RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,620
Posts: 5,426,348
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 403
Newest member: 8 of 9

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12


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 Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 21 2013, 01:19 PM   #46
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

Who hadn't been in space in at least three centuries. Keep on reaching...
You really don't get any of the "scifi" parts of the movie, now do you? All the adult Ba'ku were seasoned space travelers of the first generation. They had not lost their touch in the slightest - they could even repair Data as a matter of triviality. They wouldn't have been fooled by the Federation's primitive holographics for a minute. Remember that they were more advanced than the Feds to begin with...

EDIT: And let's be clear on one thing, it isn't Ru'afo who breaks the agreement. It's Starfleet by being unable to control one of their starship captains.
Sure. But everybody lies to everybody else.

Just for your benefit, let's recap what the various players think is going on at the start of the movie:

1) Picard thinks the Ba'ku are adorable primitives who are under benign surveillance.
2) The UFP Council thinks the Ba'ku are adorable primitives who are under surveillance so that they could be abducted and moved to safety before the Son'a launch their elixir-of-youth collection, which will then benefit the Son'a and the UFP both. Dougherty thinks this as well.
3) The Son' a think the Ba'ku are despicable space travelers who are under surveillance as part of a scam that allows the Son'a to rejuvenate themselves and to make the Ba'ku suffer for their old crimes.
4) The Ba'ku think they are adorable space travelers who safely enjoy longevity in seclusion.

The Son'a/UFP agreement is based on a lie, necessary because of the discrepancy between 2) and 3). Picard's rebellion is based on a lie, a mistaken "understanding" of 3). There is no happy ending to this fundamental disagreement between the four parties involved, and the most knowledgeable players, the Son'a, would have known this from the very start.

This post is essentially made-up nonsense.
Yup. But my post quoted solid facts. Try it out - it's actually quite fun.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2013, 02:43 PM   #47
Robert Maxwell
Not Your Toy
 
Robert Maxwell's Avatar
 
Location: A broken roof
View Robert Maxwell's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Robert Maxwell Send a message via AIM to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Yahoo to Robert Maxwell
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

The bottom line is, the Ba'ku would not have noticed anything was amiss until after they'd been quietly abducted--most likely while asleep. That gives the Son'a a lead time of at least a few hours to start up their collector and make the planet uninhabitable for the Ba'ku. Since the holoship was a Starfleet ship under Starfleet control, Ru'afo was not going to be able to destroy it--unless his plan was to screw over the Federation, too, by killing Dougherty, destroying the holoship, and making off with the magic particles himself. In that case, why even bother with the subterfuge? The Federation would hunt him down and destroy his fleet anyway.

If we can assume Ru'afo isn't a complete idiot, his plan seems to have been the following:

1. Cozy up to the Federation so he can get access to the Briar Patch without a fight.
2. Convince them to relocate the Ba'ku so the particles can be collected.
3. Once the Ba'ku are on the holoship, release the collector, get the particles, render the planet incapable of supporting life.
4. The Ba'ku realize what's been done, but it's now too late to stop it.
5. The Ba'ku convince the Federation that they aren't actually backwater bumpkins, but a technological civilization. By this time, the Son'a have already gotten their particles and likely high-tailed it back to their own empire, leaving the Federation with some magic particles and 600 refugees.

This plan makes the Son'a look pretty scummy, but perhaps not bad enough to provoke a war with the Federation, especially since the Federation risks substantial embarrassment at having been duped. They'd probably want to keep the whole thing as quiet as possible.

