quote:Originally posted by Harry: With all respect, but to really explain the TOS "system", we need to at least ignore ENT, but probably also the Okudan TNG system. If we know how the TOS system works within the context of TOS only, we could then try to fit it into the ENT and TNG systems.
Unfortunately, the TOS system doesn't work even in TOS, so that's a bit impossible.
They decided to start with "all Ent-like ships are NCC-17XX", then along came the Constellation, and the chart in Court Martial, and it just continued getting worse from there. (956 springs immediately to mind.)
The fact is that TOS is over, and we can explain it in the best possible way to fit in with the rest of ST, and no episodes will contradict us.
quote:Originally posted by Harry: There's another half-hearted explanation in the fact that it the organization is also called Starfleet. A Starfleet of Starships and Starbases. It could be that during TOS "Starship" referred to a ship in SF service, as opposed to a civilian "spaceship".
In that case the dedication plaque would not have needed to say "Starship Class" because it would have been clear from the USS prefix. And even if it had said it, it should have said "Starship", if that is indeed its status, rather than "Starship Class", which means what I have already said.
[Incidentally, perhaps USS stands for UFP Starfleet Ship]
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Perhaps "Starship Class" refers to the "Class One" for main ships (from the SFTM) and "Class Two" for shuttles (from that Voyager episode). But then, why did Mudd at one time claim "he didn't know this was a Starship!". Or did that only mean he didn't know it was a Starfleet ship?
It makes so much more sense if Starship is a class. It would be like saying "I didn't know this was an Intrepid!" Surely he realised that Starfleet personnel wearing Starfleet uniforms had a Starfleet ship?
quote:Originally posted by Harry: This entire weird TOS thing leaves me with the distinct impression that several behind-the-scenes people had their own system, but never bothered to tell each other. The fuzzy fandom interference doesn't help either.
That's why we are here.
What I have done is taken what is canon, compared it to modern practice and other ST examples, and produced what I think is a decent explanation for their incompetance. Granted, everyone else seems to think it's nonsense, but it works for me.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Okay, much of this was answered while my post was in editing, but either way...
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Maybe Starship Class means the same as Runabout Class does.
I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "Runabout Class" before.
Rewatch the DS9 pilot and you will see the light as Sisko mentioned it there, my resource deficient friend...
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: Well for one, the system which you are referring was not designed until the Excelsior came around. It does not make sense to have "Starship Class" meaning anything other than "Of the same design as a ship called Starship", as it has meant nothing else in any other Star Trek series, and means nothing else now.
Archer calls his ship a "starship". Picard calls his ship a "starship". Why, between these two time periods, would SF decide that only one design of ship is in fact a "starship"?
So on the one hand it's a generic term for pretty much anything, and on the other it's a specific designation for a type of ship (Constitution Class)? Surely it can't be both? If it's generic in ENT and TNG, why would it be different in TOS?
You absolutely missed the point of what I said. Why would they have a "Starship Class"...after the term was already used to identify the NX and later the Galaxy Class??? Does it then mean that those ships, too, are of the "Starship Class" as well?? A starship is a starship and the term "Starship class" defines the generic term for what it is, a starship. Much like the Runabout Class is a Runabout in broad, generic terms - but a Danube Class in more specific terms. Sisko never said: "Lets go take a Danube to Bajor"...Even though we have heard Picard say "This is the Federation Starship Enterprise". Hell for that matter, when he hailed the Enterprise-C he refrained from naming his ship specifically, but still managed to say: "This is Captain Jean-Luc Picard from the Federation Starship...a Federation Starship..." again implying the term as a generic identification to 'any ship of the stars', until proved otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: If it means all spacegoing vessels, why, when he scanned the Constellation, didn't Spock say "its a Constitution", so Kirk would know it wasn't another type of "starship", like a Hermes or Ptolemy?
