Thanks for clarifying.
"The Apple" - The TOS Mythbuster Episode!
- Thread starter JonnyQuest037
- Start date
And he rather coldly uses the girls and women in question in order to remove that danger: he courts Lenore K to get to her father, Rayna K to get to her father, Miranda Jones to distract her, etc. When the female guest star is engaged with another character, this becomes more difficult, so understandably Kirk is a bit miffled.
Yup. Then again, killing 429 would not be a problem as such, the only criterion for the method chosen being that there should be no expensive corpses making an onscreen appearance. "They beamed down" is a needlessly complicated way of achieving that IMHO.
Timo Saloniemi
1960s TV filming techniques and budgets notwithstanding, but previous episodes do say "the transporter room" as a definitive article. As far back as "The Enemy Within".
Side note: What piqued your interest to rewatch this episode? (It's not my favorite, but I think its better than its prevailing reputation... even dating better than previously thought in some ways.)
TOS went back and forth on this like a ping pong ball that's high on LSD. One can easily say Kirk and Scotty were using old time 20th century slang as banter. I have to dislike that theory because it's just as asinine as us using 15th/16th century slang. Shakespeare might get offe'th on that, but most wouldn't...
Popping off the warp nacelles would still leave the engineering hull and saucer sections still attached and the impulse drive is atop the neck where the two sections meet. This would be closer to the precursor to ejecting the warp core, but it's still a lovely thought.
Landon gets an awesome action scene too - very atypical for TOS, but refreshing to see. It gives the episode a lot more depth, especially when compared to others of the era that act very different...
Ditto for the luuuuuuuuuuurve fluff where, this time, it's Chekov getting it and with the same level of tact (read: none) as Kirk did. The two actors didn't have enough chemistry, which may be why - the two Vaalians seemed to have more, when they looked upon the humans and mimicked their icky cooties-spreadin' behavior...
What divisions were the three crewmembers in? Security is adorned red, hence the predominant reason for the stereotype. But engineering and communications- division folk are also adorned in red. In a couple cases they're given blue as well, but let's not bring up "The Alternative Factor" as it decided the engine room was just a teensy tiny cupboard that day...
To be fair, adjusting death by percentages does give the red shirt faction a bit of an advantage. If all deaths are human deaths, then it's 100% and percentages become a rather moot point.
Fun side note: Akuta also sold the naivety of how they were going to kill very chillingly well too... if he and his other Vaalians succeeded, the gold and blue shirts would become red shirts too...
Funner side note: The TOS-R edition didn't use CGI to recolor the blue cloudy sky or B&W lightning footage with red to match every other scene involving a visible sky/horizon background that was clearly red...
Well... Four outta five isn't bad.
Yup.
It was on H&I as a part of their #AllStarTrek schedule and I wasn't busy on that particular evening. Of course, a little while back, H&I moved TOS to 1am so that they can air three hours of Walker, Texas Ranger from 6-9pm. That pretty much killed any interest I have on following the #AllStar Trek shows on H&I, as I'm pretty hit & miss in general on TNG these days.
What episodes are you thinking of, in particular? The TOS eps I remember pretty consistently implied that they had a monetary system in place.
Yep, that's what I meant by "emergency conditions." We're agreeing more than we're disagreeing here.Popping off the warp nacelles would still leave the engineering hull and saucer sections still attached and the impulse drive is atop the neck where the two sections meet. This would be closer to the precursor to ejecting the warp core, but it's still a lovely thought.
Yes, it's always nice when they have the female crewmembers get a few licks in.
AFAIK, they don't say for every character, but the implication was that all four of the dead redshirts were security.
I've always taken that to mean that they don't use CASH, not that they don't use money at all. After all, their money is called CREDITS.
Context matters. Here, my comment is a reply to someone who laid the whole "no money" thing at TNG's feet when, instead, the idea is first floated on screen in the fourth movie, well before TNG ever aired.
The footage you've cited in MYTH #1 only serves to confirm that 2 different groups arrived at 2 different times; and nothing more.
How does your citation disprove that Group 1 could in no possible way, be in Transporter Room 1 - arriving first on the time-line - and, that Group 2 was in Transporter Room 2, and was delayed from a perfectly synchronized beaming with the Group in Room 1, because a delay; such as: McCoy having a moments trouble getting his boot on, again?
In fact, the footage you cite more properly supports the objection to your conclusion; rather than support your conclusion.
