And nothing like that has ever been "established" and all that is, is your personal fanon.
Klingons & Humans Are Literally the Same Species
- Thread starter dgrrr
- Start date
And nothing like that has ever been "established" and all that is, is your personal fanon.
The Klingons using the that one time Augment Virus, dumb as it is, is not the same as your little fantasy of them being body mod fanatics who remix their as a causal hobby.
Particularly since the chance in appearance was an unplanned side effect...
And don't get me wrong, talking about fanon is cool, as long as you admit it is fanon and don't pretend that it has been "established"
Still not the same as the constant genetic remixing Timo suggested.
All it means is that Star Trek writers don't know shit about biology.
They understand biology perfectly. That humans have a biological response to characters they can bang that makes them want to watch them more.
No it wasn't. Attempting to outdo Human augments once doesn't mean they do it all the time.
There's no other instances of them performing genetic modifications on themselves.
Did you know that the actress who played the Chase Alien -- Salome Jens -- also played Mae Olinksy, a rival for Tom Hartman's love in the show Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman? I never saw what Tom saw in Mae. Or in Mary. Loretta Haggers, that's a different story. Everybody make sure you put Loretta Haggers on your Would-Bang list. This is important.
Oh she was way too religious for me. I'd go for Mary's sister, Hotsie Totsie first.
Umm, you need to read what I actually wrote - twice.
1) What I originally stated stands, twice.
2) "Doing it all the time" wasn't it. That part is additional speculation, which still works pretty well.
Timo Saloniemi
In real life, if there were intelligent aliens, even ones that looked and seemed human they would still have less in common with you genetically then a rutabaga. But it's established in Trek that full interspecies fertility is a thing, so deal. Anybody up for a Klingon-Ferengi hybrid?
No, no it wasn't. The only thing that's established is that the makeup, prosthetics and colour used for the blood changed over time due to budget and techniques. That doesn't establish the Klingons as being into augmentation, that's just your fanon and nothing more.
Here is your original statement, and all the bolded part is just your fanon without any evidence in actual canon.
The only thing that is factual about your statement is that the makeup was changed frequently, the rest is just your 100% unsupported fantasy where you propose that they as a species wilfully change their appearance multiple times and wilfully change their blood colour, all of which is 100% unsupported by canon.
In general you are attempting to force "evidence" out of production inconsistencies. And that's fine, just be honest about it, and don't claim that your fanon has been "established"
The differences in the Klingon make-up in the TOS episodes, is obviously because of real world reasons, but if we have to force it into continuity, it would be easy to say that it might have been Klingons with varying degree of Augment Virus in them, or different ethnicities, that's just as "established" as your stuff (i.e. not at all)
You are trying to force "evidence" out of production inconsistencies. And that'd be fine if you were honest about it being your fanon, instead of claiming it as "established"
Last edited:
Bullshit. I said the Klingons crave self-improvement, which is an ENT fact. It's not lacking in "any evidence in canon", it's a straightforward fact clearly established in a two-parter.
It then "goes well with" what is speculation. Calling it unsupported is but a lie, so don't go preaching me about honesty. But it being supported shouldn't get your pants in a knot, either: supported speculation is still but speculation, which is what we engage in here.
The rest is just your personal view on what you think I might have said. I'm not particularly interested in it, because not only do I know what I said, I can read it from the previous page. Perhaps you could, too, if you stopped sprouting that nonsense about "unsupported" and "without any evidence"?
Timo Saloniemi
It then "goes well with" what is speculation. Calling it unsupported is but a lie, so don't go preaching me about honesty. But it being supported shouldn't get your pants in a knot, either: supported speculation is still but speculation, which is what we engage in here.
The rest is just your personal view on what you think I might have said. I'm not particularly interested in it, because not only do I know what I said, I can read it from the previous page. Perhaps you could, too, if you stopped sprouting that nonsense about "unsupported" and "without any evidence"?
Timo Saloniemi
ENOUGH! Take the pissing contest offline, please.
Similar threads