Well, it could have been all in the writing (remember how everyone thought of the existance of the "Discovery" because of the writing??). Otherwise, I believe I answered that when I said something like: "The E-D was the "Federation Starship Enterprise", implying that "Starship" is a generic term for pretty much anything, a term coined when the original Enterprise was conceived, and later honed once the number of classes designed began to inflate. A Galaxy Class surely isnt a "Starship Class" and the NX isnt a "STarship Class" yet they were called a 'starship', much the same the Original Enterprise was called a starship. It makes even less sense to designate a "Starship Class" to a design when the term is continued to be associated with other non-Constitution Class ships, both before and after the ship was designed.
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: What makes the Connie any more of a "Starship" than the NX? Didn't Archer call his ship a "starship" at one point or another?
That's kind of the point.
Then you just contradicted yourself.
1) I don't see how not having watched the one particular episode in which this term occurs makes me resource deficient.
2) Starship Class does not "define the generic term for what it is, a starship". The word "Starship" does that. Ignoring the "Runabout Class" (the Danube Class Runabout is the only Class of Runabout, and so it could be called the only Runabout Class - the same is not true of the Connie), have you ever heard anything like "freighter class", "aircraft carrier class", "frigate class", or "starship class" used in dialogue in ST or in real life? As I have said about a billion times, X Class means one thing, and one thing only - the class of ships of which X was the first.
3) No, a Galaxy Class isn't a Starship Class, and neither is an NX Class, but the Enterprise is, because it was written on the dedication plaque. Do you actually think I just made up the term because someone called the Enterprise a Starship? Starship Class is associated with nothing else. No other ship we have seen has been called it. Starship, yes, Starship Class, no. They are different things.
4) No I didn't. There is nothing that makes the NCC-1701 more of a Starship than the NX-01. However, it is a Starship Class because the first ship was the USS Starship. The very fact that all ships are Starships, and yet only one type is Starship Class, means that Starship Class cannot just mean Starship.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
In Star Trek III, as the USS Enterprise enters into orbit around Genesis, Sulu reports seeing a small ship. Kirk asks the navigator if he is referring to a "Scout Class" ship. The answer could be yes and the good captain asks for a channel to be open to the USS Grissom.
I know of four such classes:
DESTROYER CLASS According to The Making of Star Trek, Captain Kirk served aboard a ship of this class before his captaincy on the USS Enterprise.
STARSHIP CLASS On Enterprise dedication plague in TOS and in the fourth movie.
SCOUT CLASS See above. Refers to ships such as the Oberth Class Grissom and, possibly, the Columbia and Revere of TMP.
RUNABOUT CLASS "Emissary" (DS9). Refers to ships of the Danube Class delivered by the USS Enterprise D to DS9.
Star Trek: The Magazine added a fifth such class, the TUG CLASS .
Numerical classes:
1 Reference to probes, heavy cruisers, destroyers, transports/tugs, dreadnoughts, scouts, and shuttles.
2 Reference to probes and shuttles.
3 Reference to probes and neutronic fuel carriers.
4 Reference to probes and stardrive surveyors (ex. Beagle).
5 Reference to probes.
6 Reference to probes, supply ships (ex. Lantree), and shuttles (ex. Justman, "Suspicions").
7 Reference to probes, warp nacelles (ex. Defiant has class seven warp nacelles), and shuttles.
8 Reference to probes and shuttles.
9 Reference to probes and shuttles.
10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18 Reference to shuttles.
Alpha
F Reference to starbase shuttles.
J Reference to cargo vessels and starships.
S Reference to shuttles.
Y Reference to cargo vessels.
Mks Reference to torpodoes, probes (ex. Nomad), and starships (ex. Connie)
In the original, I have heard these three full names for the original E:
United Earth Ship Enterprise (U.E.S. Enterprise)
United Space Ship Enterprise (U.S.S. Enterprise)
United Star Ship Enterprise (U.S.S. Enterprise)
There were four technical screens in the whole of TOS:
"Space Seed". Khan is reviewing specs on the Enterprise.
