Not much about the "Mark of Gideon" made sense. Easily in my bottom-10 TOS episodes.
Connie - TOS canon nomenclature
- Thread starter Wingsley
- Start date
Not much about the "Mark of Gideon" made sense. Easily in my bottom-10 TOS episodes.
We've only really got Kirk's assumption that there's a complete replica of the Enterprise on the planet Gideon - his log entry stating the "fact" is made mere minutes after beaming down (Spock gives the time reference to the chief Gideionite). One man on his own would take days to conduct a complete step-by-step search of the entire ship (as per Court Martial) and all Kirk has done is wander down a few hallways!
Ithekro; your ship research is excellent, thanks again for sharing!
Ithekro; your ship research is excellent, thanks again for sharing!
This was meant to refer to the very post i quoted and of course the previous instance of that line of argument (the 1631/1831 issue). You ask a question you know the answer to. The impression i have of this, is that you do not mention the explanation for the issue because it weakens the argument you are trying to make (namely that the number seen on Intepidbeing not on the cart proving, that the chart is not meant to represent ships at that starbase).
Omitting that piece of information to me seems to not be truthful behaviour, if you feel that it has no relevance to the point you want to make, it would have been better to mention it and explain why you think it to be irrelevant.
Don't let it get to you. It's part of his martyr complex to paint everyone else as some monolithic group trying to hide the truth as he sees it.
"Martyr complex"? That's a new one.
This was never about some monolithic group hiding the truth, this was about some group with a montheistic attitude that was taking the mainstream assumptions as some form of absolute canon, where evidence allowing a different interpretation was and is ignored, double-guessed, twisted, bashed and mocked. Exactly, but it appears you are barking up the wrong tree (on which I'm sitting). When I made that statement in the ugly Enterprise-E thread, I was being called a "dribbling imbecile" for not accepting the reality of canon truth and dogma. I guess that makes you a "dribbling imbecile", too.
But it's a fact that NCC-1631 is not on that chart. The alternative explanation could be that NCC-1831 is the Intrepid, but then it would be still ahead in terms of repair and/or upgrades and Stone decided to put them both on equal footing by assigning more work labor to the Enterprise.
In either case I don't see my argument weakened and fail to see where I could possibly be cherry-picking. You have noticed that the vocal group here doesn't accept behind-the-scenes information, so when I do not mention these, I instantly become a liar?
In general I just don't see why yet another Enterprise Class simulator would require a full size replica of the ship. Kirk didn't enter the simulator part with the bridge through a turbo lift door but behind the screen. You'd only be needing simulators of particular, vital sections like the engine room for example.
Bob
Don't let it get to you. It's part of his martyr complex to paint everyone else as some monolithic group trying to hide the truth as he sees it.
"Martyr complex"? That's a new one.
Nope, no martyr complex there. You're just a lone voice of reason fighting against the establishment that always tries to put you down.
Please, you've gone from thread to thread introducing your supposedly heretical ideas with often little or no connection to the original subject matter of the thread. It's become a running joke that you'll find some way to shoehorn your Enterprise-C "thesis" into any barely or unrelated topic, usually with a hefty dose of self-righteous complaining about how everyone jumps on you for your ideas.
You're the one that loves using behind-the-scenes material to try and prove your points. That becomes tricky because not everyone has access to the same materials and some folks are more than happy to use what actually made it to the screen.
With the above, you are ignoring pieces of the script that explain exactly why the Enterprise was moved to the front of the line. Which was posted by GSchnitzer.
So, it is awkward debating anything with you because there is no rhyme or reason to what material you are using. You cherry-pick the pieces of behind-the-scenes material that backs your point while trying to dismiss or ignore material that goes against your theories. Then you try and browbeat and use backdoor insults (1984 canon) to try and bully people into seeing things your way.
While I think these discussions can be fun and enlightening to a degree (which I've spent way too much time on), I freely admit that I pick and choose what sounds good to me.
I have read through this entire discussion and learned some interesting things.
The most important is that while Canon is determined by what is seen on screen it cannot be used to resolve this issue since what has been shown is inconsistent. When they created this show it evolved- they were creating this universe show by show and a prop, set dressing or piece of dialog in one episode was not always kept track of in later productions. Even in the later series when they had members of the production crew whose duty it was to help keep things consistent errors occurred- they could not even keep rooms on the same deck from show to show.
Nobody expected it to be remembered, let alone looked in detail later.
When there is so much on screen evidence pointing in different directions it becomes a matter of personal choice what to use. Personally I feel that 'Constitution Class' fits the original Enterprise and with the wholesale changes in the Motion Picture 'Enterprise Class' as a sub-class seems appropriate for the Refit. That is just my opinion, I know there is plenty of canon which says different.