It's quite a cunning plan if you think about it, and it doesn't require Ru'afo to fire a single shot to get his revenge.
__________________
It's all false love and affection
I has a blag.
Robert Maxwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2013, 02:49 PM   #48
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
It's quite a cunning plan if you think about it, and it doesn't require Ru'afo to fire a single shot to get his revenge.
And we have a winner and a winner that is actually supported by what we see happening on screen.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2013, 03:26 PM   #49
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

Except for this part, which sort of negates all the rest:

This plan makes the Son'a look pretty scummy, but perhaps not bad enough to provoke a war with the Federation
But we saw how a supposed friend and supporter of the plan reacted to every step of Rua'fos plan when actually confronted with the truth. Forcibly removing the Ba'ku, stopping Riker, starting the collection before removal of the Ba'ku was complete - the response always was "The Federation didn't agree to this, we lose support, this is wrong, there's gonna be war". Of course followed with "Oh, well, I guess we have to do it anyway", combined with Rua'fo's "What happens in Briar Patch stays in Briar Patch".

Without Data's initial meddling, Rua'fo would have had excellent deniability and control throughout the operation. Especially as regards the holoship. Sure, it was of Federation manufacture - but who do we find aboard it? A Son'a assassin and nobody else! When the Son'a cabal is beamed aboard the holoship, the vessel remains as outside Federation control as ever (locked up, but without any UFP crew, or any signs that there ever was any)... Indeed, the Feds have better control of Rua'fo's own command ship soon enough!

Had the Son'a had "simpler" motivations, i.e. merely a need for the elixir of youth, there's an obvious, simple path they could have taken: tell the UFP that the Ba'ku are mere "interstellarly aware" squatters who can be directly contacted and ordered to leave, free of Prime Directive considerations. Destruction of the Ba'ku lifestyle is an obvious element here, and if the Federation doesn't agree to that with all the facts available to them from the start, the Federation is not likely to agree to that after the fact with all the facts revealed to them, either!

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2013, 05:01 PM   #50
Robert Maxwell
Not Your Toy
 
Robert Maxwell's Avatar
 
Location: A broken roof
View Robert Maxwell's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Robert Maxwell Send a message via AIM to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Yahoo to Robert Maxwell
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

Timo wrote: View Post
But we saw how a supposed friend and supporter of the plan reacted to every step of Rua'fos plan when actually confronted with the truth. Forcibly removing the Ba'ku, stopping Riker, starting the collection before removal of the Ba'ku was complete - the response always was "The Federation didn't agree to this, we lose support, this is wrong, there's gonna be war". Of course followed with "Oh, well, I guess we have to do it anyway", combined with Rua'fo's "What happens in Briar Patch stays in Briar Patch".
But none of that was part of Ru'afo's plan. It wasn't supposed to happen that way. He didn't count on Data malfunctioning, he didn't count on the Enterprise showing up, and he didn't count on Picard refusing to leave.

Without Data's initial meddling, Rua'fo would have had excellent deniability and control throughout the operation. Especially as regards the holoship. Sure, it was of Federation manufacture - but who do we find aboard it? A Son'a assassin and nobody else! When the Son'a cabal is beamed aboard the holoship, the vessel remains as outside Federation control as ever (locked up, but without any UFP crew, or any signs that there ever was any)... Indeed, the Feds have better control of Rua'fo's own command ship soon enough!
The Federation Council would just turn a blind eye to the massacre of 600 people who were simply supposed to be relocated, and take Ru'afo's word for it that it wasn't his fault? Dougherty was pretty clear that the Federation didn't exactly trust the Son'a. That's why he was there to run the operation personally. If he turned up dead and the holoship was destroyed, it's hardly credible for Ru'afo to claim things went wrong in a way that wasn't his fault.

Had the Son'a had "simpler" motivations, i.e. merely a need for the elixir of youth, there's an obvious, simple path they could have taken: tell the UFP that the Ba'ku are mere "interstellarly aware" squatters who can be directly contacted and ordered to leave, free of Prime Directive considerations. Destruction of the Ba'ku lifestyle is an obvious element here, and if the Federation doesn't agree to that with all the facts available to them from the start, the Federation is not likely to agree to that after the fact with all the facts revealed to them, either!
There's another thread that's all about whether the Federation has the right to make the Ba'ku leave, and you can go read my arguments there if you want. But, to sum it up: the Ba'ku lived there since before the Federation existed, they aren't Federation citizens, and the Federation has no right to force them to move. Federation access to the planet and its fairy dust is entirely contingent on Ba'ku cooperation.
__________________
It's all false love and affection
I has a blag.
Robert Maxwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 09:45 PM   #51
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
they aren't Federation citizens, and the Federation has no right to force them to move
If the Federation simply left them there (strictly speaking, they didn't NEED to move them), the Baku would have killed a few hours after the collect process began.

