Re: Constitution Class Starships under Conmstruction in Trek
Outpost4 said:Criminy is an inflammatory term?
Not in the least.
Height of fan arrogance is an inflammatory term?
Absolutely, when you're using it to refer to a simple different point of view.
On the other hand, I don't think you are unbearably stupid and obnoxious, Cary L. Brown. I regret that you feel this way about me.
I don't. I really don't. This is something that people get wrong so often. The ATTITUDE being expressed is. That doesn't mean YOU are. By pointing this out, one would hope you'd realize that referring to an opposing viewpoint in that way, as an ACTION, is extremely obnoxious, and (if you're not that sort of person yourself) that you'd step back and rethink it a bit.
People who are inherently that way are not worth pointing things out to. But people FREQUENTLY fail to see their own actions in the same context that others do (and yes, that includes ME). So, sometimes (if you don't think the person REALIZES how their actions come across) it's worthwhile to point it out. If the person doing the bad thing isn't a bad person, but rather simply doesn't see it as others do, then pointing out how others see it might result in a change... if the person is a decent sort up-front.
Make sense?
I had no idea you'd take this personally. That was never my intention. If you were offended by my remarks, I am sorry and I apologize.
Not offended in any way. I merely wanted to point out that it's REALLY BAD DISCUSSION FORM (and yes, to refer to those whose opinions differ from your own, in an area where there is clear and unmistakable ambiguity, as being "the height of fan arrogance"... well, it's definitely very bad debating form).
I make a couple posts on this topic. In one paragraph I show passion. That I will not apologize for. You want me to stop being a Trekkie on TrekBBS? No way!
Again, not in the least. I just want for you to realize that, since this is NOT a clear-cut thing, and since it is NOT in any way reality based, and since the other side has a pretty strong argument (just as you see yourself as having a strong argument) it's just WRONG to start throwing around terms like "the height of fan arrogance" to describe that opposing viewpoint.
Passion is good... I've been known to show a bit of that myself, by the way...
... but honestly, what you did was (as it seemed from my perspective and from that of a few others, it seems) basically saying "well, you disagree with me and so that's arrogance, so just shut up." The use of that term, "fan arrogance," really comes across that way. In a sense, when someone drops to that level in a debate, they're admitting that they can't argue on the facts and are resorting to the last tool of desperation in debate... unsupported emotion.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be passionate. I'm just saying that what you did was the debating equivalent of saying "well, you're ugly and you suck, now shut up." Once you do that, you've really undercut yourself. Something worth thinking about in the future. (And yes, on a few occasions I've done the same myself... not claiming otherwise... we're all better at seeing screw ups with others than we are at seeing it with ourselves!)
Beyond that, yes, I think fans that pick and choose which parts of Trek they want to accept are arrogant. The concept of a personal canon excapes me. It's either canon or not. And I think that trying to ignore a big sign on the main set of the show, readable or not using 1966 video technology, pushes the envelope to the limit.
But the VERY SAME ARGUMENT you're making can then be applied to the "technical journal" page. Furthermore, there's the VERY PERTINENT argument about INTENT... that is, what did the people making the show INTEND it to be (which is recorded as being "Constitution class" from original production documents from the 1960s series).
And, of course, we also have about forty years of established post-TOS materials, all of which have been entirely consistent on this being "Constitution-class." Books, movies, sequel TV series... EVERYTHING... is consistent.
THE ONLY PLACE "STARSHIP CLASS" WAS EVER REFERRED TO IS ON THAT PLAQUE. It was never used ANYPLACE else. Was it?
My point? You, also, are "picking and choosing" what you're accepting and what you're not accepting. You choose to put the bridge plaque at a higher level than the other bits of information.
By your own argument... by rejecting all that other material, in favor of the one bit you DO like (where most people reject that one bit in favor of all the other bits)... you're engaging in "the height of fan arrogance" too.
Get it?
All of my remaining words in this thread, outside of that paragraph, are trying to reconcile the dedication plaque.
And that's a good thing.
Hell, the plaque is pretty cheesy. GR probably said, "Make it say Starship Class" in the middle of a three martini lunch and a quickie with Majel. That would explain a lot.
Oh, yeah. More likely, though... someone with a real naval background was given the task of making the plate, and asked (in an off-the-cuff fashion), "what sort of ship is the Enterprise?" to someone on the production staff, and the off-the-cuff answer was "it's a STARSHIP." The plate-maker, being a former navy guy, meant to ask "what CLASS of ship" but misspoke, and the production guy was probably thinking "does this guy mean is it a sailing ship, or a WWII battleship, or what?"
Since the show was always on a shoestring budget, and since the plate was never readable on-screen, nobody would ever have bothered to fix such a little snafu.
It's pretty clearly defined in Whitfield's book (all about the original production of TOS) that the ship was intended to be Constitution class, at the time of production. F.J. wasn't the first guy to pick up on that and run with it, but he did make it so well-known that it became an absolutely unassailable (if arguably "fanon") fact that the Enterprise was Constitution class. This was established on-screen during TNG and later as being the case. The refit was never referred to as "Constitution class" until ST-VI, and then it was on a remarkably cheesy print which served no real purpose (why would Scotty need a rough EXTERIOR line drawing of HIS SHIP in order figure out where to search?)
In that whole "pick and choose" bit, I place that print in the same category as the "turboshaft deck markings in ST-V" category... a production mistake due to sloppiness.
But that's just my opinion. Others are free to have their own... we ALL have to "pick and choose" because the continuity is a bit messed up there, with differing, inconsistent "facts" that we have to either choose between or try, through some weird logical gymnastics, to reconcile.
The best I've seen is that the internal differences between the 1701(r) in ST-I/ST-II/ST-III and in ST-V/ST-VI are the differences between "Enterprise class" and "Constitution-class-third-refit" (First being the TOS refit, second being the non-cannonical "Ships of the Starfleet" version, and this being the third, exceeding the Enterprise class specs in a number of areas and thus being a new class.)
It's all in fun... no "fan arrogance" about ANY of this. Keep that in mind and we'll all get along just fine.
What you REALLY mean to say is "It's the height of arrogance not to agree with me." Which, in itself, is pretty damned arrogant.