If I were presenting evidence to bust MYTH #1, I would present each and every single instance and occurrence where Kirk gave other crew members orders to: "meet me in THE Transport Room"; versus, the number of times Kirk gave other crew members orders to: "meet me in Transporter Room # ."; of which not one single case can be presented - that I know of.
In the body of evidence with regard to MYTH #2; I would add the fact that Lt. Uhura negotiated in 'Credits'; and, exchanged "10 Credits" to purchase a Tribble in her transaction with the Trader on space-station K-7.
Last edited:
As you note a couple of paragraphs later, the dozens of references to "the transporter room" throughout the series. I don't recall any time throughout the run of TOS where they said "transporter room one" or anything along those lines. On TNG, sure. On TOS, nope.
So if you believe that Kirk's Enterprise has multiple transporter rooms, the burden of proof is on you here.
TMOST p.192 claims multiples, but that is nowhere reflected in the show.
That is somewhat contradicted by p. 338 which says: "We assume there are various transporter rooms throughout the vessel."
This is a case where everybody has their own Star Trek. You pay your money and you take your choice.
Evidently, you either missed the "?" at the end of the interrogative sentence: "How does your citation disprove .......?"; which due to the presence of the "?", indicated the query is seeking an informative response from you;
or,
You realized after reading reading my above post, which exposed the defective nature of the "evidence" you presented, for what it really is: a non-sequitur to the conclusion you are trying prove through conjecture; and side-stepped the question put to you, and, instead, you returned a question aimed to re-direct me.
My point is not that I believe differently than you that there is is only one Transporter Room.
My point to you is: The footage you are citing as 'evidence' in an attempt to prove there is only one Transporter Room, only shows 2 groups of people arriving in a place at 2 different times; and is only relevant to proving 'who, arrived when, and with whom'. - Nothing else; because that is all it shows.
Therefore,
What you've cited serves the wrong question; and not, the question of the number of Transporter Rooms on the Enterprise.
This would disqualify your citation as irrelevant evidence to the conclusion you are drawing through conjecture.
Examples of relevant evidence you could have presented instead to support your argument, might have included:
a. Kirk's own speeches, and citing each and every one of the multiple instances where he states: "... meet me in THE Transporter Room."; and never: "...meet me in Transporter Room # x .
and,
b. Breaking down Kirk's own spoken words into their parts-of-speech; where the word: 'Meet' is the present tense Verb; 'The', is the Determining Article to the singular-form countable Noun: 'Room'; whereby, Kirk's own specific word usage - presented as relevant evidence - testifies to the Transporter Room Count as: ONE - being: Singular.
I'll send you a bill for my legal counseling fee.
Last edited:
I mean, we had this conversation already about six months ago upthread.
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-apple-the-tos-mythbuster-episode.308312/page-3#post-13808450
The usage of "the transporter room" in TNG on the Ent-D proves that the use of the definite article does not preclude there being multiple transporter rooms. The key passage in the linked to post is:
Evidently what we have is a situation wherein generally there is one transporter room that is designated as the one to be used for transport. The others are not in service, or wouldn't be except in an emergency.
Therefore, the absence of an explicit mention of there being multiple transporter rooms, even the exclusive use of the definite article on TOS, does not necessitate that there be only one transporter room on the TOS Ent, and that's especially so since the Writers Guide said that they intended there to be multiple transporter rooms. That's also cited upthread, and was when we went through all of this the tirst time around. Nailing down numbers for the rooms was never a priority.
This is absolutely correct; and, with the saying traditionally stated: "absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence."; would be the correct way to attempt to take the teeth out of an argument built around that strategy.
However, when presented with - what would you guess, 500+/- ? - iterations of every time someone said: "THE Transporter ROOM." played in quick-cut succession, would make for a very convincing - not definitive, I grant you - argument of an indirect implication that the characters say what they mean, and mean what they say, when they say: Room; singular.
and, on that point - Do these people express themselves accurately in a manner which reflects the facts of their actual understanding of the circumstances of their environment, or not? - is where the attorneys would take it to the mat. This might sound funny to a lay-person that an argument about: "Is it one room or multiple rooms?", could be swayed and settled, one way or the other, based on how convinced a judge or jury would be regarding how accurate or not the crew-members express themselves, by the attorneys.
The fact that we really just don't know the answer, is something we have to live with; so everyone should just find a number that works for them, and go with that. But please, if you must argue one position or the other in the future, and are presenting something as evidentiary to support you position, take the time to be sure it somewhat resembles something which approximates relevancy.
