View Single Post
Old July 24 2012, 05:29 PM   #336
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Christopher wrote: View Post
iarann wrote: View Post
This can be explained as well. If he was at Starfleet Academy, one could think after he retired from the Presidency he reassociated himself with Starfleet in some way, perhaps he became an instructor or advisor. Knowing how little he thought of politics (based on various jabs he makes about politicians in Star Trek: Enterprise) and how enthusiastic he was about Starfleet perhaps he preferred people refer to him as Admiral rather than President.
Doesn't work that way. The highest title always takes precedence. Anyone who referred to a former president as "Admiral" instead of "President" would be committing a serious breach of respect and protocol. So there's no way that would become an accepted practice in Starfleet. Sure, it's possible Scotty was misspeaking, but it's unlikely. When was the last time you heard someone refer to President Eisenhower as "General Eisenhower," except when talking about his accomplishments before the presidency?
You are assuming the practice and protocols of modern day real world military carry forward to Starfleet with the same rigidity. But as Gene Roddenberry loved to point out, Starfleet isn't military. I could easily see someone with a long service record preferring to be called Admiral instead of President, despite what protocol says while involved in Starfleet related tasks. If he was a professor and would correct his students when they called him President, than the habit could spread. If the former President of the Federation wants to be called Admiral while he teaches at Starfleet Academy, using his Starfleet title, than who would a cadet be to argue?

Christopher wrote: View Post
You don't say "why not" about an incredibly unlikely interpretation when there's a far simpler and more probable interpretation.
Sure I do, I say that about lots of things in Star Trek. If I say it about McCoy showing up and wandering around in Ecounter at Farpoint, I have precedent for saying it about Archer. The dialogue in that episode led me to believe 137 was old, but not any different than how 80 is old now. Sure, we haven't seen a lot of guys 140 years old in Star Trek, but that's because most of what we see is on star ships or bases where retired people are less likely to frequent. There was an Enterprise episode that said the average lifespan was 100, perhaps by TOS the average lifespan was 120 and living to 150 was uncommon but not unheard of. I haven't seen anything or read anything that would contradict that.

Christopher wrote: View Post
And why wouldn't people want to believe that he left a legacy?
Nothing says he can't live to 146 and have a legacy.

The writers said they intended it to be Jonathan Archer. Is that canon? Nope, but neither is the concept of his decedents. I doubt canon will ever say one way or the other.
iarann is offline   Reply With Quote