Anti-Spock racism/general disrespect for the XO

[YARN]

T'Bonz wrote:

---

Captain Tracy.

When something is said about toning it down and NOT GETTING PERSONAL, I expect posters to do just that - tone it down.

If you choose to not listen to what I have to say, your tenure on this board will be short.

No more personal stuff in this thread going forward. It's a damned Star Trek board and the last thing I want to do is come on and read pissy fights.

You MOD bro?

[MacLeod]

sonak wrote:

---

also, let's not forget that Trek has NEVER been reaistic on the military aspects. Officers doing enlisted men work, "flagships" without flag officers, officers who stay as captain or XO of a ship for a decade or more.

Trek's military is nothing like a modern military.

You don't need a flag officer for a ship to be considered a flagship.

Two of the definitions of the word flagship are


1. (Transport / Nautical Terms) a ship, esp in a fleet, aboard which the commander of the fleet is quartered
2. (Transport / Nautical Terms) the most important ship belonging to a shipping company


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flagship

It is the second definition of the word that is being used when they say the Enterprise is the flagship of the fleet.

[Warped9]

The Enterprise has never been referred to as the or a flagship in TOS or the films. This flagship business started in TNG. In TOS the closest we came to seeing a flagship was in "The Ultimate Computer" wherein Commodore Wesley aboard the Lexington is in command of the wargames squadron.

[LobsterAfternoon]

OOOOOOH MY

[Anwar]

Warped9 wrote:

---

The Enterprise has never been referred to as the or a flagship in TOS or the films. This flagship business started in TNG. In TOS the closest we came to seeing a flagship was in "The Ultimate Computer" wherein Commodore Wesley aboard the Lexington is in command of the wargames squadron.

It wasn't the Flagship, but it was repeatedly stated that the Enterprise was a special vessel and there were only 12 like it in all of Starfleet. At least until the movies where it's status as a aging vessel was a plot point. The Enterprise-D being the Flagship was more or less just an extension of the original's status.

[A beaker full of death]

sonak wrote:

---

also, let's not forget that Trek has NEVER been reaistic on the military aspects. Officers doing enlisted men work, "flagships" without flag officers, officers who stay as captain or XO of a ship for a decade or more.

Trek's military is nothing like a modern military.

Now you know damn well that doesn't apply to TOS, which was written by people who'd BEEN there.

[A beaker full of death]

Anwar wrote:

---

It wasn't the Flagship, but it was repeatedly stated that the Enterprise was a special vessel and there were only 12 like it in all of Starfleet.

You mean like a WWII aircraft carrier, which was in fact the basis for the role of Starships in the Starfleet? The adventures may have been Hornblower, but the fleet was right out of WWII carriers. Just look at the names of the ships.

[Nerys Myk]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

Now you know damn well that doesn't apply to TOS, which was written by people who'd BEEN there.

Sure it applies. While TOS was written by military veterans, those same men were also professional writers who knew when to sacrifice reality to tell a good story.

My father, a 25 year veteran of the USAF, found a lot of the military aspects of Star Trek (TOS) laughable.

[MacLeod]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

You mean like a WWII aircraft carrier, which was in fact the basis for the role of Starships in the Starfleet? The adventures may have been Hornblower, but the fleet was right out of WWII carriers. Just look at the names of the ships.

Whilst some of the ships names used in ST might have been used by aircraft carriers they are not the only type of ships to have carried those names.

[YARN]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

You mean like a WWII aircraft carrier, which was in fact the basis for the role of Starships in the Starfleet? The adventures may have been Hornblower, but the fleet was right out of WWII carriers. Just look at the names of the ships.

The Enterprise is not a carrier. Carriers travel in carrier groups. They have combat air patrols. They are floating airports designed to project military power via the aircraft.

She is much more a Hornblower type-ship. Alone, dealing in war, diplomacy, trade, and exploration without assistance. Her shuttlecraft are much more like the small boats that would be launched from the likes of the H.M.S. Indefatigable.

[Anwar]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

Now you know damn well that doesn't apply to TOS, which was written by people who'd BEEN there.

It's really annoying whenever anyone hides behind the "It's okay when TOS does it because TOS' writers fought in war!" excuse. That really doesn't mean much. I mean, would anyone care if Modern Trek was written by veterans from the Gulf War?

[A beaker full of death]

Anwar wrote:

---

It's really annoying whenever anyone hides behind the "It's okay when TOS does it because TOS' writers fought in war!" excuse. That really doesn't mean much. I mean, would anyone care if Modern Trek was written by veterans from the Gulf War?

oh, ok. I guess that means they did call it the flagship and had officers doing menial labor. Clearly I haven't watched the show.
And yeah, if modern Trek had been written by people who served, it would have had a level of verisimilitude that only the original managed to have.

[Nerys Myk]

I'd rather it be written by people who could write.

[Anwar]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

And yeah, if modern Trek had been written by people who served, it would have had a level of verisimilitude that only the original managed to have.

I get the feeling that even if they did get modern Veterans to write, the reaction from the Old Codgers would be "Their war wasn't the same, so they aren't the right types to write."

[Ovation]

Military verisimilitude and Star Trek, in any incarnation, is really not to be taken all that seriously. One could argue in favour of one incarnation over the other in relative terms, I suppose, but in absolute terms, none is worthy of an "award" for accuracy.