The most important is that while Canon is determined by what is seen on screen it cannot be used to resolve this issue since what has been shown is inconsistent. When they created this show it evolved- they were creating this universe show by show and a prop, set dressing or piece of dialog in one episode was not always kept track of in later productions. Even in the later series when they had members of the production crew whose duty it was to help keep things consistent errors occurred- they could not even keep rooms on the same deck from show to show.
Nobody expected it to be remembered, let alone looked in detail later.
When there is so much on screen evidence pointing in different directions it becomes a matter of personal choice what to use. Personally I feel that 'Constitution Class' fits the original Enterprise and with the wholesale changes in the Motion Picture 'Enterprise Class' as a sub-class seems appropriate for the Refit. That is just my opinion, I know there is plenty of canon which says different.
Which is fair. From various behind-the-scenes/related material, I've seen it referred to as "Enterprise", "Constitution" and "Constitution II"-class. Lots of different material out there with lots of differing opinions.
It's kind of like the origin of the NCC-1701-A. I've seen various licensed materials say that it was a new ship, the renamed Yorktown and the renamed U.S.S. Ti-Ho. There is really no wrong answer.
I think diversity of thought is a good thing. I like that there isn't a clear-cut answer to many of these questions because it can lead to lively debate.
Another thing to consider about the whole bridge simulator thing: ships of the same class can have completely different bridges. Take the Miranda class. On no less than three different occasions we saw a Miranda class bridge, and each one looked nothing like the other (TWOK, TNG's "Night Terrors" and DS9's "Emissary.")
So if cadets are assigned to a specific ship, then what would be the point of simulating a completely different bridge than the ship that cadet is assigned to? Wouldn't it make more sense for the simulation to be a copy of the specific ship, not just the class in general? That's probably why the simulator in TWOK says "Enterprise class," because it was built to resemble the Enterprise. If another Connie was being used for the training vessel, say, the Potemkin, then the simulator would be "Potemkin class" and resemble the specifics of the Potemkin's real bridge. And by TNG's time it would be as simple as choosing the correct ship's bridge in a holodeck database instead of having to actually construct a facsimile bridge.
So if cadets are assigned to a specific ship, then what would be the point of simulating a completely different bridge than the ship that cadet is assigned to? Wouldn't it make more sense for the simulation to be a copy of the specific ship, not just the class in general? That's probably why the simulator in TWOK says "Enterprise class," because it was built to resemble the Enterprise. If another Connie was being used for the training vessel, say, the Potemkin, then the simulator would be "Potemkin class" and resemble the specifics of the Potemkin's real bridge. And by TNG's time it would be as simple as choosing the correct ship's bridge in a holodeck database instead of having to actually construct a facsimile bridge.
I have always taken "Mark IV Simulator - Enterprise Class" to refer to the class of students assigned to the training ship Enterprise.
Kind of how when I was in the Navy's nuclear power training pipeline, we had two training submarines in Goose Creek, SC to which different classes of students were assigned. Some were "Daniel Webster Class" and some were "Samuel Rayburn Class" because the submarines were formerly the USS Samuel Rayburn and USS Daniel Webster.
Therefore the bridge simulator is a Mark IV Simulator reserved for the use of the Enterprise's class of students.
Kind of how when I was in the Navy's nuclear power training pipeline, we had two training submarines in Goose Creek, SC to which different classes of students were assigned. Some were "Daniel Webster Class" and some were "Samuel Rayburn Class" because the submarines were formerly the USS Samuel Rayburn and USS Daniel Webster.
Therefore the bridge simulator is a Mark IV Simulator reserved for the use of the Enterprise's class of students.
Look what I;ve found.
Look at the bottom right corner. You will see the copyright date and it 1966, 1968 and it has Paramount Copyright Reserve.
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/uss-enterprise-fasa-15mm-deck-plans-sheet-1.jpg
Look at the bottom right corner. You will see the copyright date and it 1966, 1968 and it has Paramount Copyright Reserve.
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/uss-enterprise-fasa-15mm-deck-plans-sheet-1.jpg
You need to look at the copyright year of the Blueprint. The blueprint itself was printed in 1966, 1963. Which is at the bottom right corner, which is Copyright 1966,1963 Paramount Corporation.
FASA Corporation was founded in 1980.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FASA
No. If you look in the bottom left area it says, "This packet of plans was designed and drawn by FASA corporation." And it's copyright 1966, 1983.
The second date looks to be 1983, when the blueprints were released. "Constitution"-class really has nothing to do with the copyright dates.
Never mine, You're right, I've see the FASA Logo on the other side of the Blue print. Someone must of wrong date of the founding FASA.
I'm wondering why the higher copyright date was printed before the lower copyright date? It usually the other way around. Well the first date look like 1966.
Paramount didn't even own Trek in 1966. 1968 was the first year they did own it. I doubt the blueprint was from 1966 or 1968. FASA was just acknowledging Paramount's ownership of the imaged used.