How would that have been better?

sonak wrote: View Post
That's why the question becomes, "Does the Federation have the right to do what they please with the Ba'ku planet ...
With a Baku planet, no. With a Federation planet that has Baku living on it, yes.

Homesteading is a pretty old legal concept, one that the Federation (presumably) understands and respects.
This isn't a given.

they can uproot the Ba'ku and take the planet's radiation without so much as a "by your leave" doesn't strike me as the action of a benevolent, democratic government.
But should not the Federation's benevolence be aim first and foremost towards the peoples of the Federation? And no, before you say it, I'm not suggesting "anything goes." But should there not not be a list of priorities?

Whether the Ba'ku are from that planet or not doesn't mean much.
It means a great deal whether of not the Baku originated on the ring planet.

The Federation has no business aiding and abetting the Son'a in this ...
And they weren't. The Federation was there solely to harvest the particles. The issues between the Baku and their offspring had nothing to do with Federation decision, presence or actions. They had to do with the Sona's actions yes, but not the Federations.

sonak wrote: View Post
If they say "no," they look like selfish douchebags and the audience stops rooting for the supposed heroes.)
Of course the problem there is, the Baku had an opportunity to say yes at one point in the movie. After Picard sent the Enterprise away, and he was briefing the Baku leaders.

At this point, the Baku leaders could have said "Wait, the radiation will help many billions? Of course we leave, no one explained it to us. Remove us immediately."

But the Baku did not say this. Instead it was. "Let use ourselves and our children as "Human" shields to prevent the billion of people in the Federation from obtaining the same benefits we enjoy."

selfish douchebags
Exactly.

Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
It was explicitly stated in the film that harvesting the radiation using the Son'a collector would render the planet uninhabitable.
Not quite, it would render the planet uninhabitable for generations, but not permanently.

We had a volcanic eruption near here in May of 1980. The area north of the mountain was laid waste and was uninhabitable for years. But in time the land recovered.

It would have been the same with the planet.

Timo wrote: View Post
Sure - as long as the definition of "smooth" includes all the Ba'ku dying horribly.
No. Smooth as in the Baku are safely removed to the holoship and it leaves. Then the particles are harvest. Then the Federation and the Sona divide the particles. Then they go their separate ways.

The idea that the Son'a would let the Ba'ku live is so out of the left field that I can't fathom how you could get it from watching this movie.
What I saw in the movie was that the Sona were actually going out of their way to avoid harming the Baku. From dialog, even after the collection process began, there would have been multiple hours of time to remove anyone still on the planet's surface.

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
It was released in December of 1998.
It was released between "Covenant" and "It's Only a Paper Moon."
So, you're saying that the TOS movie The Final Frontier (release on June 9, 1989) was set in-between the TNG episode Up The Long Ladder (May 22, 1989) and the TNG episode Manhunt (June 19, 1989)?

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2013, 10:38 PM   #52
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
they aren't Federation citizens, and the Federation has no right to force them to move
If the Federation simply left them there (strictly speaking, they didn't NEED to move them), the Baku would have killed a few hours after the collect process began.

How would that have been better?

sonak wrote: View Post
That's why the question becomes, "Does the Federation have the right to do what they please with the Ba'ku planet ...
With a Baku planet, no. With a Federation planet that has Baku living on it, yes.

This isn't a given.

But should not the Federation's benevolence be aim first and foremost towards the peoples of the Federation? And no, before you say it, I'm not suggesting "anything goes." But should there not not be a list of priorities?

It means a great deal whether of not the Baku originated on the ring planet.

And they weren't. The Federation was there solely to harvest the particles. The issues between the Baku and their offspring had nothing to do with Federation decision, presence or actions. They had to do with the Sona's actions yes, but not the Federations.

