Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Volumetric Additions - NX and DS9
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Woodside Kid: It's all very well and good to make this a "canon-only" party, but if that's the case, where do you get the starship dimensions from?[/QUOTE]You answered your own question. [QUOTE]I don't remember any on-screen mention of length data other than Picard's line about the E-E being almost 700 meters long. If "canon = on-screen", then virtually everything you have would have to be chucked.[/QUOTE]I don't recall stating that I only accepted canon [i]verbal statements[/i]. Star Trek isn't a radio program, you know . . . we get visuals from which we can make scaling efforts. Even if the answers are approximate, are they not better than ignorance? [QUOTE]My point in comparing the "Gothos" line and the "gross tons" is that both seem to be instances where the writer didn't have an adequate grasp of what he was talking about.[/QUOTE]That having been said, why don't you declare every value we hear as being "out of whack"? No, seriously, I want an answer. I already explained the concept to you before, but you persist. So, I want your version. As far as I can tell, the only reason you accept the other values is that you have no basis of comparison, and the only reason you deny Gothos and such is that you have alternative statements to work with. In the case of Gothos, you have a contradiction with pretty much all other canon statements of time. In the case of gross tons, you have a contradiction with the writer's guide. Don't you see that you're taking the writer's guide over the canon? I mean, hey, that's cool if you wanna do that, but that's no excuse for you trying to ram your viewpoint down my throat as if I must accept it alongside canon Trek. [QUOTE]Your own page shows that the use of the "gross tons" term is flat-out wrong.[/QUOTE]If defined by naval jargon, yes. If understood according to general dictionary meanings, no. [QUOTE]If we have to accept something even though it seems to be nonsensical, then we're stuck with a refit Constitution class that's 78 decks high. [/QUOTE]No, because then we've gone right back to how that's canon contradicting canon, not canon contradicting some crap that people who were writing the canon didn't feel it necessary to pay attention to. [/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