Last edited:
There are at least one transporter room with food dispensers, and at least one transporter room without. It is only logical that there are at least two transporter rooms based on "on-screen" evidence. 
Past discussion: https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-apple-the-tos-mythbuster-episode.308312/page-4#post-13809287
Past discussion: https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-apple-the-tos-mythbuster-episode.308312/page-4#post-13809287
Oh, good lord.Evidently, you either missed the "?" at the end of the interrogative sentence: "How does your citation disprove .......?"; which due to the presence of the "?", indicated the query is seeking an informative response from you;
or,
You realized after reading reading my above post, which exposed the defective nature of the "evidence" you presented, for what it really is: a non-sequitur to the conclusion you are trying prove through conjecture; and side-stepped the question put to you, and, instead, you returned a question aimed to re-direct me.
My point is not that I believe differently than you that there is is only one Transporter Room.
My point to you is: The footage you are citing as 'evidence' in an attempt to prove there is only one Transporter Room, only shows 2 groups of people arriving in a place at 2 different times; and is only relevant to proving 'who, arrived when, and with whom'. - Nothing else; because that is all it shows.
Therefore,
What you've cited serves the wrong question; and not, the question of the number of Transporter Rooms on the Enterprise.
This would disqualify your citation as irrelevant evidence to the conclusion you are drawing through conjecture.
Examples of relevant evidence you could have presented instead to support your argument, might have included:
a. Kirk's own speeches, and citing each and every one of the multiple instances where he states: "... meet me in THE Transporter Room."; and never: "...meet me in Transporter Room # x .
and,
b. Breaking down Kirk's own spoken words into their parts-of-speech; where the word: 'Meet' is the present tense Verb; 'The', is the Determining Article to the singular-form countable Noun: 'Room'; whereby, Kirk's own specific word usage - presented as relevant evidence - testifies to the Transporter Room Count as: ONE - being: Singular.
I'll send you a bill for my legal counseling fee.
Even back in June I wouldn't have been interested in a discussion along these lines. Six months later, I'm doubly uninterested. You'd think the smileys and the humorous thread title would've tipped some people off that I was half joking, but I guess not.
Yeah, TMOST also claims that there are cargo transporters on the ship, which contradicts what we see in the teaser for "Dagger of the Mind," where they're beaming cargo up from Tantalus V.
From an in-universe standpoint, it totally makes sense for the Enterprise to have multiple transporter rooms and a cargo transporter room. But since the show never showed us anything of the kind, it didn't. I'll almost always go with what the show actually shows us over what a reference book tells us.
I've always thought credits are for energy intensive goods and services (transporter credits mentioned in DS9, personal holodecks or replicators any larger than a standard small food replicator, space trips [at least interstellar], etc.). They're the things that would likely need some kind of economic system in a post-scarcity society. Then you have trade between the Federation and other powers and stipends for Starfleet officers for when they're in non-Federation societies (Crusher buying rugs at Farpoint Station, the Starfleet crew on DS9, etc).
I asked for clarification on this exact point as my question to Nichelle Nichols during the panel discussion at the 1975 Star Trek Convention, which was held at the Bellevue Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia.
Yep, 1975; this was a long time ago.
Nichelle wasn't getting any questions from anyone in the audience - not a single question, none - and I began to feel really sorry for her; especially as she was looking a bit hurt.
So, being 10 years old at the time, I decided not to ask 'Scotty' some dumb-kid technical question about the transporter; and instead, I made up a question which was about Uhura to ask of Nichelle, just so she might feel some attention from someone.
Since her character was the one who bought the Tribble from the Trader on Space Station K-7, in my 10 year old mind, she should be the one who know about Credits best; right?
Granted, Nichelle is not Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, nor, the writer of the 'Troubles with Tribbles' story/script, David Gerrold; but, I thought her answer was perfect, nonetheless.
She said: "Think of one Credit as one Dollar; but, it isn't paper money. Star Trek doesn't use paper money; instead, it's just an account of how many credits you have to spend. You tell the person how much you are spending - like 10 Credits for a Tribble - and with their computer, they take that many credits out of your account."
Then, Jimmy Doohan leaned over and whispered something in her ear; and they both cracked-up, to which, Nichelle added laughingly:
"...besides, on Star Trek you wouldn't able to use paper money because there's no pockets in our uniforms!".
Last edited:
Similar threads
