Because "flawless[,] or essentially flawless" was exactly what I said, just in different words. The word "or" makes it so. Your allowance of "wiggle-room" reduced what you said to exactly what I said, because it allows the point you were apparently trying to make to be denied; I used an ellipsis to "cut out" that part to demonstrate that. Ironic, isn't it?Why did you cut out the rest of the sentence? I said "flawless, or essentially flawless", so as to cover all the bases. I added the second just to avoid any wiggle-room. Some may see it as flawless, other as having flaws not worth mentioning.
Pretty good review, and the "pantropy" concept is one I hadn't heard before. I liked his description of the auxiliary sickbay having a mezzanine level. I guess when there's no medical emergency it could revert to its original role as the ship's mall. or maybe the bowling alley.I don't know if @Lonemagpie has linked his review here, but it's a good 9ne and includes a reference to pantropy that I appreciated having brought to my attention.
Since this is a TOS-era show, you can exceed 10! But by the time we hit TNG era, the scale will have to be revised downwards or else all salamanders will break loose.Make the scale go to 11, I'll give 11s when I feel like it.
It means I enjoyed the hell out of it and thought it was a real good show.
All this parsing of .5s and points off or on because some visual image irritated my obsessive-compulsive issues is ridiculously self-serious and beyond tedious to me, and I don't participate. If I don't love or hate it, I can't be bothered to vote.
...and doing Dos Equis commercials.Hemmer's backstory is just him being awesome at everything he tries. We will then get a montage of him surfing, mountain climbing, riding a horse and skydiving. He also gets all the ladies and guys.
What I'm saying is that some people may actually see a piece of fiction as actually flawless, despite you saying that it's not possible. So no, we are not saying the same thing. But it's not important, because in the end the larger point is the same: now I know what Serveaux meant by "10".Because "flawless[,] or essentially flawless" was exactly what I said, just in different words. The word "or" makes it so. Your allowance of "wiggle-room" reduced what you said to exactly what I said, because it allows the point you were apparently trying to make to be denied; I used an ellipsis to "cut out" that part to demonstrate that. Ironic, isn't it?
Humans are incapable of absolute artistic perfection. We can only come subjectively close because as flawed, mortal beings with our own shortcomings our creations will reflect that.
Yeah I wonder if that was the intended reference. Sure felt that way.You know, I have to chuckle at the "Kirk tear" Number One does to her tunic.
Yeah I wonder if that was the intended reference. Sure felt that way.
You do that often?Looked like a normal way to rip a shirt.
I'm just happy this show thus far doesn't suck and in fact is 180 degrees the opposite.
Yeah but it's reverse sexism because a lot of times Kirk went topless too when he tore his shirt...You know, I have to chuckle at the "Kirk tear" Number One does to her tunic.
He was once belted by Gamma rays.You do that often?![]()
You do that often?![]()
I got better.He was once belted by Gamma rays.
They'd have to pony up a lot more cash to Rebecca Romijn.Yeah but it's reverse sexism because a lot of times Kirk went topless too when he tore his shirt...![]()
Sometimes it's so bad that it sucks and blows simultaneously, which is not as easy as it sounds.If it's 180 degrees opposite, if it doesn't suck, does that mean it blows?![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.