Baggage you wish Star Trek could be free of?

[Kor]

She correctly pointed out that science belongs in science class, and religion belongs somewhere else.

But given that she was teaching on Bajorian property, in a class room of mostly Bajorian children, shouldn't she of used the Bajorian standards of teaching? And not the standards of a foreign culture (her own)?

...if "Zeus" was truly the name that he went by, and not the name given to him by a corporeal species that had some interactions with him.

While it possible that Keiko at some point in her life came up with her own name, more likely she was named by others.

What do the "prophets" actually call themselves?

Keiko repeated referred to them as "entities," why did Keiko think this is what they called themselves?

In the absence of the name that the wormhole aliens actually use themselves, "entity" is a more scientifically neutral term and more appropriate for a secular science class than "prophet", which is not just "the native name for them", but is a religious word imbued with thousands of years of cultural baggage and religious and mystical meaning for the Bajorans.

I rest my case.

Kor

 

[mos6507]

Which also reflects the growing secularism and anit-religion; well, anti-Christianity, among the general populace and viewing audience. I really can't call this baggage. It's more a reflection of the times.

Atheism is the final stigma. Wake me when a self-professed atheist becomes president. When it comes to secularism, people still affiliate with a religion (usually the one they're born into). A growing number don't really buy into the dogma and just go through the motions because to do anything else would invite too much stigma from family or greater society. Church is a social club, basically.

 

[Nightdiamond]

The problem with listening to "the fans" is twofold:

1. What "The Fans" want is often contrary to what is marketable and/or appealing to general audiences and studios. Nobody besides hardcore fans gives a $hit about the "post-Nemesis political climate and how the Breen might factor into the galactic balance of power after the fall of the dominion," nor do they give a rat's arse about your multi-cultural crew with a Horta captain, Dolphin navigator, and Calamarain security chief. That might sound cool to a handful of us nerds on the interwebs...but it's actually pretty lame.

2. The desires, beliefs, and wants of "The Fans" are so varied and inconsistent that you have no hope of picking up on general themes and incorporating them into a production that would satisfy everyone. Just 30 minutes spent reading this board is all you need to figure that one out. In fact, I'd argue that the moment you make half the fans happy, you piss off the rest of them to the point of violent revolt. I think JJ Trek illustrates that perfectly. In fact, with the way most post-TNG Trek has gone, I think a 50-50 split on pleasing "The Fans" is a lofty goal.

I'd prefer TPTB to just make the best product they can. Don't worry about trying to please us. That's a fools errand.

But this more like feedback on the general stuff. If the consensus among a lot of fans is that time travel is played out, it might be wise to consider that with the next movie or series.

Do a few time travel episodes on the next series, and they might be risking the show, at a time when they can't afford another failure for a new Trek show.

Feedback can be valuable.

Re: religion and the Prophets: I actually agree Kieko is right. In this case, I just think Kieko could have saved herself a LOT of trouble and be ready to sit down and think of some compromise before everything got out of hand.

The minute she realized what Bajoran culture is mainly about.

It was obviously Kai Winn was nuts. The strange thing is Kieko was right, but her delivery gave off the wrong vibe?

Kieko and Sisko are talking about it, Kira joins in, and Kira seems more calm about it, while Kieko seems more confrontational about it.

So maybe it gave off the human, stereotypical 24th century enlightened atheist vibe from TNG.

 

[Timewalker]

Transporters I agree make escapes a lot less interesting but they are a big part of Trek aesthetic. I say keep the transporters but require a transporter fixture on both ends. No site to site transporting.

So to transport anywhere, there would need to be at least a single-person transporter pad already established at the other end? How is that to be set up beforehand? If the personnel and components have to be shuttled down/over/whatever in order to set up a transporter, what's the point?

Actually, I think that would be a very cool compromise! Send down a shuttlecraft with a couple of pilots and its own transporter pad. Then once they've "set up shop" on the planet, any number of people could come and go at will until it's time for the shuttlecraft to leave. You get to keep the transporter, and also give a reason as to why a society that has this kind of tech still needs to physically travel places.

