430 crew?

[scotpens]

I take the radical position that:

• There are a lot of contradictions in Star Trek
• Everything that's said or done in the shows counts
• The contradictions can't reasonably be reconciled
• Trying to do so is a waste of life.

Blasphemy and heresy!

Trying to resolve the contradictions in Star Trek is the Crusader's search for the Holy Grail. It's the Muslim's pilgrimage to Mecca. It's the Buddhist's quest for nirvana. It's a mission, a calling, a mitzvah!

EDIT: Sorry for the double post. I must have been momentarily distracted by my pet giraffe wanting to be let out.

 

[T'Girl]

They really crammed them into those old Constitution-class ships, didn't they?

Considering the size of the ship I don't think 430 is really that much. I think they made it look like a lot with those shots of busy corridors, but I suspect there would actually be a lot of room. Consider a modern carrier is about the same size overall and carries a crew of thousands. Modern destroyers and cruisers are smaller that the TOS E and their crews are in the hundreds if I'm not mistaken.

Franz Joseph's designs were long on living space, short on machinery and fuel tanks. Include engineering spaces, cargo holds, weapons, flight deck and suddenly there isn't much people room. The crew probably was crammed in.

They're all officers, according to Roddenberry.

Gene Roddenberry was a police officer at one time. In the police force officers are police officers. However patrolmen, troopers, deputies, sergeants and constables are police officers too. Perhaps in Roddenberry's future enlisted personnel are also Starfleet officers.

 

[Pauln6]

Well petty 'officers' aren't actual officers so it's easy to see where the confusion comes from.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Gene Roddenberry was a police officer at one time. In the police force officers are police officers. However patrolmen, troopers, deputies, sergeants and constables are police officers too. Perhaps in Roddenberry's future enlisted personnel are also Starfleet officers.

He was also an officer in the Army Air Corps. He knew the difference between officers and enlisted, and the intent in the quote from TMOST is clear.

 

[Start Wreck]

If so, then I could care less about canon, continuity, or contradictions. If it doesn't, still could care less.

Could you? Then why don't you?

 

[Pauln6]

His intention may have been clear perhaps, but it was never implemented. If we follow canon shown on screen, the statement is obvioulsy wrong, even in the very early episodes (and I even recall somebody mentioning a CPO was in the Cage). There are plenty of on-screen examples of enlisted crew. As a lawyer I would say the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt!

I mentioned TMP because Gene had a lot of input into that movie and the Rec Deck scene has plenty of crew indentifiable as enlisted personel. Further in the Lost Series, there is script draft where it mentions that Janice Rand is 'now an ensign'. Although in TMP she is eventually shown as a CPO, this statement also demonstrates that yeomen are enlisted crew.

 

[T'Bonz]

I take the radical position that:

• There are a lot of contradictions in Star Trek
• Everything that's said or done in the shows counts
• The contradictions can't reasonably be reconciled
• Trying to do so is a waste of life.

Pretty much. I love the show, but it was made to sell stuff. No one ever dreamed it would last for so long or that it would be so thoroughly analyzed by its fans. It drives me mad when people fight over elements. I'm like, "Come on guys!"

Some things do contradict or are just plain daft (like TNG's "warp drive limit" bit) and there's no use arguing over it. Sometimes I think over-analyzing it sucks the pleasure out of the show.

 

[blssdwlf]

There was also Journey to Babel where the Enterprise was carrying a little over 100 dignitaries. Unless the Enterprise offloaded some crew to account for the extra people (not mentioned in episode) then there were 500+ on board for the episode. It must've been even more packed in

 

[Pauln6]

Lol - we're not fighting, we're playing devil's advocate. There's no point coming onto a discussion forum if you don't want to discuss! That's sort of the whole point It is hilarious when people take or at least appear to take criticism personally though. Opinions will and should vary and nobody can please all of the people all of the time...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I love the show, but it was made to sell stuff. No one ever dreamed it would last for so long or that it would be so thoroughly analyzed by its fans. It drives me mad when people fight over elements. I'm like, "Come on guys!"

I blame technology, which is always the safe way to go.

I mean, back when we had to remember what we'd watched in order to discuss it picking nits was challenging. Now I can hop to any of a number of screengrab or video websites to instantly verify that the red button on the top left of Sulu's board was the "phaser fire" switch in episode 12 whereas it was the blue button on the lower right in episode 25. Oh noes!

 

[Pauln6]

Ok then - Chapel had like 6 discs with infinite flavour combinations (was it in And the Children Shall Lead?) so what's the correct combination of discs for chocolate chip with almonds and vanilla? And more importantly, why didn't she slip in some Venus drug; there wasn't a looker in the bunch.

