Jimmy James

They also weren't charged with assault and battery against the guy with the boom box, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

It seems to me that "how do we know" can never be a valid defense to violating the prime directive. The reason it's the prime directive is that we can't afford to find out.

davidh777

I didn't get my answers in but am following along. I would have been clueless on a third of these questions

Supermallet

But, again, how do you know the guy didn't invent it anyway?

Jimmy James

I don't, and that's why it's a prime directive violation. Picard couldn't give a society on the brink photon torpedoes and justify it by saying that the person he gave them to might have invented them anyway.

the big train

Except a show with good ratings is never canceled like Family Guy was. Now, if a network announced that a show was canceled unless it got great ratings for the last episode, and then it did, I'd say that was "fan action" as well. What makes a mail campaign the only acceptable action in this instance?

Supermallet

Kirk not only told Gillian (was that her name? the marine biologist) about 24th century technology and time travel, he also took her to the future, and no one seemed to mind.

Jimmy James

Cancellation isn't part of the question. The wording is "brought back". High viewership for Friends brought it back year after year (until/unless they got multi-year renewals at some point).

Jimmy James

Bringing her to the future pretty well moots the violation, though. If he left her there like they left the plans for transparent aluminum, it seems to me a violation.

Supermallet

So bringing her to the future doesn't alter the timeline? I'm confused.

Jimmy James

She was a single woman who was a love interest for Shatner in the late 80s. I don't think she was having children.

Supermallet

But you don't know that. She could have been the great great great great great grandmother of Zephrim Cochran or however you spell his name.

kvrdave

They were all just too happy they got the hell her whales.

Supermallet

Admiral kvrdave, they are not the hell her whales.

Jimmy James

Not if she had gone through menopause, which is what I was getting at. Shatner was *old* back then.

WallyOPD

The wording is quite clearly about another show that was brought back from cancellation.

Jimmy James

That's not part of the question if you ask me. That's just a preamble.

Red Dog

As was said before, the Prime Directive never applied to time travel. For example, in the court-martial proceedings, did we see a charge for violating the Prime Directive? No. Of course not.

Plus nothing changed except for moving 2 whales (of a soon-to-be extinct species) from the past to the future. They gave the invention to the guy who invented the thing. Whale woman apparently had no life, just like most Trek geeks, so she could be brought forward w/o changing anything.

Tracer Bullet

Hmmm. Okay. Jimmy James put up a spirited defense, but Voyage Home will remain a wrong answer.

Jimmy James

Where do you get that? Scott asks how we know he didn't invent it.

I don't find the time travel angle persuasive, but I think I have figured out an argument looking at the charges that also kills my answer:

I think it's clear from the charges (Conspiracy; Assault on Federation Officers; Theft of Federation Property; namely the Starship Enterprise; Sabotage of the U.S.S. Excelsior; willful destruction of Federation Property, specifically the aforementioned U.S.S. Enterprise; and finally, disobeying direct orders of the Starfleet Commander) that Starfleet considers these actions to be inconsistent with the crew acting under the authority of the Federation.

From there, I think you get into an interesting discussion about the question. If the Klingons had interfered with a society in an episode, would that have qualified? It would be a violation of the federation principle known as the Prime Directive, but the Prime Directive does not apply to the Klingons. I think the most sensible way of reading the question requires a violation of the principle by somebody who is charged with upholding it.

Red Dog

It was pretty clear that he was being sarcastic when he made that remark - Scotty was likely an expert on enginerring advances in history - he knew that Dr. Nichols was the inventor, which is why they specifically sought him out. He happened to be conveniently located in the Bay Area.

Note in those charges - no charge of violating General Order Number One (the Prime Directive). The charges all stem from the events in III.

As for Klingon question, of course not. They were not a member of the Federation and thus not subject to the Prime Directive.

Jimmy James

The Russian mob (operating in Russia) isn't subject to our murder laws, but we still might call them killing somebody in cold blood murder. The question is not super specific, which is why you could argue that Klingons would still violate that directive even though they aren't subject to it. I'd tend to agree with you, though.

Red Dog

Yeah but there are murder laws in Russia that they are violating.

The proper analogy would be something like China surpressing free speech. They are not subject to the U.S. Constitution first amendment, so you cannot say that they are violating the law.

Palaver

It's not like it was a non sequitur or anything. It definitely gives the question its context. It's clearly asking for a show that was canceled and "brought back", not re-newed for a second season.

Jimmy James

Isn't that up to the Russian judges paid for by the Russian mob?

the big train

Don't forget the "new kidney" pill.