"The Changeling". Specs of the Nomad.
"The Trouble with Tribbles". Scotty is reviewing the latest technical journal.
"Day of the Dove". Hull pressure compartments aboard the ol' Enterprise.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Harry: That one sketch where he explains the 1701 does give the impression he tried to make up a system for it.
Incidentally, that sketch is for the refit Enterprise of Phase II. I believe the book it appears in tries to pass it off as a TOS sketch, or has misleading captioning, but look at it. It is clearly one of his sketches for Phase II, with the redesigned pylons, nacelles, and so on. He even refers to the registry NCC-1701A, suggesting that "A" represents the refit version of the first ship of the seventeenth class, an idea later abandoned for TMP and quasi-resurrected for TVH.
Jonah claims the system was in place during TOS, but I have never seen any evidence for that. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that all I've seen is the Phase II sketch. If that's the case, there was no system in TOS, but Jeffries briefly tried to retrofit one into the registry during the '70s. Any reverse extrapolation back to TOS is wishful thinking, unless there's some hidden cache of unseen drawings or never-reported Jeffries interviews. The USS Constellation didn't screw up some preexisting system: there was no system until Phase II, and that was abandoned.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." --Phillip K. Dick
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: [QUOTE]2) Starship Class does not "define the generic erm for what it is, a starship". The word "Starship" does that. Ignoring the "Runabout Class" (the Danube Class Runabout is the only Class of Runabout, and so it could be called the only Runabout Class - the same is not true of the Connie), have you ever heard anything like "freighter class", "aircraft carrier class", "frigate class", or "starship class" used in dialogue in ST or in real life? As I have said about a billion times, X Class means one thing, and one thing only - the class of ships of which X was the first.
Actually, quite often. When the Ticonderoga-class CGs & the Arleigh Burke-class DDGs were proposed & launched, they were (& still are) colloquially referred to as "AEGIS cruisers" or "AEGIS destroyers" based solely on the radar/fire control system they were built around. The Seawolf-class subs SHOULD have been SSN-774 to SSN-776, but the project was call the "SSN-21" project, meaning a sub for the 21st century & some idiot thought that was the hull number, so now those are SSN-21 to SSN-23--a technical if not actual reuse of numbers. The follow-on design to the Nimitzclass carrier is the CVNX project. Los Angeles-class subs are still call 688 & 688I-class boats; even Sturgeons were 637-class boats.
And to add another wrench...possible reuse of class names? RL ref point: with the launch of USS Virginia SSN-774, the USN will have started its 3rd "Virginia-class" of ships.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
You know Phoenix, you are debating a never-seen-clearly-enough-to-be-read-plaque that simply reads "Starship Class" on something that was designed to indicate the only style of ship Starfleet had, LONG before the idea was conceived to make a second class of starship (the Reliant), nearly 15 years later.
And not to waste space as you did quoting things and not specifying what you were replying to...the concept of a Yellowstone class, whether or not it can be deemed existant, is at least a second "Runabout Class" ship seen. You cannot continue to deny the existance of something that is a cold hard fact.
Picard noted the holodeck Enterprise bridge (in "Relics") as a "Constitution Class"...Scotty didn't reply "Erm, its a Starship Class, sir"...especially considering how 'close' he was to 'her'...thus identifying it SPECIFICALLY as a Constitution Class and therefore indicating that the term belongs to the TOS ship and supporting the idea that "Starship Class" is generic to any Federation/Starfleet STARSHIP. This is a cold hard fact. Never before this was it confirmed visibally ON SCREEN to be anything more or less.
There never was a "USS Starship", besides being completely redundant, it just sounds silly. Why use a term "Starship" to both identify a specific ship, but then to also apply it to ALL ships prior to it and preceeding it. That would be like deciding to call all (of what we know as) 'starships' - instead 'excelsiors' - whereas Picard would be of the "Federation Excelsior Enterprise"...I certainly cannot believe that they went around hailing folks saying "this is the Federation Starship Starship"
-------------------- Hey, it only took 13 years for me to figure out my password...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Well.. I've tried to mix some of the nomenclature in one semi-workable system..
