RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,162
Posts: 5,434,854
Members: 24,937
Currently online: 504
Newest member: bryanb2014

TrekToday headlines

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Enterprise

Enterprise The final frontier has a new beginning in this forum!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 14 2014, 04:59 PM   #31
patweb
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: California
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

Just saying, I threw it out there as hearsay (*from a reliable source).

Obviously, I could have written anything, I didn't make this up. As a new member, I thought it would be an intriguing point of discussion. Of course, a third party confirming it would be the main reason I posted it at all Because I cannot see any of this information becoming public.
patweb is offline  
Old May 14 2014, 05:13 PM   #32
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

It's not about you, or about your source. Truth isn't about individuals' personalities or reputations, it's about objective reality and facts. And the idea you've described, whatever its source, makes no sense in the context of the facts. We've explained the reasons why that's the case.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline  
Old May 14 2014, 05:15 PM   #33
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

patweb wrote: View Post
Just saying, I threw it out there as hearsay (*from a reliable source).
That's an oxymoron. One does not get "hearsay" from a reliable source. One gets reliable information from a reliable source.

Obviously, I could have written anything, I didn't make this up. As a new member, I thought it would be an intriguing point of discussion. Of course, a third party confirming it would be the main reason I posted it at all Because I cannot see any of this information becoming public.
See, here's the issue with the info you provided. Aside from being relatively brand-new to the forum, you posted something that sounds quite unrealistic, that you are unwilling to give your source for, which also sounds unrealistic. This isn't a state secret, it's information about a show that is no longer being produced, from a network that no longer exists. Nobody knows who you are, and if you really did know who the info came from, it would be relatively easy to verify it. But not revealing your source is basically the same as saying you made it up (or at best, that you're the type of person who will gullibly believe anything anyone tells you), and that's the attitude we're going to have about it.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline  
Old May 14 2014, 07:10 PM   #34
patweb
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: California
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

If no one else heard about it, it can't be verified. Perhaps I shouldn't have posted the tidbit to begin with. That's all I can say about it. I've tried, and failed, to individually verify it. Suffice it to say that my friend is an acquaintance to a party involved. That's all I got on this one.

I found it intriguing how far they went to secure Bakula as Archer. Assuming the information I have is correct.


Here is some circumstantial stuff on the contract negotiation.

http://www.starland.com/news/2001/news_010516.htm
patweb is offline  
Old May 14 2014, 07:18 PM   #35
trekker670
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

patweb wrote: View Post
I found it intriguing how far they went to secure Bakula as Archer. Assuming the information I have is correct.



It didn't seem like too tough of a sell, granted the interview was recorded a decade after the series aired.
trekker670 is offline  
Old May 14 2014, 07:35 PM   #36
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

patweb wrote: View Post
If no one else heard about it, it can't be verified. Perhaps I shouldn't have posted the tidbit to begin with. That's all I can say about it. I've tried, and failed, to individually verify it. Suffice it to say that my friend is an acquaintance to a party involved. That's all I got on this one.

I found it intriguing how far they went to secure Bakula as Archer. Assuming the information I have is correct.
We've given you a bunch of reasons why it can't possibly be correct, why it conflicts with many known facts and makes no sense whatsoever. The only reason you have to believe it is "I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy." It's not that hard to figure out that this is just wrong. There's no deep dark secret you have to be afraid of unearthing -- it's just too nonsensical a claim to be worth taking seriously. Somebody either misheard something or just made it up.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline  
Old May 14 2014, 07:54 PM   #37
patweb
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: California
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

Dukhat wrote: View Post
That's an oxymoron. One does not get "hearsay" from a reliable source. One gets reliable information from a reliable source.
Yet the news thrives on unconfirmed sources. Just sayin.
patweb is offline  
Old May 14 2014, 08:15 PM   #38
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

Here is some circumstantial stuff on the contract negotiation.

http://www.starland.com/news/2001
There's nothing in that article at all that confirms what you're talking about.

patweb wrote: View Post
I've tried, and failed, to individually verify it. Suffice it to say that my friend is an acquaintance to a party involved. That's all I got on this one.
So because you've failed to verify it, you won't allow us to try to verify it because you won't tell us your source? This sounds more and more like BS. And if you truly can't verify it, then wouldn't you think it was BS too?

patweb wrote: View Post
Yet the news thrives on unconfirmed sources. Just sayin.
Nothing's "thriving" because nobody except for you has made this claim, or even heard about it until you posted it. So unless you're Scott Bakula, you need to stop posting stuff like that. Either you're going to say who these "unconfirmed sources" are who told you this, or you aren't. If you have no intention of doing so, then there's no point in bringing it up in the first place.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline  
Old May 14 2014, 08:29 PM   #39
patweb
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: California
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Nothing's "thriving" because nobody except for you has made this claim, or even heard about it until you posted it. So unless you're Scott Bakula, you need to stop posting stuff like that. Either you're going to say who told you this, or you aren't. If you have no intention of doing so, then there's no point in bringing it up in the first place.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!! I think I mentioned MY FRIEND told me. If you don't think it merits discussion, then DON'T HAVE DISCOURSE over it. That's your problem, not mine.