It seems wasteful to me, actually. It's like sending an airplane with a garage to put the car in that you're driving to get to your destination, like you can only drive from your garage to another garage, and it won't work to drive your car to some place that doesn't already have a garage.

She correctly pointed out that science belongs in science class, and religion belongs somewhere else.

But given that she was teaching on Bajorian property, in a class room of mostly Bajorian children, shouldn't she of used the Bajorian standards of teaching? And not the standards of a foreign culture (her own)?

While it possible that Keiko at some point in her life came up with her own name, more likely she was named by others.

What do the "prophets" actually call themselves?

Keiko repeated referred to them as "entities," why did Keiko think this is what they called themselves?

In the absence of the name that the wormhole aliens actually use themselves, "entity" is a more scientifically neutral term and more appropriate for a secular science class than "prophet", which is not just "the native name for them", but is a religious word imbued with thousands of years of cultural baggage and religious and mystical meaning for the Bajorans.

I rest my case.

Kor

Exactly. What difference does it make whose "property" Keiko was on? The laws of physics don't change depending on who owns the walls and chairs and floors. Keiko never tried to teach anything she wasn't qualified to teach - she left religion up to Kai Winn, and saw no reason to dress up a science class with mysticism.

Which also reflects the growing secularism and anit-religion; well, anti-Christianity, among the general populace and viewing audience. I really can't call this baggage. It's more a reflection of the times.

Atheism is the final stigma. Wake me when a self-professed atheist becomes president. When it comes to secularism, people still affiliate with a religion (usually the one they're born into). A growing number don't really buy into the dogma and just go through the motions because to do anything else would invite too much stigma from family or greater society. Church is a social club, basically.

Ideally a politician's religion should never come into it, since they should leave it at home/their place of worship. I'm in Canada, and until Wafergate (what did Stephen Harper do with the communion wafer he received at a state funeral for a former Governor-General who was Catholic, when he himself isn't Catholic?), I had no idea what religion our Prime Minister was, nor did I particularly care.

 

[Tim Walker]

Atheism is the final stigma. Wake me when a self-professed atheist becomes president. When it comes to secularism, people still affiliate with a religion (usually the one they're born into). A growing number don't really buy into the dogma and just go through the motions because to do anything else would invite too much stigma from family or greater society. Church is a social club, basically.

Awhile back, I came across in the public library a book about 21st century demographics. Based on polls, the book reported that, in the USA at least, more and more people are listing their religion as "none."

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm in Canada, and until Wafergate (what did Stephen Harper do with the communion wafer he received at a state funeral for a Catholic former Governor-General, when he himself isn't Catholic?)

You don't have to be Catholic to take Communion. I'm Lutheran, and we do too. Only difference is we get the wine and Catholics don't.

 

[Timewalker]

The media made a big fuss about it - had he eaten it, put it in his pocket, or thrown it away? Nobody knows except Stephen Harper. It was apparently inappropriate for him to have accepted the wafer, and equally inappropriate to have done something with it after accepting it.

Personally I don't care what he did with it. But it was a bemusing several days to see people tying themselves in knots talking about it.

 

[B.J.]

I'm in Canada, and until Wafergate (what did Stephen Harper do with the communion wafer he received at a state funeral for a Catholic former Governor-General, when he himself isn't Catholic?)

You don't have to be Catholic to take Communion. I'm Lutheran, and we do too. Only difference is we get the wine and Catholics don't.

Confused Catholic here. We have wine in our communion too. Unless I misunderstood something?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I always thought that in Catholicism, only the priest takes the wine during communion (he takes both bread and wine, but the parishioners only take bread). If there's been a rules change on this point, I do apologize...

In any case I was just responding to Timewalker who seemed to be implying that it's only Catholics who take any kind of Communion. If I'm interpreting her words incorrectly I apologize for that as well.

 

[Timewalker]

^ I always thought that in Catholicism, only the priest takes the wine during communion (he takes both bread and wine, but the parishioners only take bread). If there's been a rules change on this point, I do apologize...

In any case I was just responding to Timewalker who seemed to be implying that it's only Catholics who take any kind of Communion. If I'm interpreting her words incorrectly I apologize for that as well.