Jefferies Sketch #1: ~1966 // deprecated, because no-one ever used it 17th CRUISER DESIGN
Jefferies interview: 17th MAJOR DESIGN
Jefferies Sketch #2: ~1966 // the origins of Starship class USS ENTERPRISE SPACE CRUISER STARSHIP CLASS
Dedication Plaque: 1966 // probably pulled straight from the sketches USS ENTERPRISE STARSHIP CLASS SAN FRANSISCO
Space Seed: 1967 // Adds Mk IX and Constitution class PRIMARY PHASER L,R STAR SHIP MK IX/01 CONSTITUTION CLASS
SFTM: 1975 // FJ (tries to) expand the Space Seed system and adds Class I CLASS I STARSHIP HEAVY CRUISER CLASS MOD: MK IX -and- CLASS I HEAVY CRUISER CONSTITUTION CLASS STARSHIPS
===== STARSHIP MK IX == CONSTITUTION CLASS == CLASS I HEAVY CRUISER
STARSHIPS MK CLASS CATEGORY I II III IV V VI PTOLEMY CLASS I TRANSPORT/TUG VII HERMES CLASS I SCOUT VIIb CYGNUS CLASS I SCOUT VIII SALADIN CLASS I DESTROYER IX CONSTITUTION CLASS I HEAVY CRUISER X FEDERATION CLASS I DREADNOUGHT
USS ENTERPRISE NCC-1701 CONSTITUTION CLASS MK IX STARSHIP CLASS I HEAVY CRUISER
USS ENTENTE NCC-2120 FEDERATION CLASS MK X STARSHIP CLASS I DREADNOUGHT
TRANSPORT CONTAINERS (TYPE FJ) MK REGISTRY CATEGORY I NCC-C1000 BULK LIQUIDS II NCC-C2000 DRY BULK III NCC-C3000 REEFERS IV NCC-C4000 CLASS I STARLINER V NCC-C5000 PRODUCTS
SS ANDORIA NCC-C4024 MK IV TRANSPORT CONTAINER (TYPE FJ) CLASS I STARLINER
(ehm.. the PRE tag seems to forget my newlines. Too lazy to fix it now)
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Actually, quite often. When the Ticonderoga-class CGs & the Arleigh Burke-class DDGs were proposed & launched, they were (& still are) colloquially referred to as "AEGIS cruisers" or "AEGIS destroyers" based solely on the radar/fire control system they were built around. The Seawolf-class subs SHOULD have been SSN-774 to SSN-776, but the project was call the "SSN-21" project, meaning a sub for the 21st century & some idiot thought that was the hull number, so now those are SSN-21 to SSN-23--a technical if not actual reuse of numbers. The follow-on design to the Nimitzclass carrier is the CVNX project. Los Angeles-class subs are still call 688 & 688I-class boats; even Sturgeons were 637-class boats.
And to add another wrench...possible reuse of class names? RL ref point: with the launch of USS Virginia SSN-774, the USN will have started its 3rd "Virginia-class" of ships.
I'm not entirely sure I see how that applies - the first example seems to be like calling Voyager a "Bio Neural Cruiser" or the Dauntless a "Quantum Slipstream Cruiser". The last example seems to be like calling Voyager 74600-Class.
And it would seem that Starfleet is not adverse to reusing Class names - otherwise the Voyager crew would have been surprised at the Dauntless NX-01-A being the first of its class (like the Dauntless NX-01 presumably was).
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: You know Phoenix, you are debating a never-seen-clearly-enough-to-be-read-plaque that simply reads "Starship Class" on something that was designed to indicate the only style of ship Starfleet had, LONG before the idea was conceived to make a second class of starship (the Reliant), nearly 15 years later.
