quote:Originally posted by Woodside Kid: 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.
I didn't have a problem with this because of how it was presented: The Enterprise-A is established as being built poorly and still in the process of having everything corrected. Now why could not signs be misprinted and improperly applied and Scotty had not gotten around to fixing it? That would be consistent with the movie.
Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Woodside Kid: Of course it is...just like most of what we debate on this forum. ... In any case, the ultimate source for the 288m length of the Constitution (which forms the basis for the volume comparisons) is the TOS writers' guide. (Please don't point out the display with the Constitution and the Klingon warship; by following links on the Starship Modeler forum, I've seen graphics which show that the display's dimensions don't match those of the filming miniature (and thus it's length data cannot be used as to compare visual effects shots for scaling)). If you accept the writers' guide figure for the length as valid, why shouldn't you accept the mass as well? Me, I'll go with Matt Jefferies, thank you very much.
Hi Woodside Kid -
I've looked at the screenshot display with the Enterprise and Klingon ship and followed links on starshipmodeler to try and find what you refer to as not matching the display and could not find any. Could you post a link or two? As far as I can tell the ships appear to match up. Thanks.
BTW, anyone notice that the screenshot is almost the same as the line drawings found on pages 184-185 of "The Making of Star Trek" by Whitfield and Roddenberry? Its nice to see reference material actually make it into canon.
Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
There are several small configuration differences between the different Enterprise models, and also between representations thereof.
(This, incidentally, isn't a problem limited to TOS . . . as I mention on my page, the TNG Enterprise model and most especially the Defiant had numerous variations between models. Let's not even get started on the MSD's.)
What Woodside refers to specifically is the difference between the representation of the ship as seen on the side- and top-view compared with the model(s).
The best thread I've been able to find on the topic so far is:
"Of course it is...just like most of what we debate on this forum."
That's not really what I meant. I'm referring to the fact that the entire thread is devoted to trying to get Guardian to change his opinion of how he wants to run his own personal Web site. Which he's repeatedly stated he's not going to do. If he's said for two pages now that he's absolutely insistent upon basing his site on what some feel are illogical premises, what makes anyone think that repeition will somehow convince him oherwise?
Immovable object + irresistible force = this thread will never end.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, TSN, while you're spot on the money in regards to how I was perceiving the discussion earlier, I'm completely cool with MinutiaeMan now and thus, the continuation of the thread has not been without purpose. We've both apologized (or if I haven't done so explicitly, I do so now), agreed to disagree on a couple of things, and gone on about our way like proper human beings. The thread, though not over I hope (since the page gives much to discuss), has reached its happy ending.
It's true that I can be quite the immovable object at times, but despite appearances I really am an easy-going guy most of the time.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Well, I was trying to explain my earlier comment, which was made before any sort of settlement was arrived at. Though, to be honest, by the time I made even the first comment, I wasn't actually reading most of what was being posted.
[ March 16, 2004, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And Tim's secret for high post counts emerges....
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Christ, and I used to be so close to him, too. And then I discovered the joys of sitting on my arse and not moving, and I decided to do that, instead.
BAD FOR YOU!
-------------------- 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
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Sitting on your arse and not moving for 8420 posts, hmm? Fatso.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
No, I used to sit on my arse and type vigorously. I had as many posts as Tim. Then I got bored with and and just decided to not move, and he got ahead of me. Somehow.
Loser.
-------------------- 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
posted
I dunno, but they sure don't look realistic. I say we treat them as part of Flare: The Animated Series, and as such...apocryphal.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