Of course the problem there is, the Baku had an opportunity to say yes at one point in the movie. After Picard sent the Enterprise away, and he was briefing the Baku leaders.

At this point, the Baku leaders could have said "Wait, the radiation will help many billions? Of course we leave, no one explained it to us. Remove us immediately."

But the Baku did not say this. Instead it was. "Let use ourselves and our children as "Human" shields to prevent the billion of people in the Federation from obtaining the same benefits we enjoy."

Exactly.

Not quite, it would render the planet uninhabitable for generations, but not permanently.

We had a volcanic eruption near here in May of 1980. The area north of the mountain was laid waste and was uninhabitable for years. But in time the land recovered.

It would have been the same with the planet.

No. Smooth as in the Baku are safely removed to the holoship and it leaves. Then the particles are harvest. Then the Federation and the Sona divide the particles. Then they go their separate ways.

The idea that the Son'a would let the Ba'ku live is so out of the left field that I can't fathom how you could get it from watching this movie.
What I saw in the movie was that the Sona were actually going out of their way to avoid harming the Baku. From dialog, even after the collection process began, there would have been multiple hours of time to remove anyone still on the planet's surface.

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
It was released in December of 1998.
It was released between "Covenant" and "It's Only a Paper Moon."
So, you're saying that the TOS movie The Final Frontier (release on June 9, 1989) was set in-between the TNG episode Up The Long Ladder (May 22, 1989) and the TNG episode Manhunt (June 19, 1989)?


my position is that the Federation would be in the right to relocate the Baku even if the Baku were native to the planet and weren't even in Federation space, but that may be a minority position on this message board. Again, to use the tired analogy, I'm not going to let the property rights of a small village trump the benefits of something that's more valuable than a cure for cancer.

However, the fact that the Baku AREN'T native to the planet and ARE in Federation space makes the case against their removal so weak that I'm amazed that folks continue to argue it.(not even taking into account the Son'a claim to the planet, which even further weakens the Baku case)
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2013, 02:43 AM   #53
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

sonak wrote: View Post
my position is that the Federation would be in the right to relocate the Baku even if the Baku were native to the planet and weren't even in Federation space, but that may be a minority position on this message board.
Probably becuase by doing so the federation would become one of those badguy planet conquering empires they usually fight against.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2013, 02:48 AM   #54
Robert Maxwell
Not Your Toy
 
Robert Maxwell's Avatar
 
Location: A broken roof
View Robert Maxwell's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Robert Maxwell Send a message via AIM to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Yahoo to Robert Maxwell
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
my position is that the Federation would be in the right to relocate the Baku even if the Baku were native to the planet and weren't even in Federation space, but that may be a minority position on this message board.
Probably becuase by doing so the federation would become one of those badguy planet conquering empires they usually fight against.
Yeah, that was a component of my argument, too. The Feds are supposed to be the "good guys," but I guess that doesn't extend to respecting people's sovereignty and right to self-determination.
__________________
It's all false love and affection
I has a blag.
Robert Maxwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2013, 03:02 AM   #55
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
my position is that the Federation would be in the right to relocate the Baku even if the Baku were native to the planet and weren't even in Federation space, but that may be a minority position on this message board.
Probably becuase by doing so the federation would become one of those badguy planet conquering empires they usually fight against.
Yeah, that was a component of my argument, too. The Feds are supposed to be the "good guys," but I guess that doesn't extend to respecting people's sovereignty and right to self-determination.
Wait didn't Picard say that the Federation respects people's sovereignty and right to self-determination a few times on the show.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2013, 03:24 AM   #56
Robert Maxwell
Not Your Toy
 
Robert Maxwell's Avatar
 
Location: A broken roof
View Robert Maxwell's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Robert Maxwell Send a message via AIM to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Yahoo to Robert Maxwell
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post