The whole discussion board lives on opinion and theory. You now have mine to do with as you will. Most of the articles I have read on the subject note 'reliable anonymous sources'. Most critical news today is based on them. The fact you can't accept it is not my problem. Really.


Are you saying in this free country I am unwelcome to share statements that are unconfirmed, or just on YOUR discussion board?
patweb is offline  
Old May 14 2014, 08:35 PM   #40
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

patweb wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
Nothing's "thriving" because nobody except for you has made this claim, or even heard about it until you posted it. So unless you're Scott Bakula, you need to stop posting stuff like that. Either you're going to say who told you this, or you aren't. If you have no intention of doing so, then there's no point in bringing it up in the first place.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!! I think I mentioned MY FRIEND told me. If you don't think it merits discussion, then DON'T HAVE DISCOURSE over it. That's your problem, not mine.

The whole discussion board lives on opinion and theory. You now have mine to do with as you will. Most of the articles I have read on the subject note 'reliable anonymous sources'. Most critical news today is based on them. The fact you can't accept it is not my problem. Really.


Are you saying in this free country I am unwelcome to share statements that are unconfirmed, or just on YOUR discussion board?
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I said that you shouldn't post unsubstantiated rumors without a source, not that you shouldn't post your opinions at all. And if you want to ignore me, you're welcome to, as you correctly surmised that this is not my personal BBS (although the unsubstantiated rumors thing is possibly a board rule; I'll have to look that up). But don't expect anyone to believe your info, especially since your source is your "friend." I have tons of friends who are full of shit. Your buddy sounds no different. And we're all still patiently waiting for you to post the "articles you have read on the subject," since if they're articles, then you shouldn't feel the need to hide them from us in order to verify your claim. So, where are they? (and the one you posted doesn't count, as it has no info whatsoever to back up your claim.)

As Christopher said, it isn't about what I believe or what you believe. It's about the facts. You posted something that you aren't verifying, simple as that. It's not our fault that we don't believe you.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by Dukhat; May 14 2014 at 09:05 PM.
Dukhat is offline  
Old May 14 2014, 09:15 PM   #41
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

patweb wrote: View Post
Yet the news thrives on unconfirmed sources. Just sayin.
Not legitimate news. What passes for "news" on TV today may be content to pass along mere rumors, but there was a time when no respectable journalist would report anything that they didn't hear from two different, known, credible sources.


patweb wrote: View Post
The whole discussion board lives on opinion and theory. You now have mine to do with as you will.
Facts are more real than opinions. Reality is what it is regardless of what anyone believes about it. So if an opinion contradicts known facts, that opinion is simply wrong. It's not an equally valid point of view, it's just false.

I really don't understand why you're taking this so personally. There's no shame in admitting one was wrong about something -- it's the only way we learn and increase our wisdom. There is shame, however, in continuing to deny overwhelming evidence that one is wrong. Especially when there's nothing to be gained by doing so. Nobody here has a stake in the rightness or the wrongness of this idea, so there's no reason to take it personally or be upset that it isn't true.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline  
Old May 14 2014, 09:34 PM   #42
BeautifulAndTerribleRomantic
love me and despair
 
BeautifulAndTerribleRomantic's Avatar
 
Location: HopefulRomantic is feeding the cats again
Re: Why Enterprise did not carry the Star Trek name

patweb wrote: View Post
Just saying, I threw it out there as hearsay (*from a reliable source).
patweb wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
That's an oxymoron. One does not get "hearsay" from a reliable source. One gets reliable information from a reliable source.
Yet the news thrives on unconfirmed sources. Just sayin.
Hookay, time out, both of you.

patweb, welcome to the ENT forum. As you can see, posting a pretty wacky rumor without naming sources or providing links to substantiate the rumor, and periodically kicking up dust to repeat the rumor, without naming sources or providing links, doesn't really get you brownie points here. Just sayin.

My take: 1) SAG rules don't permit anyone to stand in the way of an actor being paid his/her contracted residuals. 2) Scott Bakula was an award-winning actor, highly respected in the industry, when he was cast for Enterprise. I'm not thinking he needed under-the-table deals made to get hired, but that's just my opinion.

We love to see sources here, not just hear tell about 'em. Keep that in mind next time you run across a tidbit that, at the very least, strains credibility. Mmkay?

You're welcome to share your opinions and speculations, but beating a dead horse to death doesn't really encourage substantive discussion.

As far as I can see, y'all had mostly wandered off to talk about Ferengi anyway. patweb says he can't name the source, and all here have blown a sufficient amount of holes in the rumor that it looks pretty dead. So we're done here.
__________________
"It's late, I'm tired, and there's so much left to do." ~Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Diamonds Are Forever
BeautifulAndTerribleRomantic is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.