Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
T-Negative #27 (Yes, I *found* it!)
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: [qb] At any rate, I think that rather than incorporating this info into canon, it should be used to debunk the Encyclopedia's lists of most of the Connies. After all, this article shows all the convoluted (although still quite inspired) logic that would make poor Spock weep. For its time, though, the registry numbers would make pretty good sense -- they just don't fit into the Okudaic system that's taken over since then.[/qb][/QUOTE]I could *almost* be in favor of this, but the fact remains that if there's ever anything more about the Connies established, Paramount is likely to use these numbers rather than any other set. [b] [QUOTE]1) We never, ever SAW the USS Republic, so it doesn't HAVE to be a Constitution unless that specific designation was placed next to it in some ST:6 display. And even then, I'd be inclined to toss that out to explain the registry number.[/b][/QUOTE]Well, the ship was called a "Starship" in "Court Martial," which in TOS terms is a strong indicator that it was a Connie. [QUOTE][qb]2) As I indicated in another thread, my personal belief is that some strange gravitational distortions caused by the Doomsday Machine distorted light waves in a peculiar way, and the Constellation's true registry number is actually NCC-1710. ;) [/qb][/QUOTE]Of course that rather messes with the NCC-1710 [i]Kongo[/i], which appeared on the TUC Operation Retrieve chart. :( -[b]MMoM[/b] :D [/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