I would say don't waste your breath but I don't want to be rude like BillJ who must have rushed over here to spread truth to the rest of us idiots.
I said a portion of the fan base. Guess what? Every fan base has those nuts. But I won't let facts get in the way of you nailing yourself up on the cross.
And I would argue that not Berman, not Piller nor any of the promotion department folks at Paramount EVER advertised those episodes as a three-parter. That would be just as silly as saying "In the Hands of the Prophets", DS9's first season finale that led to the three-parter that opened its second season, was actually the first chapter of a four-part episodic run of DS9. But no one here is silly enough to do that.
Go take it up with both Berman and Piller who in media promotions/interviews declared DS9's second season The Circle Trilogy as the first three-parter of Star Trek. This was how it was reported in the pages of TV Guide, USA Today and now defunct genre magazines. TPTB was trying to regenerate buzz for DS9 and so they intentionally came up with the idea of doing a three-part storyline for the first time in Trek history to open up season #2.
I don't need Rick Berman to tell me that an episode is part of a three-parter to realize that's what it is. Family
builds directly off of the events of The Best of Both Worlds II
, The Best of Both Worlds II
builds directly off of the events of The Best of Both Worlds I
. Sounds like a three-parter to me. But your mileage may vary.
And I see no problem calling In the Hands of the Prophets
the first part of the Circle trilogy.