their arguments.
My thread-beliefs and assumptions Frank's thread-arguments
Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :
Trinculo: are you a complete retard? Let me take you through it slowly. . . Um heap big thread bilong Frank name "Things we don't agree on." Me ask um heap big thread bilong Trinculo REVERSE of um heap big thread bilong Frank, hence called "things we DO agree on." You savvy?
Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :
*later*
Hmm, no response yet. Maybe I should have drawn pictures.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Trinculo: Frank's thread was not for arguements. It was for people to mention things that should be on a page about arguements. Of course, anytime someone mentions something contraversial, there's going to be an arguement. The same thing would happen in this thread, if it were still on-topic. Someone would say "Here's somethin I think", and then someone else would say "You're wrong, because I think this", and it would just keep going back-and-forth.
If I understand your purpose correctly, you want this to be a thread in which everyone lists random things they think about starships. I think that's a little too vague, and extremely likely to incite large arguements...
------------------ "I'm not stubborn. I'm just right." -me
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I suggest we all take a few deep breaths.
Done? Good.
As this thread appears to have taken a turn down Vicious Street (No, not Sid Vicious.), it would probably be better to take starship related discussions to a new thread, and let this one quietly sink beneath the waves.
------------------ "Fishing promotes a clean mind, healthy body and leaves no time for succumbing to Communistic or Socialistic propaganda." -- Ivar Hemmings, chairman, South Bend Bait Company
Posted by Cargile (Member # 45) on :
I believe that all starships are the products of fiction and exists either as models of various sizes or computer generated images.
