That was my point.
Ahh. Pulaski was mean to Data! I likened it to a Star Trek Mandela effect. Fanon feels more inkeeping.
The original idea, as presented in the first season, of separating the saucer section to get people out of danger, seems to have been dropped pretty quickly, probably to avoid slowing down the story. And also because of the visual effects expense of doing so.
From the second season on, it seems sort of retconned to be that you only separate the saucer section in an extreme emergency, such as an impending warp core breach (i.e., Generations) or in rare circumstances when there is a tactical advantage to doing so (i.e., "Best of Both Worlds"). For better or for worse, it seems that it is accepted and expected that the civilians, even children, on board the ship are going to be along for the ride regardless of how dangerous the situation is.
From the second season on, it seems sort of retconned to be that you only separate the saucer section in an extreme emergency, such as an impending warp core breach (i.e., Generations) or in rare circumstances when there is a tactical advantage to doing so (i.e., "Best of Both Worlds"). For better or for worse, it seems that it is accepted and expected that the civilians, even children, on board the ship are going to be along for the ride regardless of how dangerous the situation is.
I always think of fanon as the group version of head canon and I don't think of it as a negative so much but as an important distinction between it and canon. People will make assumptions or theories and spread them and they can be so compelling they take on such a life of their own that they can be taken for gospel, or you start to rationalize and explain every production issue, and I'm guilty of that. I guess I'm just saying it's okay to have that distinction. The cool thing is when fanon does become canon like Enterprise naming the founders of the Federation or Discovery with Ni'var
There are many things over the year that have become accepted as fact when they were never once stated on screen. For example, is there anything anywhere at all that says that Will Decker was Matt Decker's son? I certainly don't recall that being stated anywhere on screen ever. Yet, it is accepted as absolute fact by Trek fans. That to me is fanon.
Not TNG, but I do think it would have made more sense if the USS Odyssey on DS9 had left its saucer behind at the station and the secondary hull went into the Gamma Quadrant. As it is, there is a line in the episode saying all non-essential personnel are being off-loaded (the basic purpose of saucer separation) and they used a set for the bridge which was significantly smaller than what you'd think a Galaxy class ship should have, which wouldn't be as glaring if that were indeed the battle bridge.
That has never been stated onscreen, yet somehow has some sort of official status to the point the box for the VHS release of The Doomsday Machine actually states Matt Decker is Will Decker's father.
I agree that it would have been cool if only the stardrive section of Odyssey had gone on the rescue mission, but, as it was, I appreciated them including the line about evacuating non-essential personnel. As evidenced, it was a very sensible decision on Keogh's part. I wish we could have seen more of him before that mission.
Ahh, this is where I saw this comment. I thought it looked familiar. You made similar argument in the the thread "Ethics".
I respectfully disagree. The idea of Pulaski being mean to Data is not fanon or an example of the Mandela effect. She was, in fact, rude to him. Specifically, she called him an "it", which is a derogatory slur likening him to a tricorder. In the other thread someone tried minimizing the insult by arguing Pulaski spoke from ignorance, but that's not true. At the time she made the comment she'd read his service record and was fully aware that he operated as an independent, sentient being.
For the record, I agree that most of other supposed examples of her being rude to Data don't hold water. For instance, it's no big deal that she mispronounced his name. That was ignorance. But even if she was rude to him only once, the fact remains that she was indeed rude to him. It might be fanon to say she was routinely rude to him, but you can't say she was never rude to him at all.
Last edited:
Though it was a bit weird that she asked why it mattered how it was pronounced. She wouldn't have asked that if she'd mispronounced Troi or Picard's names.
People mispronounce my name all the time. It doesn't bother me. To me, a name is just a sound people make to get my attention. I don't place any greater significance on it. But I realize I'm an outlier.
Of course, if someone intentionally mispronounces my name to ridicule me I won't like it, but that's not happened to me since I was a child and dealt with bullies. As an adult, I believe mispronunciations of my name can always be attributed to unfamiliarity or difficulty. Unless it's someone I plan to be dealing with again, I usually don't bother correcting them.
The same is true for misspelling my name. Even my closest friends get it wrong. Doesn't bother me in the least.
I have never said she was never rude to him, it was as you imply...
You'd think she shat in his positronics every episode how people carry on.
