Beverly Crusher is an idiot

Her "ethics” are pathetic and conceded.

 

Whoa! TNG section has become pretty mean lately. I'd seen a thread where Geordi LaForge a phenomenal character to me is now considered a perverted monster because he had a moment of weakness to a holodeck character but Barkley got a pass. Another thread, Riker, one of the best EX-O's on Star Trek is considered a loser because he refused a command of his own several times. I thought it was great for a man to love the position he had and was glad to be offered other opportunities in his career but when the time was right he would move on. Now it's Beverly Crusher, oh boy, bring it on TNG haters, I'll defend my beloved Doctor!!! LoL!

 

Conceded?

 

Possibly meant to write "conceited" ? But that doesn't make much sense either.

Thread needs conext.

Actually, I'm with Steph - looks like just another attempt at a TNG character assassination. I'll "concede" that !

 

I mean, how long does a XO actually stay around for, ya know?

Though people sort of forget that Riker took on XO in TNG just the year it started, eg, 2364. He *was* the XO of the Hood for an unknown time before that, but was LT and LTCMDR on the Potekmin. I think it was 2361? 2362 or so?

In either case, he was just an XO for around three years, then moved to the Enterprise, and served as XO for seven years on the -D.

So that's a decade of his career as an XO. But, he was also gunning to captain the -D, probably because Picard might had wanted to retire early? Jean Luc was already in Starfleet for around 48 years by 2371.... And I think in Picard, he got Admiralty in 2381, and left the -E then, but Riker went to the Titan. I think Madden took over as XO on the -E in 2379 anyway. So...2361 to 2379 as an XO, 18 years. A bit much, but not unprecedented...Spock comes to mind?

But, anyway, what I'm saying is, people shouldn't chatise Riker for being an XO twice, especially not early on in TNG. I know Spacedock brought it up as a whole video, but it's just become a cheap jab now.

 

I see your point, but then again, the other threads have at least their arguments and their observations. Here, on the other hand, we have nothing at all except an assertion made without any context.

 

And you are backing your opinion up....how, OP?

 

Care to unpack that a little?