 

[Mytran]

If so, then I could care less about canon, continuity, or contradictions. If it doesn't, still could care less.

Could you? Then why don't you?

Ah this old chestnut! Why can't people do talk proper?

Ok then - Chapel had like 6 discs with infinite flavour combinations (was it in And the Children Shall Lead?) so what's the correct combination of discs for chocolate chip with almonds and vanilla? And more importantly, why didn't she slip in some Venus drug; there wasn't a looker in the bunch.

Yeah that was pretty silly. Fortunately it didn't occur on an otherwise fine episode

 

[Shaw]

I take the radical position that:

• There are a lot of contradictions in Star Trek
• Everything that's said or done in the shows counts
• The contradictions can't reasonably be reconciled
• Trying to do so is a waste of life.

-and-​

I blame technology, which is always the safe way to go.

I blame technology too... for people who are wasting their lives that is.

It might surprise you to know that there are people around here who have tens of thousands of posts, who average more than 20 posts a day... and have posted nearly 30 times in the last 24 hours alone.

Those are people who truly need to get unplugged... and technology has turned Star Trek into an unhealthy obsession for them.

So you are right... technology is absolutely to blame. It has created a group of people who truly are obsessive time-wasters.



Fortunately no one here has that problem.



Edit: It should be noted that I don't think a membership to TrekBBS has yet reach the same destructive levels as Computer Solitaire, but the potential is there.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If so, then I could care less about canon, continuity, or contradictions. If it doesn't, still could care less.

Could you? Then why don't you?

Ah this old chestnut! Why can't people do talk proper?

Ok then - Chapel had like 6 discs with infinite flavour combinations (was it in And the Children Shall Lead?) so what's the correct combination of discs for chocolate chip with almonds and vanilla? And more importantly, why didn't she slip in some Venus drug; there wasn't a looker in the bunch.

Yeah that was pretty silly. Fortunately it didn't occur on an otherwise fine episode

Yeah, some folks like to pretend that a whole season of TOS didn't happen, don't they?

A waste of life.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

If so, then I could care less about canon, continuity, or contradictions. If it doesn't, still could care less.

Could you? Then why don't you?

Perhaps I was being too colloquial with my idiomatic expression that is really a mondegreen.

"I could not care less about canon, continuity, or contradictions. If it doesn't, still couldn't care less."

Hope that clarifies.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Just don't substitute "normalcy" for "normality" and we'll let it go.

 

[Maurice]

If so, then I could care less about canon, continuity, or contradictions. If it doesn't, still could care less.

Could you? Then why don't you?

Perhaps I was being too colloquial with my idiomatic expression that is really a mondegreen.

"I could not care less about canon, continuity, or contradictions. If it doesn't, still couldn't care less."

Hope that clarifies.

Ahhh...I love a man who uses "idiomatic" and "mondegreen" in a sentence!

 

[scotpens]

Perhaps I was being too colloquial with my idiomatic expression that is really a mondegreen.

A mondegreen is a misheard song lyric. Well-known examples include “There's a bathroom on the right,” “’Scuse me while I kiss this guy,” and “She's got electric boobs.”

Saying “I could care less” when you mean “I couldn't care less” is just, well, WRONG.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Saying “I could care less” when you mean “I couldn't care less” is just, well, WRONG.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm

You know, I just couldn't...never mind.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Perhaps I was being too colloquial with my idiomatic expression that is really a mondegreen.

A mondegreen is a misheard song lyric. Well-known examples include “There's a bathroom on the right,” “’Scuse me while I kiss this guy,” and “She's got electric boobs.”

Saying “I could care less” when you mean “I couldn't care less” is just, well, WRONG.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm

A mondegreen is a misheard phrase, usually from a lyric or a poem but not exclusively. As stated by Martha Brockenbrough, the founder of the Society for the Promotion of Good Grammar, in her excellent grammar book Things That Make Us [SIC]:

(From pg. 47)

Mondegreens, meanwhile, are misheard phrases. The word itself is one, coined by the author Syliva Wright, who heard "Lady Mondegreen" instead of "laid him on the green."

While the idiom "couldn't care less" has its etymology in Britain, and your link does nicely provide that history, there is still some dispute that the American colloquial idiomatic expression may have been a mishearing of the phrase. Some say it's a mondegreen and others say it was laziness.

Guess, I'm just an American idiot who could care less.

Ah, dumb American, ain't yah gonna learn.