So I'm not allowed to use the Dedication Plaque which was (theoretically) in every episode, but other people can use schematics seen on a tiny screen that are only visible when you get the original from the producers?
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: And not to waste space as you did quoting things and not specifying what you were replying to...the concept of a Yellowstone class, whether or not it can be deemed existant, is at least a second "Runabout Class" ship seen. You cannot continue to deny the existance of something that is a cold hard fact.
I'm not sure I follow this argument. You claim as an example of a second Runabout Class a ship that only existed in an alternate timeline years after Sisko made his comment? Even if it does exist (which seems unlikely, as Harry supposedly designed it, and he was 70,000 light years away at the time) it certainly didn't exist in Emissary, when the comment was made.
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Picard noted the holodeck Enterprise bridge (in "Relics") as a "Constitution Class"...Scotty didn't reply "Erm, its a Starship Class, sir"...especially considering how 'close' he was to 'her'...thus identifying it SPECIFICALLY as a Constitution Class and therefore indicating that the term belongs to the TOS ship and supporting the idea that "Starship Class" is generic to any Federation/Starfleet STARSHIP. This is a cold hard fact. Never before this was it confirmed visibally ON SCREEN to be anything more or less.
If the blueprints and schematics of the ship show it to be a Constitution Class, it seems likely that Scotty would think of it as that - especially as he was close to it. Sub-Classes would be different to one another, and Scotty would be aware of every single way in which his ship was not just a run-of-the-mill Starship Class.
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: There never was a "USS Starship", besides being completely redundant, it just sounds silly. Why use a term "Starship" to both identify a specific ship, but then to also apply it to ALL ships prior to it and preceeding it. That would be like deciding to call all (of what we know as) 'starships' - instead 'excelsiors' - whereas Picard would be of the "Federation Excelsior Enterprise"...I certainly cannot believe that they went around hailing folks saying "this is the Federation Starship Starship"
Well, someone went around saying "This is the Federation Starship Federation", didn't they?
There is always the possibility it was never made spaceworthy and sits in a museum somewhere. Or they could have said "This is the Federation Vessel Starship".
And stating your personal opinion as undenialable fact is just a tad arrogant, wouldn't you say?
I don't demand anyone agree with me; in fact I don't even expect it. After all, this is a highly speculative theory based on incomplete and often contradictory facts. However, I do expect not to be treated like I am a complete idiot by people like you.
This is supposed to be a discussion forum, but whenever I try to discuss something you turn up, flame me, and insult everything I say. Fine, you have opinions, but I have them too, so try not to be so rude about everything.
Edit: Just to throw yet another spanner in the works, re Scout Class, there were two Royal Navy ships, a turn-of-the-century cruiser and a WW2 destroyer, called HMS Scout.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Ah, just give up on "Futurama Guy". I'm beginning to suspect that he's in a "mood" of late and just feels like tweakin' eveyrone's nipples. That or he's just a Troll.
As to the whole "starship class" debate, I'm inclined to agree with what I feel that Franz Joseph was getting at: the term "starship" applies to all "large" vessels in Star Fleet use at a given time and that Constitution is indeed the class name for which Enterprise belongs. "Starship" simply refers to the overall designation of ships that meet certain requirements, which I seem to recall is listed in the "StarFleet Technical Manual", but am too lazy to look up at the moment. This also goes along with our current U.S. Navy's practice of naming a specific ship class after the lead ship, while using a basic technology label for all ships that meet basic mission requirements, such as the AEGIS class missile cruiser - and there's no ship named "U.S.S. AEGIS", either....
Use of phrase "United Star Ship Enterprise" in a few episodes of TOS by Kirk - and maybe others - indicates to me that U.S.S. stands for "United Star Ship", tho it's never specifically stated as such. I take it as an implication, tho.
As is always the case with conjecture: YMMV, TT&L not included, not recommended for use by children under 5, inhalation hazard and may cause cancer in lab rats.
