Robert Comsol wrote:
Tough indeed but I dare to say not impossible, and though it turned busy in my real life just as I started this thread I look forward to pull this through, especially that on February 6th something popped up on YouTube (and I have absolutely nothing to do with it!) which is the best kind of encouragement I could ever think of, but if I linked it here and now the BBS member going by the name of the Cardassian antagonist would probably pump up the volume of his scatological rants, which are neither appropriate, applicable or helpful.
More drama, Bob?
I'm not stopping you from posting anything, so stop insinuating that I am. And if you didn't want any criticism about your post, you should have made that clear in the OP. But because this is an effort to sway our opinions toward what you personally believe, I have every right to speak my mind and provide proof to the contrary, no matter how much you dislike having to hear it.
Although we have now seen nice close ups of these plastic ships from the conference lounge of the Enterprise-D and the intention is obvious, I hold the intentions of the original TOS & TNG producers (which I already mentioned anticipating Dukhat's "move) and the amount of screentime featuring the conference lounge of the "D" in four seasons of TNG versus the few moments of the conference lounge of the "E" in FC and NEM against that. Add to this that we never saw those plastic models close enough onscreen (I thought only that was the commonly agreed upon canon from which we should conclude our findings?) to actually read what the tags say.
In summary: for an average viewer of the episodes and films the theme of the sculpture wall in the conference lounge of the "D" is obvious (because of the aircraft carrier CVN-65) while the one of the "E" is ambiguous.
What you don't seem to grasp is that it doesn't matter who made or approved the sculptures, or how much screentime some background artwork got. Once that ship appeared in YE, that artwork was invalidated just like that. If you want to convince yourself otherwise, that's fine. But don't expect many people to agree with you, especially when you say things like "I thought only that was the commonly agreed upon canon from which we should conclude our findings?" as if there was any kind of consensus about that with the other responders.
As for your other "speculations," I'm going to take the high road here and gracefully bow out of further discussion with you, since it really serves no purpose, and let the other forum members judge for themselves what they think of your opinions.
But before I go, let me leave you all with an interesting analogy: When I was in high school, one of my physics teachers wrote this incredibly convoluted mathematical formula on the chalkboard in order to prove that 1 + 1 = 3. Once you sorted through all the complicated equations, the numbers did seem to prove what he said.
But you know what? One plus one doesn't equal three. It equals two. And no student who left class that day was convinced otherwise.