Perhaps you're confused... because that wasn't what I claimed at all. Lucky for me it's all right there in the thread's previous posts for you to go back and read rather than waste time re-iterating my points again. You can repeat that all you want, it doesn't make it true. DS9 dabbled in some very conservative serialization in rare instances, but consisted of a majority of stand alone stories and relied no more heavily on continuity than TNG. It seems like you're trying to convince me that DS9 is a good show... you really should go back and take your time reading my posts. I am a huge fan of DS9. Please go back read what I actually was saying, instead of letting your kneejerk reaction govern your response. I have not claimed that the TNG characters were more complex, just that there are plenty of conflicted characters on TNG, just as on DS9. Picard, Worf, O'Brien, Ro, etc... What does that even mean? How on earth are you measuring A to C or A to M? This is nonsense. You're talking in vague descriptors and buzzwords... What are you referring to when you say things like "the ugly underbelly of humanity" or "a universe in which idealism couldn't work in the end"? As for your three actually specific citings... - Captain Picard has his consciousness usurped and murders thousands of people in "The Best of Both Worlds II". - Data decides to kill a sentient man in "The Most Toys". He doesn't get to be sort-of somewhat partially responsible for that decision. - In "Reunion" Worf kills one of two candidates for the leader of the klingon empire in retalliation for the murder of his mate. And of course, all of this has nothing to do with the point of my initial post, which is that the article is a load of crap. To summarize what I initially intended to say; - DS9 was not a failure, it was a great success. - Several of the article's 10 points are demonstrably false.