Genesis Question
- Thread starter balls
- Start date
I've not been here long and would prefer not to involve myself in feuds that existed before I signed up. That's why I didn't say anything here.
--Sran
That and the fact that the post seemed to incite a few others to come after you. I don't know if their comments were warranted, but I don't think it's a good idea if I get involved in something that started before I joined the forum.
--Sran
Umm, I think Sran was doing you a service: the argument on why exactly Kirk is a card-carrying murderer is summarized in a post that is about half a page long...
Timo Saloniemi
No feud that I'm aware of ... but hey. Thanks for the help, guys.
Now Timo, if you'd care to elaborate on why you say James T. Kirk is a killer for hire I'd love to know. As far as I know he's a decorated hero of Starfleet and the Federation, many times over.
And no, I'm not going to search for the answer.
If you're going to throw something out there, at least quote yourself.
Umm, I think Sran was doing you a service: the argument on why exactly Kirk is a card-carrying murderer is summarized in a post that is about half a page long...
Timo Saloniemi
No feud that I'm aware of ... but hey. Thanks for the help, guys.
Now Timo, if you'd care to elaborate on why you say James T. Kirk is a killer for hire I'd love to know. As far as I know he's a decorated hero of Starfleet and the Federation, many times over.
And no, I'm not going to search for the answer.
If you're going to throw something out there, at least quote yourself.
Sorry but what you're asking to do is basically get the thread totally off topic by going down that route. In my experience, in regards to forum etiquette, it's perfectly reasonable to point out the thread where the other topic's discussion is ongoing.
Bullspit.
A statement was made in this thread. I asked for an explanation. If the best you can do is tell me to go look up another thread, well, kiss my kewpie doll right on the toe.
If asking for clarification of a statement made in a post in this thread is derailing it, then I'm all for it.
A statement was made in this thread. I asked for an explanation. If the best you can do is tell me to go look up another thread, well, kiss my kewpie doll right on the toe.
If asking for clarification of a statement made in a post in this thread is derailing it, then I'm all for it.
It's hardly my fault if you're not capable of looking up another thread for yourself. Perhaps I didn't want to throw this thread off track by repeating something that's easy to find somewhere else?
--Sran
If you'd read what was said, it was said that it would derail this thread by at least a half a page. Apparently it's quite the essay.
Again, this is how forums work, I've been involved in forums since the mid-90s which includes moderating them.
Subjects are grouped by topics for a reason. Furthermore, the web is made of up hyperlinks, dynamic content, etc. for a reason. It's expected that you will jump from topic to topic.
It's really no insult nor does it brake any netiquette rules to tell you to jump over to another topic for expanded details.
I mean really the initial statement that was made was pretty inflammatory and you took the bait.
Remember this isn't an in-person academic debate. These are threaded topics.
Keywords: THIS THREAD.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Sheesh.
If you really wanted to try to make me look like a dumbass you'd find the answer yourself and link to it. It wouldn't work, but it's worth a shot.
Just because a statement was made in this thread doesn't mean that material in other threads can't be referred to. Or do you believe you can run this site better than the current moderator staff?
--Sran
--Sran
Again, sir, I asked for an explanation of a statement made in this thread. If you don't want to explain, fine. You didn't make the statement. I'm starting to doubt if you know what it meant anyway.
If Timo didn't want to answer my question, he could have said "I don't want to answer your question" or "I explained all that in another thread (here)" or " Bite me, jinglebrain."
As far as the rest of your post, I think you're trying to start something that will get me in trouble. Too bad, because I'm smarter than that. Not playing your game.
Now, if no one wants to tell me why James T. Kirk is a "professional murderer" I'll go on about my business.
In real life.
If Timo didn't want to answer my question, he could have said "I don't want to answer your question" or "I explained all that in another thread (here)" or " Bite me, jinglebrain."
As far as the rest of your post, I think you're trying to start something that will get me in trouble. Too bad, because I'm smarter than that. Not playing your game.
Now, if no one wants to tell me why James T. Kirk is a "professional murderer" I'll go on about my business.
In real life.
I told you where the answer was. Are you that helpless that you couldn't go to the thread yourself?
--Sran
And right after you asked, I told you what the answer was. Right here in this thread. Comprehension difficulties?
To recap: if Marcus cares about microbes, she probably belongs to the group of people who call soldiers baby killers and spit on their faces at airports a lot.
Timo Saloniemi
To recap: if Marcus cares about microbes, she probably belongs to the group of people who call soldiers baby killers and spit on their faces at airports a lot.
Timo Saloniemi
Yeah, Carol was definitely more pragmatic. There's nothing in TWOK which precludes the possibility she met Kirk when she was a Starfleet scientist/weapons expert.
The whole nature of Genesis has massive moral implications, which she didn't seem too concerned about. She wanted to create new life on a cosmic scale, and seemed to have a bit of a chip on her shoulder about it ("can I cook, or can't I?").
It would have been interesting to keep her around in the next film, where she would effectively have been the Robert Oppenheimer of the Star Trek universe, having created a superweapon and becoming the destroyer of worlds.
David was young and reckless in using illegal material to make his bomb, presumably because he loved him Mum and wanted her life's work to be a success. But she must have known what was going on too. Maybe he was covering for her when he confessed to Saavik?
Either way, they screwed up, and hopefully after the Genesis incident, she faced the appropriate malpractice lawsuit from the families of her dead team.
The whole nature of Genesis has massive moral implications, which she didn't seem too concerned about. She wanted to create new life on a cosmic scale, and seemed to have a bit of a chip on her shoulder about it ("can I cook, or can't I?").
It would have been interesting to keep her around in the next film, where she would effectively have been the Robert Oppenheimer of the Star Trek universe, having created a superweapon and becoming the destroyer of worlds.
David was young and reckless in using illegal material to make his bomb, presumably because he loved him Mum and wanted her life's work to be a success. But she must have known what was going on too. Maybe he was covering for her when he confessed to Saavik?
Either way, they screwed up, and hopefully after the Genesis incident, she faced the appropriate malpractice lawsuit from the families of her dead team.
It's likely she was punished in some way as shit always rolls downhill when things go wrong. But I don't know that any of the families affected by Genesis would even have known what their loved ones were involved in. Governments often provide alternative explanations of why a person passed away in the event the person in question was involved in classified work.
--Sran
Let's think about this a bit. David probably didn't hide a canister of protomatter aboard the Genesis torpedo as such - it's more likely that he programmed the Genesis process in such a fashion that at some point, creation and expenditure of protomatter was involved. That's something a software specialist could easily hide from a non-specialist. Well, not trivially easily, but still.
The question then goes, was David the team's programming specialist? He was the only one talking about cramming bytes into the thing. It's possible the rest of the team were specialists in other fields, while David was both the ultimate programmer with the highest clearances after Carol, and somebody who knew the most about the big picture after Carol. Or, for all we know, David was the brains behind the outfit, and Carol was the established researcher whose name brought the credibility and the funding.
Protomatter could in theory have been David's very own personal secret, then. Or then it was shared with Carol, or with the entire team, or with a thousand people in Starfleet. But how dirty a secret was it in the end?
Saavik says the planet is not what David intended. Either she has read the specs (since she's supposed to be a mission co-specialist on Genesis), or then she simply reads David; it's a no-brainer in either case. David says that yes, the planet is a disappointment. Saavik asks why. David then says "protomatter".
David most probably is saying that Genesis failed because protomatter failed to do what it was supposed to achieve. Saavik chides him for having used an unstable substance or phenomenon that is known to pose ethical problems. But we get no idea what those ethical problems might be. So "ethical scientists" say the stuff is dangerously unpredictable. What does this matter? Does the stuff kill people or what?
Saavik subsequently accuses David of being responsible for the deaths relating to the Genesis project. But this is inane - those deaths would all have taken place even if David had not used protomatter, or hadn't been involved in the project at all. Every death was the result of the project existing, not a result of the project being a success or a failure. So Saavik can be discounted as a reliable source for evaluating the worth of protomatter in the project outright - she's simply off her rocker. (Perhaps David is driving her insane with lust?)
So what "malpractice" would be involved in Genesis? Protomatter didn't kill anybody. Carol or David didn't kill anybody. Khan killed a lot of people, and Kirk then killed some more, but that's got nothing to do with the Marcuses or their scientific work.
Timo Saloniemi
I like this idea. There's even dialogue in TWOK that suggests it when David comments that his mother will be remembered with Newton, Einstein, and Surak. Carol says, "That's a lot, and no respect for my offspring."
Timo said:
You need to get off this Kirk-is-a-murderer jag. The only people he killed were Klingons who violated Federation space, destroyed a Starfleet vessel, and killed a Federation scientist while holding two Starfleet officers hostage. Kirk did what he had to do to keep his crew alive and prevent Enterprise from being captured by the Klingons. There is no comparison between what Khan did and what he did.
--Sran
Who sees a "comparison" there? Khan killed people, Kirk killed people, then Klingons killed people, and then Kirk again killed people. It's not a comparison, it's a list of facts - very significantly not including David Marcus, because he never killed anybody.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
If you're not making a comparison between the two, then why list the facts in sequence?
--Sran
Well, excuuuuuse me.
I did not see a satisfactory explanation of your comment. If you explained yourself, fine. I apologize. The other jinglebrain (and I say that in the most loving way possible) decided to insert himself into something that had nothing to do with him.
But comprehension problems? Really? Probably not. Even at my advanced age I test in the upper levels of whatever measure is trendy these days. I can't keep up with that crap.
Timo, I used to like reading your replies in these threads, but I think now that if you're this condescending in real life (for those of us who have one) I'll probably skip over. Doubtful that I'll miss it.
But hey, stuff like this is why people have always disparaged Star Trek fans. In real life. And probably always will.
Nice talking to ya.
Similar threads