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: As to the whole "starship class" debate, I'm inclined to agree with what I feel that Franz Joseph was getting at: the term "starship" applies to all "large" vessels in Star Fleet use at a given time and that Constitution is indeed the class name for which Enterprise belongs. "Starship" simply refers to the overall designation of ships that meet certain requirements, which I seem to recall is listed in the "StarFleet Technical Manual", but am too lazy to look up at the moment. This also goes along with our current U.S. Navy's practice of naming a specific ship class after the lead ship, while using a basic technology label for all ships that meet basic mission requirements, such as the AEGIS class missile cruiser - and there's no ship named "U.S.S. AEGIS", either....
That's what I always thought, but it doesn't seem to fit in with other things. Oh well, I think I'll just give up on TOS and watch some Enterprise episodes
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: Use of phrase "United Star Ship Enterprise" in a few episodes of TOS by Kirk - and maybe others - indicates to me that U.S.S. stands for "United Star Ship", tho it's never specifically stated as such. I take it as an implication, tho.
My only problem with this (which is what I always assumed it meant) is that it doesn't make any sense.
USS today stands for United States Ship - i.e. a Ship of the United States.
SO what does United Star Ship mean? A Ship from a United Star? A Star Ship that is United?
We know that SF is officially the UFP Starfleet. If I was building the first ship of the UFP Starfleet, I'll call it a UFP Starfleet Ship, or USS.
In anticipation of replies: I know it's not canon, I know it has never been mentioned in dialogue or on screen - it's just logical. If you don't like what I think, then disagree. Just don't flame me.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Just to be really difficult, another theory: Perhaps Starship class applies to all interstellar Starfleet vessels with the two nacelle-saucer-secondary hull configuration. Didn't Spock say something like 'by configuration, a starship" in one episode? that would seem to fit in (assuming I've actually remembere that correctly, or even semi-corectly).
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: [QUOTE]That's what I always thought, but it doesn't seem to fit in with other things. Oh well, I think I'll just give up on TOS and watch some Enterprise episodes
I think it makes perfect sense, personally. After all, the model that Gene Roddenbarry was copying at the time was the US Navy and standard naval parlance. You didn't name a class of ship after the purpose it served, but the lead ship in the classification. Thus, it should be Constitution class, if you follow that line of thinking, not Starship.
quote:My only problem with this (which is what I always assumed it meant) is that it doesn't make any sense.
USS today stands for United States Ship - i.e. a Ship of the United States.
SO what does United Star Ship mean? A Ship from a United Star? A Star Ship that is United?
We know that SF is officially the UFP Starfleet. If I was building the first ship of the UFP Starfleet, I'll call it a UFP Starfleet Ship, or USS.
In anticipation of replies: I know it's not canon, I know it has never been mentioned in dialogue or on screen - it's just logical. If you don't like what I think, then disagree. Just don't flame me.
I think that United StarShip makes perfect sense, obviously.
H.M.S. stands for "Her/His Majesty's Ship", right? Well, instead of saying "United Federation of Planets StarShip", just shorten it, just as "United States Ship" is shortened from "United States of America Ship", if you think about it. We don't call them "USAS", do we...?
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: I think that United StarShip makes perfect sense, obviously.
H.M.S. stands for "Her/His Majesty's Ship", right? Well, instead of saying "United Federation of Planets StarShip", just shorten it, just as "United States Ship" is shortened from "United States of America Ship", if you think about it. We don't call them "USAS", do we...?
Yes, but people actually call the United States of America the United States, don't they? In fact United States is more common than United States of America. I doubt Federation citizens shorten United Federation of Planets to United.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Pike (and Kirk) also said on at least two occasions "This is the United Space Ship Enterprise".
One question. There are three standard hailings for our intrepid crews:
"This is the Federation Starship Enterprise."
"This is blah blah blah of the USS Enterprise."
"This is the starship Enterprise".
Did anyone ever say "This is the starship USS Enterprise"? Or "Federation starship USS Enterprise"?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