I'm not implying anything, only mentioning that there was a media fuss that was quickly dubbed "Wafergate." I'm atheist, and have no idea what goes on at Catholic church services. Therefore I accept the word of the posters here who do know.

 

[fireproof78]

Um, not to break in to this particular thread with religious talk but I've been dedicated Catholic, raised Baptist and been to Mass and Orthodox services.

At Communion (Eucharist for the Catholic folks), I have seen both the bread and wine given to members, with minor variations depending on the denomination. However, at each Mass I have been do, you do get the option of having the wine. However, some churches require membership at that specific church to partake in Communion, so that may have been the candle.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread posting

 

[Stoo]

Actually, I think that would be a very cool compromise! Send down a shuttlecraft with a couple of pilots and its own transporter pad. Then once they've "set up shop" on the planet, any number of people could come and go at will until it's time for the shuttlecraft to leave. You get to keep the transporter, and also give a reason as to why a society that has this kind of tech still needs to physically travel places.

It seems wasteful to me, actually. It's like sending an airplane with a garage to put the car in that you're driving to get to your destination, like you can only drive from your garage to another garage, and it won't work to drive your car to some place that doesn't already have a garage.

That comparison doesn't work. A transporter is a lot faster and more convenient than a shuttlecraft. A car is a lot slower than an airplane.

 

[uniderth]

Actually, I think that would be a very cool compromise! Send down a shuttlecraft with a couple of pilots and its own transporter pad. Then once they've "set up shop" on the planet, any number of people could come and go at will until it's time for the shuttlecraft to leave. You get to keep the transporter, and also give a reason as to why a society that has this kind of tech still needs to physically travel places.

I've been thinking of a similar concept. However, I though of using a probe. The starship would send the probe down to the surface. The probe would have some sort of dramatic unfolding mechanical system.Then the crew could beam down.
For some reason it feels very Lost in Space-esque that's why I like it.

 

[Timewalker]

Actually, I think that would be a very cool compromise! Send down a shuttlecraft with a couple of pilots and its own transporter pad. Then once they've "set up shop" on the planet, any number of people could come and go at will until it's time for the shuttlecraft to leave. You get to keep the transporter, and also give a reason as to why a society that has this kind of tech still needs to physically travel places.

It seems wasteful to me, actually. It's like sending an airplane with a garage to put the car in that you're driving to get to your destination, like you can only drive from your garage to another garage, and it won't work to drive your car to some place that doesn't already have a garage.

That comparison doesn't work. A transporter is a lot faster and more convenient than a shuttlecraft. A car is a lot slower than an airplane.

My point is that it would be wasteful to not allow transporting to somewhere that didn't already have a transporter pad/platform/whatever. To say that you need a transporter at each end before you can transport is like saying you need a garage at each end of a trip by motor vehicle (like you can't just park anywhere once you've stopped the car, that it absolutely has to be stopped in a pre-existing garage). The speed of the transporter/shuttle or car/airplane is irrelevant.

 

[Richard Baker]

The whole point of having the Transporter in TOS Trek was to save time (and money). Landing a ship to get the actors to the story took away from screen time to tell the story- with the Transporter they just arrive and things an start to happen.

What I hate about the Transporter is how it was being used later. It became too convenient of a tool for the writers to use to get rid of a problem.

 

[B.J.]

It seems wasteful to me, actually. It's like sending an airplane with a garage to put the car in that you're driving to get to your destination, like you can only drive from your garage to another garage, and it won't work to drive your car to some place that doesn't already have a garage.

That comparison doesn't work. A transporter is a lot faster and more convenient than a shuttlecraft. A car is a lot slower than an airplane.

My point is that it would be wasteful to not allow transporting to somewhere that didn't already have a transporter pad/platform/whatever. To say that you need a transporter at each end before you can transport is like saying you need a garage at each end of a trip by motor vehicle (like you can't just park anywhere once you've stopped the car, that it absolutely has to be stopped in a pre-existing garage). The speed of the transporter/shuttle or car/airplane is irrelevant.

