Except for that annoying fact that that was only one of the things I posted about the 22nd century, but it seems everyone had ADHD now.
One of two things, the second being even shorter.
Also how much we know was never the point, but you know, comprehensive reading is difficult, eh?
The point was, what we know, and whether it is contradicted.
That was not the point. The point was that there's no way you could extract your little laundry list of Enterprise "must-haves" from the on-screen mentions of the 22nd century.
Except that I've already proven that one CAN take these from the on-screen mentions. The mentions of what type of ships flew around back then aren't vague, they are very precise.
"Ships that allowed no quarter." --> The NX-01 does.
"Ships that allowed no captives." --> The NX-01 does.
"Primitive atomic/nuclear weapons." --> The NX-01 has sub-atomic weapons.
And quite frankly this is only the beginning; however they are the most obvious and easy to point out.
The NX-01 is too advanced in all manners; especially if you look at its feats on screen, that rival even top of he line 24th century ships.
My point was that the quoted post that you said "Nope" to was absolutely right. Prior to Ent, every line of dialog concerning facts about the 22nd century would not have filled a single commercial break.
That's nice for you and your point, but you see, if you didn't have ADHD, you would know this discussion goes on a little longer. The whole point of this discussion was not that there is little known about the 22nd century; that's just the pretext to be used that that means what is known about it means nothing, is nothing at all, and that thus you can ignore it and Enterprise is thus not in violation. I've already shown this is bullshit; as there are several concrete pieces of information about the ships of the 22nd century, bits that Enterprise breaks.
But you ignored that and returned to your thesis for this Star Trek XI thread... a thesis which seems to be "Enterprise sucked."
Once again, trouble with comprehensive reading I see.
Let me make it explicit for you: the thesis is that one can write great stories without defying canon, and is in fact capable of writing BETTER stories if one puts in some effort and STICKS to it.
Two examples, number 1: the books have proven this to be true by incorporating canon in for example Vanguard and produce great stories.
2. Enterprise shows this for the other side of the coin; it was bad FOR A REASON, namely that it didn't follow continuity, producing carbon copy of Voyager with the same writing, scenes, and terms; when it could have produced something amazing if they had kept to continuity.
The new Trek is NOT keeping to continuity; this has been shown to be a problem, and completely unnecessary.
"That allowed no quarter." - The NX-01 easily allows for quarter.
"No captives." - The NX-01 easily allows for captives.
The NX-01's weapons became anti-matter, aka sub-atomic weapons, which is more than atomic aka nuclear weapons.
Proving that Spock was wrong. Game over.
Proving that Enterprise is wrong, not to mention a lazily put together pile of junk. Game over.
Oh, and, how often have you not been busy deriding how stale Voyager and Enterprise had gotten, and thus how great the new Star Trek is? Now, however you're defending Enterprise?
I see, so you're just trolling, and writing bullshit, just because I don't agree with you on the new Star Trek eh? A little double lipped, aren't you? Exactly how can anyone take your word for anything if that's the case? Indeed, do you think Star Trek got stale and needed new blood, or did you love the stuff?
