Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Sci-Fi
»
Designs, Artwork, & Creativity
»
History of Starfleet hull markings
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CaptainMike: [QB] BTW, Mim, Q2 established 2270 for the end of the FYM, not '73 oh, and for shame on Okuda for going along with what Roddenberry told him to do. newsflash: it was his job to do so. it was his job to invalidate the (minor, inconsequential) work of his predecessors. it was what TPTB wanted. and back then, we even like TPTB: it was Roddenberry. and nobody has to go along with Okuda's chronology, we only have to go along with the parts that were actually included in episodes.. for example, the only dating standards we have for TOS is that the FYM ended in 2270 (as per Q2).. and that Trouble with Tribbles was 105 years before Trials & Tribbleations.. the rest is up in the air, and i do prefer to disregard Okuda's speculation.. my version of the five year mission always seems to figure it coming in at about 5 years and 6 months (from mid 2264 until early 2270), and i don't consider Dehner's line about 'years together' to indicate that WNMHGB was long after Kirk took command.. this leaves plenty of room for TAS and the later novels/comics. these are the kind of things where Okuda deliberately states that his own interpretation is conjecture, because there are more solutions possible. and i feel my solution works, and isnt about to be invalidated. yay! Dixon, howver, cannot leave anything up in the air, when there is a lack of data, he formulates his own, and it rarely makes much sense to me. when two ships have the same registry, he comes up with bizarre renaming schemes. wierd. [/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