![]() |
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
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. |
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
I didn't get my answers in but am following along. I would have been clueless on a third of these questions :lol:
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Jimmy James
(Post 9645761)
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. |
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
(Post 9645813)
But, again, how do you know the guy didn't invent it anyway?
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Jimmy James
(Post 9645682)
I think Tracer got this one right with Family Guy. If you count buying DVDs, I think you have to count watching the show. That renders the question nearly meaningless because just about every show that has ever gotten a second season has done so due to ratings, which would be "fan action".
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Jimmy James
(Post 9645821)
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.
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by the big train
(Post 9645858)
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?
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
(Post 9645863)
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.
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
So bringing her to the future doesn't alter the timeline? I'm confused.
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
(Post 9645932)
So bringing her to the future doesn't alter the timeline? I'm confused.
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
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.
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
(Post 9645863)
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.
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Admiral kvrdave, they are not the hell her whales.
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
(Post 9646020)
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.
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Jimmy James
(Post 9645872)
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).
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
(Post 9638872)
<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #F9DF00">S:</font> The Original Series was canceled in 1968, but a letter-writing campaign convinced NBC to renew it for a third (and final) season. Name another television series that was brought back through fan action.
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by WallyOPD
(Post 9646126)
The wording is quite clearly about another show that was brought back from cancellation.
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
(Post 9645750)
This is actually a good point. Anyone have an opinion on this?
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. |
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Hmmm. Okay. Jimmy James put up a spirited defense, but Voyage Home will remain a wrong answer.
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Red Dog
(Post 9646229)
They gave the invention to the guy who invented the thing.
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. |
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Jimmy James
(Post 9646267)
Where do you get that? Scott asks how we know he didn't invent it.
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. |
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Red Dog
(Post 9646294)
As for Klingon question, of course not. They were not a member of the Federation and thus not subject to the Prime Directive.
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Jimmy James
(Post 9646343)
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.
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. |
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Jimmy James
(Post 9646145)
That's not part of the question if you ask me. That's just a preamble.
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Red Dog
(Post 9646353)
Yeah but there are murder laws in Russia that they are violating.
|
Re: Star Trek Sheep: The Next Generation
Originally Posted by Red Dog
(Post 9646229)
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.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.