posted
Buh? I know the point you're trying to make - that if Okuda's written stuff can be as easily contradicted as Joseph's while still remaing on-the-whole canon, then Joseph's stuff can also be considered canon unless contradicted. Sorry, nice try, thanks for playing, next contestant please. I don't buy it.
But what has the registry of the Sabre-class Yeager got to do with anything?
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
He meant the Intrepid-variant Yeager, NCC-65674. No need to bring FJ into this, though.. Sternbach said that he never specified an Intrepid registry, and that the supposed post where he did was just a rumor. I dont see why people think that the registry someone made up that hasnt even been published in a real book, let alone a canonical technical publication or even a paramount licensed book would be canon.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
correct.. even though its registry is anomalous (a Constellation homage.. its 74656 rearranged), thankfully it at least doesnt predate the FC Yeager 61xxx reg.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd venture that Sternbach speculation from since he's finished working at Paramount and speculation stemming from the period when he was the writers' go-to guy for Treknology consulting are two different things. The latter enjoys a "if we woulda seen it it probably woulda been this way" semicanonicity status, the former does not.
[ March 25, 2002, 21:30: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: Sternbach said that he never specified an Intrepid registry, and that the supposed post where he did was just a rumor.
Well, he told me and the entire TrekBBS different...
The_Tom, you make a very good point. But, as we all know, this NCC-74600 thing goes back to the time when he was w/TPTB. It's just only now being confirmed, instead of being on-and-off-dismissed-as-a-rumor-thing, as it has been in the past.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I guess you wouldn't be interested in posting a link to this alledged confirmation, though? I, for one, have no wish to wade through TrekBBS to try to find it...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I'm a little disgusted at the very thought of mingling with that rabble.
I read off a website that somebody had saying Sternbach never said that. Possibly they were misquoting or misrepresenting him. I was misled.
But, at the core of the point, it is so far in the realm of a non-issue that its not even funny. I have the ability to leave past starships behind as 'registry not known' and leave it at that, since we have to beat this dead horse over and over, as if its going to make all the technology in Star Trek gracefully more realistic, dependent on our discovering just how many sixes, fives and zeroes are contained within the registry number of the U.S.S. Intrepid
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
BTW, on the topic of the thread, the 'T' designation you heard was probably this:
quote:excerpted from http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/intrepid.html Rick Sternbach was asked what the designation for the Intrepid class is, his reply was as follows - "I think Voy qualifies as an Explorer, though probably the smallest of its kind. The "slang" label that I always used in-house was Troubleshooter, but that needs clarification and translation into something better." The scout designation probably comes from the pre-publicity material for Star Trek Voyager, the same material that mentioned that Voyager was the second of an initial batch of four ships. NCC-74600: USS Intrepid History: commissioned in Nov 2370, first ship of her class. Notes: Registry is allegedly taken from a newsgroup post from Rick Sternbach - though he later denied this. Certainly Google Groups can find no such post, just lots of references to it's alleged existence. The LUG RPG supplement Ship Recognition Manual, Volume 1: The Ships of Starfleet opts for NCC-74500 instead.
I'm quick to say, that if that quote is true, then Rick Sternbach dismissed the type classification 'Troubleshooter' in the same breath as he first uttered it. I like 'Cruiser' myself, although if it is officially a 'light explorer' that means just about the same thing
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Okay, now that I've reviewed the actual post, his wording seems like maybe he's not completely adamant about it, but you get the general idea. He certainly doesn't dismiss it...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
BTW, if you read on to the end of the BBS thread, you'll see the stuff about Alex Rosenzweig and the Sovereign.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
All he said is that he's thinking of "offering" it as the right number. He didn't confirm anywhere that he'd ever said it before. I'd assume his original denial is still in effect...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, apparently, it stopped mattering. Why did it matter enough to you that you had to bring it back up over a month later?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Topic Closed
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic