Braga simply did not watch the show

[Anwar]

She meant that the Borg don't steal genetic material and grow them into new Borg on the spot like what happened with "One". That doesn't exclude them from reproducing via sexual intercourse. Making a baby borg through reproduction isn't the same as how One came into being. She never said "The Borg ONLY assimilate".

Seven was the first ASSIMILATED Drone to regain her individuality (The Queen would've been more surprised/impressed at someone who was forcibly changed and then broke free, than some lifelong drone who was separated), Hugh was not an assimilated drone in the first place and not comparable to Seven. It doesn't excuse the drones from "Unity" but it's easy to assume that since they never tried to go back to the Borg like Seven did, that the Queen simply didn't know about their survival.

They didn't drop an anvil on our heads over the situation, yes. That doesn't make them horrible writers. The just figured we'd know that Picard was never a drone, and the Hugh was never assimilated.

In this case, Occam's Razor is simply wrong.

 

[Withers]

C'mon...

Really? I think we both know that you're "grasping at straws" as it were. But alright. Let's keep going.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Hugh

That's the Memory Alpha page for Hugh. Show me anything on that page that suggests that Hugh was never assimilated. The category that page is filed under is Former Borg Drones. Can't find it? Let's take a look at Memory Beta (just for the hell of it)

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Hugh

Where in the non-cannon stuff is there a suggestion that he was produced through sexual intercourse and was never assimilated?

Not there either? Well, if it wasn't presented on screen and no ones even bothered to write any expanded universe suggesting it there's really only one conclusion that can be draw, right? You're wrong.

As if that weren't enough- Seven's genetic material and the crewman who the extraction tubules took DNA from were mixed to create One. That's as close to sexual intercourse as has ever been suggested by the Borg. Seven says even that doesn't happen normally. The Doctor (albeit playfully) tells One he has his mothers sense of humor.

So, on the one hand we've got absolutely no evidence that Hugh wasn't assimilated (only evidence that he was... based on him, ya know, being a Borg) and on the other we've got Seven of Nine from Voyager herself saying the Borg don't mix genetic materials to create Drones.

How is that not just cased closed? It's as plain as the sun out in space.

-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

Hugh WAS a former drone, but he wasn't an assimilated drone. Distinction between him and Seven. TNG showed us the borg infants who had the implants on them even that young and even had Data theorize that the Borg reproduced in that fashion.

Seven said that the Borg don't usually reproduce in the manner that One was made and she's right. Borg nanoprobes usually don't steal DNA from organic beings and use said DNA to grow drones on the spot. She didn't say "Borg don't have sex and make baby borgs assimilated after birth."

 

[Withers]

From Memory Alpha...

This "nursery" consisted of several drawers in the wall, each containing an infant in an early stage of assimilation. The Borg infants did not exhibit either the extensive implants or the body armor of mature drones, nor was it known at the time if Borg infants required food sources other than the electricity consumed by adults.

It goes on to say specifically...

t the time "Q Who?" was produced, the back story regarding the Borg increasing their numbers through assimilation was not yet developed. Therefore, Riker's description of the nursery indicates that the Borg reproduced with each other, their babies born as organic lifeforms, and then after birth enhanced with mechanical devices. This was later disproved by several episodes of Star Trek: Voyager which stated that the Borg expand their numbers through assimilation only, capturing babies and children and then placing them in maturation chambers to accelerate their growth.

The show you're defending just debunked your entire argument. What else ya got?


-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

That entry is incorrect (since it's a Trek Wikipedia, this happens from time to time). Seven never once said "Borg only assimilate", she said "Borg Assimilate" which is a description of ONE thing they do. It doesn't mean it's the ONLY way its done. The original concept of reproducing and then turning the babies into borgs practically after birth still fits.

 

[Withers]

SEVEN: A drone, but unlike any I've ever seen.
TUVOK: It appears to be in the foetal stage.
SEVEN: I don't understand. The Borg assimilate. They do not reproduce in this fashion.

They didn't find out until later in the episode exactly what had happened. The fact that Seven of Nine saw the fetus and couldn't explain it is proof positive (as far as anything that has ever been shown on screen) that the Borg do not reproduce sexually. She says it quite candidly. Without knowing what happened (with the doctors mobile emitter) she refers to what the Borg do (assimilate) and what they do not ("reproduce in this fashion.") How do you get a fetus baring nanoprobes joining with a 29th century piece of technology to sample a crewman who happens upon the merging of gizzmo's (a scenario she hadn't worked out yet)? You have sex. She says they don't do it.

Even if you toss all of that out and don't buy it you still can't provide anything that says Hugh wasn't ever assimilated. The Borg assimilate by the billions. We've seen them do it a bunch of times on screen. The odds are overwhelmingly high (even allowing for the possibility of sexual reproduction) that Hugh was assimilated especially given the fact that nothing to the contrary has ever been stated, anywhere about him, specifically. Reproduction even goes against the Borg "philosophy" of efficiency. Why have one baby when you can assimilate 100 million babies?

I could keep going but I think three, backed-by-cannon, arguments are all that are required here. Your argument that this one instance isn't continuity fallacy is backed only by your (and by your I mean it belongs to you and absolutely no one else) suggestion that Hugh was never assimilated which is backed up by nothing. Check mate? (Some how I doubt it.)


-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

She said "Borg don't reproduce in this manner" as in "we don't grow drones from nothing", not "we don't have sex". She also says "Borg assimilate", not "Borg ONLY assimilate". That one word makes all the difference.

Hugh being a baby borg who was never an individual in the first place is easily supported from him not regaining his prior personality before he was assimilated or acting the way Seven did when taken out of the Collective. If he was, he'd have been aggressively trying to escape so he could return to the Collective like Seven wanted to. He acted more like, well a child would. Like someone who was never an individual in the first place would. He was a Borg that never had a personality to begin with, whereas Seven DID. A drone that was a former individual breaking free from the Collective and becoming an individual again was what the Queen referred to, not the mere act of any drone doing it. They didn't mention Hugh likely because they didn't think everyone saw TNG and they didn't want to confuse them.

 

[Withers]

That is all speculation and opinion. There are a lot of people who would say Hugh had more personality than Seven did, in a shorter amount of time, in being disconnected from the Collective. The other major factor is that Hugh was nursed back to health and visited by the Crew during his recovery. Why would he want to escape? There wasn't anything to escape from. Seven, on the other hand, was forcibly disconnected from the Collective through means of electrocution after being duped by Chakotay (who had earlier tried to blow her out into space as he did with all her comrades.) Of course she'd want to go back to the collective!

"You're the first drone to regain your individuality." Not "You're the first drone not produced through means of sexual intercourse or who was propped up as a mouth piece... to regain your individuality." She said it the first way. If she meant it some other way they should've written it like that.

They didn't mention Hugh likely because they didn't think everyone saw TNG and they didn't want to confuse them.

In a thread that is now rife with ridiculous nonsequitor speculation... that statement is just more than I can bare. You think they thought we (Star Trek fans) hadn't seen TNG and therefore, for our convenience and so as not to confuse us, ignored established cannon? That might be (and no offense to you personally is meant by this) the single dumbest thing I have ever read on the internet. Congratulations. You got me. I'm done.


-Withers-​

 

[CoveTom]

^ Just curious... why do you center everything?

 

[Therin of Andor]

i still seem to recall that RA upset some of the show's writers regarding continuity.

He made lots of people angry. Imagine putting your heart and soul into a script only to be told by a guy who isn't even a writer that your wonderful idea has to be scrapped because it conflicts with an incident in an episode of a different TV show written decades earlier.

 

[Withers]

^ Just curious... why do you center everything?

It's the force of habit. I've been a member of dozens of forums for a decade now and it's just something I've always done. There isn't a real "reason" I guess.

Imagine putting your heart and soul into a script only to be told by a guy who isn't even a writer that your wonderful idea has to be scrapped because it conflicts with an incident in an episode of a different TV show written decades earlier.

Isn't that like saying 'Congress would have a much easier time writing the laws if the pesky Constitution weren't in the way?'


-Withers-​

 

[Michael]

^ Just curious... why do you center everything?

It's the force of habit. I've been a member of dozens of forums for a decade now and it's just something I've always done. There isn't a real "reason" I guess. ​

Typographically, though, there are a lot of reasons to not center the text of your posts. Readability is one of them, for example.
​

 

[CoveTom]

Isn't that like saying 'Congress would have a much easier time writing the laws if the pesky Constitution weren't in the way?'

I'm not sure the pesky Constitution has gotten in the way of laws Congress has written for a long time...

I see what you're saying. But I think it depends on the approach taken by the person responsible for continuity. Generally, you want to protect the established continuity of the franchise. But, OTOH, I think you have to acknowledge that, in the end, these are just fictional TV shows and movies, and that if a really good dramatic reason comes along to contradict a minor point that was established previously, then go ahead and do it, especially if there's wiggle room in what was established previously.

For example, in DS9 Sisko made statements early on that implied his father was dead. He never said it outright, but the meaning of his words was pretty clear. But later on, the writers found a good dramatic reason to have Sisko's father make an appearance. So they decided to ignore the previous statements, or at least pretend that Sisko wasn't really implying what he was implying, and we got Joseph Sisko. I'm fine with that.

The impression I get, though, is that Richard Arnold was someone who would insist that the writers stick to the most fanatically tiny detail established from a previous episode, which even TOS didn't do. I've never met the man, and I could be wrong about that, but that's the impression I've gotten.

 

[Withers]

Typographically, though, there are a lot of reasons to not center the text of your posts. Readability is one of them, for example.

The great thing about forums is you only read what you want to read... or in your case, are able to read.

For example, in DS9 Sisko made statements early on that implied his father was dead. He never said it outright, but the meaning of his words was pretty clear. But later on, the writers found a good dramatic reason to have Sisko's father make an appearance. So they decided to ignore the previous statements, or at least pretend that Sisko wasn't really implying what he was implying, and we got Joseph Sisko. I'm fine with that.

I can't imagine anyone legitimately having an issue with that. Contradicting implications should be fine. Contradicting things we've seen on screen (major events like the assimilation of Picard) is where I've got an issue. Fanatically adhering to continuity might be taking it overboard. It is fiction, as you said, after all. But it isn't like Star Trek is a stranger to the almighty retcon. If you're going to contradict a major piece of established cannon there are ways to do it properly and then there's the Borg episode of Star Trek Enterprise.


-Withers-​

 

[Michael]

​

Typographically, though, there are a lot of reasons to not center the text of your posts. Readability is one of them, for example.

The great thing about forums is you only read what you want to read... or in your case, are able to read.

​

Oh, I am able to read your posts. But by centering your text you make it unnecessarily hard to do so. At the end of each line my eyes have to search for the beginning of the next line. That might be feasible with short text, but can be quite frustrating with longish posts.

I hope you didn't take my comment too personally. I'm a graphic designer and a passionate typographer. I get riled by things like that easily.
​

 

[Withers]

No, no, not at all. I guess I could counter with I'm a Libra and I like things balanced but I already feel enough like a geek today . It makes it easier for me to read where as for you it makes it more difficult. I guess its one of those 'to each his own' kind of things really.

Maybe you can (after your two weeks and 50 posts are done) but if you can't write in color that might be something I'd go for as opposed to centering my posts. A darker shade of green perhaps...

But, so I as Junior Grade Lieutenant don't get called for posting off topic, I'll mention this:

The guys other not Star Trek shows have done a much better job in regards to attention to detail. Granted they don't deal with a lot of pre-established "cannon" but Flashforward (which I admit is pretty new) and season 7 of 24 have been amazing.

While I was reading his wikipedia article I came across this quote:

"It's not a pleasant thing to think of yourself [as] to blame. There are other factors involved with Star Trek losing its audience appeal over the years, but [...] I will take my share of the blame creatively. It's almost impossible for me to sit here and say 'yes, I did this, that, and this wrong' and I'm certainly not going to get on the internet and look at what the fans think, because that would be too painful. But give it a little more time [and] I'm sure I can look back and figure out what the fuck I did wrong."

That almost makes me feel sorry for the guy. But then I think about how creative he has to be, then think of Voyager, and can only deduce that he got sloppy and or lazy during this portion of his tenure with the Trek franchise.


-Withers-​

 

[TheGodBen]

Maybe you can (after your two weeks and 50 posts are done) but if you can't write in color that might be something I'd go for as opposed to centering my posts. A darker shade of green perhaps...

Nope, it's all white. The admins here don't want any bright coloured text or picture signatures distracting us from the flashy ads.

Like most of the members here I prefer it that way, it forces you to be unique through words rather than the font you're using.

 

[Anwar]

Yeah, I've been to boards where you can color your text. It's kind of silly once you actually see it...

 

[Withers]

You'll find no one uses it because you have to go out of your way to do it. The only ones that do stand out a bit. I mean on a forum about five times the size of this one I know of maybe five people who regularly post in a color other than white.

As for it "forcing you to be unique through words rather than the font you're using" lolwut.


-Withers-​

 

[Michael]

[highlight]I don't know what you're talking about, guys. [/highlight]