Probably becuase by doing so the federation would become one of those badguy planet conquering empires they usually fight against.
Yeah, that was a component of my argument, too. The Feds are supposed to be the "good guys," but I guess that doesn't extend to respecting people's sovereignty and right to self-determination.
Wait didn't Picard say that the Federation respects people's sovereignty and right to self-determination a few times on the show.
I am pretty sure he did, but apparently that doesn't apply when it's "only" 600 people who happen to be sitting on magical fairy dust.
__________________
It's all false love and affection
I has a blag.
Robert Maxwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2013, 03:42 AM   #57
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
my position is that the Federation would be in the right to relocate the Baku even if the Baku were native to the planet and weren't even in Federation space, but that may be a minority position on this message board.
Probably becuase by doing so the federation would become one of those badguy planet conquering empires they usually fight against.

I'm not a believer in rigidly deontological ethics. Context matters when evaluating ethical decisions- they're not "conquering" anyone, they're relocating a small village for a vastly greater good. If you can't see that, then you're probably one of those who think a starving person should go to jail for ten years for stealing a loaf of bread.


"but he was starving!"


"it was STEALING!" "He's a thief, context doesn't matter, it's all about rigid rules that are totally devoid of the context of the situation!"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2013, 06:54 AM   #58
Peach Wookiee
Cuddly Mod of Doom
 
Peach Wookiee's Avatar
 
Location: Peach Wookiee
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

^Guys, I think we're just dealing with a morality question. When is the good of the many truly acceptable?
Peach Wookiee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2013, 11:17 AM   #59
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Wait didn't Picard say that the Federation respects people's sovereignty and right to self-determination a few times on the show.
Wait didn't Starfleet remove a group of migrants, from a planet that wasn't theirs, so they would not be harmed?

(Ensigns of Command)

And don't forget, at no point in the movie do the Baku state that they consider the ring planet to be "theirs." This comes solely from Picard.

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2013, 03:49 PM   #60
Robert Maxwell
Not Your Toy
 
Robert Maxwell's Avatar
 
Location: A broken roof
View Robert Maxwell's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Robert Maxwell Send a message via AIM to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Yahoo to Robert Maxwell
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

sonak wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
my position is that the Federation would be in the right to relocate the Baku even if the Baku were native to the planet and weren't even in Federation space, but that may be a minority position on this message board.
Probably becuase by doing so the federation would become one of those badguy planet conquering empires they usually fight against.

I'm not a believer in rigidly deontological ethics. Context matters when evaluating ethical decisions- they're not "conquering" anyone, they're relocating a small village for a vastly greater good. If you can't see that, then you're probably one of those who think a starving person should go to jail for ten years for stealing a loaf of bread.


"but he was starving!"


"it was STEALING!" "He's a thief, context doesn't matter, it's all about rigid rules that are totally devoid of the context of the situation!"
This is why you prioritize values, otherwise they constantly come into conflict. A person's right to live is more valuable than a baker's revenue, so while stealing a loaf of bread so you don't starve is illegal, it would be difficult to argue that it's unethical.

Self-determination and sovereignty are some of the most important Western values there are, values which the Federation also appears to hold as sacred. Given that, being willing to violate those principles for the sake of acquiring some dubious medical technology puts in doubt how much the Federation actually values those supposed rights.

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Wait didn't Picard say that the Federation respects people's sovereignty and right to self-determination a few times on the show.
Wait didn't Starfleet remove a group of migrants, from a planet that wasn't theirs, so they would not be harmed?

(Ensigns of Command)

And don't forget, at no point in the movie do the Baku state that they consider the ring planet to be "theirs." This comes solely from Picard.

The migrants were Federation citizens, on a planet the Federation had ceded (by treaty) to the Sheliak. Apples and oranges since the Federation had legal jurisdiction over those settlers, but not the Ba'ku.

I agree that the Ba'ku should have actually been part of the discussion regarding what to do with them and their planet. Had the Federation bothered to go down that road, no conflict or "insurrection" should have been necessary.
__________________
It's all false love and affection
I has a blag.
Robert Maxwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:55 AM.

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