Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
TNG:TM reference to odd nacelled starships
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TSN: [QB] <blockquote>"I'd like to agree with you, Tim, except that the article specifically said that "experimental work ... yielded quick confirmation" -- to my mind, that means that it was unconfirmed before. And being unconfirmed means that no one bothered to try it before then."</blockquote> Well, that's one interpretation, but not necessarily the only possible one. Something can be unconfirmed, even though it's been tried. For example, we've tried before to look for life on Mars, but it's still unconfirmed. However, if the current probe up there happens to find a puppy behind one of those rocks it's going to look at, that would be "quick confirmation". Basically, you can assume it means whatever you like, but there are other assumptions that someone else can make, and you can't prove them wrong. <blockquote>"And it's not just [i]Cheyenne[/i] and [i]Prometheus[/i]... what about [i]Freedom[/i], [i]Niagara[/i], or the [i]Nebula[/i] prototype(s)?"</blockquote> Well, I was specifically targetting the fact that four-nacelled ships are generally considered "normal", even if less common than two-nacelled. Some people still look on things like the [i]Freedom[/i] and [i]Niagara[/i] as oddities. And I didn't mention the four-nacelled [i]Nebula[/i] simply because it didn't occur to me. Honestly, I don't know what to think about it. It is pretty silly-looking, after all. [/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