'It's really not, because I don't know wtf you are talking about. If you're arguing that the scene from episode 3 depicting the Burn occurred in 2958, you are wrong.
Spoilers 31st/32nd Century Ships Revealed
- Thread starter NCC-73515
- Start date
this began with you not understanding this post:
i have explained what exactly i mean, and why what i wrote is logical.
perhaps an example helps:
lorca and tyler are first shown in disco s1.
a thread is started that writes lorca is a good captain and tyler is a nice guy.
later, we find out lorca is not a good captain and tyler is voq.
then you complain that the thread from before all these news is wrong.
i explain that it makes no sense at all to expect older threads to already contain new info that came later.
you don't understand.
this is our situation here, and there seems to be no way to convince you of the meaning of time, chronology, causality, and the logical order of events. final try, then it's just beyond pointless
this began with you not understanding this post:
i have explained what exactly i mean, and why what i wrote is logical.
perhaps an example helps:
lorca and tyler are first shown in disco s1.
a thread is started that writes lorca is a good captain and tyler is a nice guy.
later, we find out lorca is not a good captain and tyler is voq.
then you complain that the thread from before all these news is wrong.
i explain that it makes no sense at all to expect older threads to already contain new info that came later.
you don't understand.
this is our situation here, and there seems to be no way to convince you of the meaning of time, chronology, causality, and the logical order of events. final try, then it's just beyond pointless
I understand now.. In fairness it was pretty unclear as to what you were trying to say and it came across as if you were arguing that the burn occurred in 2958 because of Burnham's dialogue in episode 3 and ignoring the evidence came later. If you had just said "I'm talking about this thread originally being titled 30th century ships revealed because I thought the burn occurred in 30th century based on Burnham's dialogue" it would have saved a lot of time.
Burn occured Approximately 3069, Discovery entered 3188-3189.
...And the writers probably never thought radically differently. But, as indicated by the above confusion, they didn't tell us right away.
They're pretty good at that stuff, surprisingly enough. In S1, when we start to think with confidence that Tyler is Voq, it appears the writers fumbled big time, since surely Starfleet would have done a zillion kinds of background checks. But then comes "Despite Yourself", and it turns out Starfleet indeed tested for everything, and we get a perfectly nice scifi explanation for why this wasn't enough. Not as a hasty reaction to audience reaction to the earlier audience confusion, mind you, since "Despite Yourself" was already written at that time!
Give them time, and the writers will dig themselves up from most of the holes they appear to have created for themselves. or, alternately, the audience will come to understand what the writers meant from the get-go. Particularly now that the writing staff doesn't get putsched in mid-season any longer.
Timo Saloniemi
They're pretty good at that stuff, surprisingly enough. In S1, when we start to think with confidence that Tyler is Voq, it appears the writers fumbled big time, since surely Starfleet would have done a zillion kinds of background checks. But then comes "Despite Yourself", and it turns out Starfleet indeed tested for everything, and we get a perfectly nice scifi explanation for why this wasn't enough. Not as a hasty reaction to audience reaction to the earlier audience confusion, mind you, since "Despite Yourself" was already written at that time!
Give them time, and the writers will dig themselves up from most of the holes they appear to have created for themselves. or, alternately, the audience will come to understand what the writers meant from the get-go. Particularly now that the writing staff doesn't get putsched in mid-season any longer.
Timo Saloniemi
I posted the same day that this thread was made that it was the 31st century. Page 2. So there was already evidence before then.
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/31st-32nd-century-ships-revealed.306033/page-2#post-13565080
We knew they were going 800+ years in the future at the end of Season 2. Plus various interviews and such before airing.
Last edited:
Great, let's loop the whole thread after it was already cleared up!
My turn: https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/31st-32nd-century-ships-revealed.306033/page-2#post-13565094
My turn: https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/31st-32nd-century-ships-revealed.306033/page-2#post-13565094
Years are measured from 1 AD.
This was one of the better arguments though. I remember I once tried to convince someone here that light does not have infinite speed, and no example or explanation changed their mind.
You don't get infinite speed with light until you multiply it by ten, duh.
That's Warp 10. After that you cross... the Threshold!
Besides, the dark always gets there first.This was one of the better arguments though. I remember I once tried to convince someone here that light does not have infinite speed, and no example or explanation changed their mind.
This is better!
Can we get back to ships now?
Can we get back to ships now?
This is better!
Can we get back to ships now?
One second........
Technically, the dark is already/always there until the light arrives. Dark is the natural state.
"There's no dark side of the moon really, matter of fact, it's all dark"
Similar threads
