Okay, Ziz for starters, this..."I did read your whole post, and it basically came off as a nicely worded version of "No matter which way you want the bridge to face, you're equally as wrong as someone who wants it to face the other way"... I'm sorry if I came off to you that way, but I honestly don't see how you could take it that way since I specifically said,"everyone has they're own take on things which is perfectly legit and needs no justification" and this, "Everyone has a right to interpret Star Trek the way they want and to make deck plans however they see fit, and nobody should feel they have to justify what they do! If you want the bridge to face forward and also find some way to stay true to what we saw onscreen, then more power to ya!" How many times to I have to quote myself before you get it? I'm running out of emphasis here! When I quoted the old addage "two wrongs etc." I simply meant to underscore that compounding one design 'fudge' with another and another only takes us further afield from designer intent, that's all. I never said or implied that anyone was 'wrong', how could they it be, none of this is 'real' after all? This is just you reading too much into my post. You obviously feel passionate about your take on the matter, which clouds your judgement, but as I've said in other threads, I have no particular axe to grind on this or any other 'treknical' matter, I just like to put my two quatloos worth in from time to time, and CRA did invite discussion. And then this,... "just live with the mistake instead of trying to fix it" (That last part was where my mind pulled in the religious reference...read between the lines.)"... First of all, again, I never said anything about living with mistakes instead of trying to fix them, all I did was try to explain why I prefered one solution over another, which has to do with the simplest structural and engineering design considerations rather than the 'just make it fit, damn it!' school of thought. My main point here (which you missed) is that the aproach I prefer has the advantage of internal consistancy (literaly and figuratively) and avoids the rather schitzophrenic apeal to "designer intent" one moment and then the contradictory "the way we saw it onscreen" argument the next moment. And secondly, if this is where you got your religious referance, then I still don't see how? How does living with a mistake instead of fixing it, (which is not what I said, or meant) lead to "pain & suffering=good, happiness=bad"? Aside from having nothing to with the topic, it betrays your overzealous attitude. If contemplating production mistakes in a TV show causes you to experiance pain & suffering, and your happiness comes from one and only one solution to them, then you need help dude. Moving right along then... "Sinking the bridge a few feet into the hull is no more or less valid than forcing it to be all the way into the dome." I'm cool with a few feet, but half or whole way into deck 2 as some have done, goes against our old bugaboo "designers intent". This does have some utility in answering the 'vulnerability of the bridge' issue, but I personally do not think it out waighs the 'I just don't like it that way factor' for me, so sue me. And then... "there were several episodes where the turbolift was shown to be capable of lateral movement, so having it cheat sideways 6 feet behind the bridge to get from the door to the tube makes perfect sense." See, now were getting to 'the simplest most effecient engineering design logic' aproach that I prefer. And thank you for bringing it up, for it may help me illustrate my other main point (which you also missed). So here goes, The fact that the T/L moves lateraly has no bearing on the bridge issue, the T/L shafts have to reach everywhere in the ship, the bridge T/L only has to reach... the bridge! It makes some sense, yes, to slide the T/L over, since none of this is real, if you prefer it that way then it's as good a solution as any. But, it doesn't exactly make perfect sense, to illustrate my point. try this, put yourself in the position of a hypothetical Starfleet Engineer, you're all about efficiancy and using the least complicated method with the minimum waste of materials, because you know that "The more you overstuff the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain". So, with everything being equal, how would you design the bridge? Would you make the T/L open directly on the bridge, or would you slide it over, wasting credits and time making a more complicated structure that serves no practical purpose, in effect, a dunsel? This answers itself. (some one will bring up the refit design, but I'll answer that in the inevitable next post). And this bit is just silly,... "CRA's solution of sinking the bridge a bit DOES stay true to what we saw on screen - find a shot from any episode that shows that it isn't that way. Go ahead, I'll wait. Find anything? I didn't think so." How can I possibly reply to you, in your own post while you're still typing it! Especially when I wasn't even online at the time? You're just being a smart ass, and this is not worth further discussion. I do have an anwser for you however, In the only 'bridge establishing shot' we have from "The Cage", there's no indication that the bridge is sunk, but this is largely irrelavent since the model and it's fictional counterpart were modified afterwards, and there's no other evidence either way, this counters your argument as much as mine, or anyone elses, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as CRA says. AND, for the not so final nail in the coffin, so to speak, "I quote part of the response to an email I wrote to Richard Jeffries, Matt Jeffries' brother and author of "Beyond The Clouds", his biography of brother Matt's life. Quote: It's been interesting to me to comprehend the motivation of so many Trekkies to find some obscure meaning for every aspect of Matt's designs. No question that Matt was a gifted artist with an innovative mind. His U.S.S. Enterprise and Klingon Battle Cruiser are iconic masterpieces. However, he confessed to me that he intentionally allowed for the viewers of Star Trek to use their imaginations rather than having every nut, bolt, and concept explained. Which is exactly what we're doing - using our imaginations...just like Matt wanted us to. Yeah, I've got his book it's really good, but most evrybody is familiar with MJ's intentions on the matter since he has said as much in interviews going way back, no surprise there. But you're last point here is moot since I've already explained I'm not trying to stiffle anyones creativity! That's your dead straw horse, not mine.