I think your analogy falls kinda flat. To use a different analogy, it's more like using a pair of phones/radio/CBs or whatever else you can think of to send and receive information (in Trek's case, the information is the matter stream). I can't, for example, call somewhere and have my voice just appear in midair, you need another phone to receive and decode the signal, just like you'd need two transporters.

 

[Timewalker]

That comparison doesn't work. A transporter is a lot faster and more convenient than a shuttlecraft. A car is a lot slower than an airplane.

My point is that it would be wasteful to not allow transporting to somewhere that didn't already have a transporter pad/platform/whatever. To say that you need a transporter at each end before you can transport is like saying you need a garage at each end of a trip by motor vehicle (like you can't just park anywhere once you've stopped the car, that it absolutely has to be stopped in a pre-existing garage). The speed of the transporter/shuttle or car/airplane is irrelevant.

I think your analogy falls kinda flat. To use a different analogy, it's more like using a pair of phones/radio/CBs or whatever else you can think of to send and receive information (in Trek's case, the information is the matter stream). I can't, for example, call somewhere and have my voice just appear in midair, you need another phone to receive and decode the signal, just like you'd need two transporters.

If a transporter pad/control system were needed at the destination point BEFORE transporting there, they'd never be able to transport off the ship unless it was to a pre-existing transporter pad/control system. So there wouldn't be much exploring of places that didn't already have such a pre-existing system unless the components were taken there by shuttle and assembled so the transporter could be used.

If the mission involved a longer period of time in which people would be making frequent trips back and forth this might make sense. Otherwise, it's just a waste of energy/time/resources and they should just use the shuttlecraft and not bother with the transporter.

 

[Shawnster]

My point is that it would be wasteful to not allow transporting to somewhere that didn't already have a transporter pad/platform/whatever. To say that you need a transporter at each end before you can transport is like saying you need a garage at each end of a trip by motor vehicle (like you can't just park anywhere once you've stopped the car, that it absolutely has to be stopped in a pre-existing garage). The speed of the transporter/shuttle or car/airplane is irrelevant.

I think your analogy falls kinda flat. To use a different analogy, it's more like using a pair of phones/radio/CBs or whatever else you can think of to send and receive information (in Trek's case, the information is the matter stream). I can't, for example, call somewhere and have my voice just appear in midair, you need another phone to receive and decode the signal, just like you'd need two transporters.

If a transporter pad/control system were needed at the destination point BEFORE transporting there, they'd never be able to transport off the ship unless it was to a pre-existing transporter pad/control system. So there wouldn't be much exploring of places that didn't already have such a pre-existing system unless the components were taken there by shuttle and assembled so the transporter could be used.

If the mission involved a longer period of time in which people would be making frequent trips back and forth this might make sense. Otherwise, it's just a waste of energy/time/resources and they should just use the shuttlecraft and not bother with the transporter.

I've read similar concepts in other science fiction novels. FTL travel is only possible via wormhole "gates" that connect two points together. A STL starship goes to the destination and builds a new FTL gate.

 

[T'Girl]

If a transporter pad/control system were needed at the destination point BEFORE transporting there

Hypothetically if such was the case, when a ship arrived in orbit of a new world, a receiving unit would be landed on the planet first, after it was established the landing party would then beam down.

Or, it could be something like a small "spike" that was fired from the ship and buried itself a short distance in the ground.

The need for a receiver would explain some incidences (but not others) on TOS. TSoP where Spock had to walk to a certain location to beam up to the ship, or AToA where the locals knew where the landing party would materialize.

 

[Timewalker]

If a transporter pad/control system were needed at the destination point BEFORE transporting there

Hypothetically if such was the case, when a ship arrived in orbit of a new world, a receiving unit would be landed on the planet first, after it was established the landing party would then beam down.

Landed how? If they're going to use a shuttle for that, why not just use the shuttle for everyone? It's wasteful if it's a short mission or only a couple of instances of beaming.

Or, it could be something like a small "spike" that was fired from the ship and buried itself a short distance in the ground.

That assumes that all beam-downs are going to happen outside, on a surface that wouldn't be damaged, and that no lifeforms would accidentally get in the way of this thing that gets fired from orbit and buried in the ground.