TheGodBen Revisits Enterprise

[SRFX]

TheGodBen and startrekwatcher pretty much sum up perfectly how I feel about this episode. I liked it the first time I watched, and it still like it today. It's fun, exciting and I like the idea that the writers weren't afraid to focus on the arctic team for a whole act - it gave the ST universe a sense that important things happen outside of the Enterprise's purview sometimes.

As far as canon, violations - they are few, when you really get down to it and what this episode does right far outweighs what it does wrong. Enterprise as a series was built on the back on concepts established in First Contact, so I am happy for them to continue drawing out stories from the film.

As disappointing as season 2 of ENT was, the final few episodes are really quite good - and I think it was around this point that the series solidified itself in my love of it. I loved the series when it started, but I could begin to see cracks forming and by season 2, I had concerns they could do a Voyager on us (although the concept and characters of ENT were always there to keep it going, two aspects of VOY which always pushed me away from it).

 

[apenpaap]

It's not a strawman argument, it's about cultural and moral relativism and how other species across the galaxy are going to see things differently from us. Humans in the Star Trek galaxy aren't special and they don't have a gods-given right to tell other aliens how to live their lives, and in return other aliens don't tell humans how to live our lives. Enslaving cogenitors is morally reprehensible from my point of view, but just because I think that doesn't mean I have the right to try to force huge societal changes upon another culture.

Except that the two things aren't comparable. You can keep saying it is, but they aren't anymore than me saying that Jolene Blalock is sitting in my lap will make her suddenly appear there. All it does is illustrate how weak the Vissian's position is, because it's literally comparing a sentient, intelligent member of their own species to a lower life form that is definitely in the shallow end of the intelligence pool. You're going to compare a person who can learn to read from scratch in less than a day to an animal that sometimes manages to drown itself in the rain? Really?

But that's just what the point is. From our point of view, eating chickens is okay, while from the Vissians's point of view enslaving the cogenitors is okay. Personally, I find eating chickens a lot more moral then enslaving people, but the Vissians don't agree. From their point of view, humanity is the evil one for killing and eating innocent chickens (and let's be fair to chickens: chickens ARE decent people). Who are we to tell the Vissians to change simply because we don't agree with them, even if what they're doing is horribly wrong from our point of view?

And please excuse any silly things I may have said in the post above, I'm a little tipsy atm.

 

[Disillusioned]

But that's just what the point is. From our point of view, eating chickens is okay, while from the Vissians's point of view enslaving the cogenitors is okay.

Again, you're talking about two different things. I'm talking about the enslavement of sentient beings and you're trying to shoe-horn in a comparison to eating an animal this is not only a natural part of our diet but also makes animals like dogs look like the Albert Einstein of the animal world.

Who are we to tell the Vissians to change simply because we don't agree with them, even if what they're doing is horribly wrong from our point of view?

We're moral and upstanding people, that's who. they are wrong, not matter what pathetic reasoning they give or convoluted comparison they come up with. They tried to argue that cogenitors are less intelligent than them and Trip proved them wrong. That doesn't even have any kind of moral aspect to it; Trip empirically proved that cogenitors are every bit as intelligent and capable of learning as the other two Vissian genders.

And please excuse any silly things I may have said in the post above, I'm a little tipsy atm.

Oh, I'll play along by pretending it's the Vissians making the argument and how I'd respond to them.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Trip decided, on his own, that the cogenitor should be enlightened -- despite cautions from Phlox and T'Pol (and even the cogenitor itself) that he didn't understand, that he was applying human morals and standards to an alien society, that he shouldn't interfere. If Trip hadn't acted, the cogenitor would not have killed itself. That seems to be what Trip is realizing in that last scene when he says he's responsible. His actions led to the cogenitor not being able to live with its newfound enlightenment.

Moral relativity vs moral absolutism - that's what Archer and Trip represented in the episode.

Different species/cultures will, inevitably, have different morals. If these cultures want to have substantial contact between themselves, certain moral "compromises" will have to be made, a certain "moral relativity" will have to be accepted by them both.

The question becomes - how far are you willing to go? What moral values will you compromise in the name of a beneficial relationship with another culture?

Are you going to accept Theft? Rape? Slavery? Murder?
Are you going to accept those things only when the menbers of this other culture are practicing them among themselves? Or you'll accept them even when your people are being victimized by these aliens?
How far are you willing to go with this "moral relativity"? With betraying your morals?

Archer was obviously more than willing to accept slavery - and some posters seem to agree with him.
Trip was not willing to make this moral compromise - and I, along with other posters, share his opinion. This moral sacrifice lies far beyond what one should be willing to give up for the "friendship" of these aliens.

 

[TheGodBen]

Except that the two things aren't comparable. You can keep saying it is, but they aren't anymore than me saying that Jolene Blalock is sitting in my lap will make her suddenly appear there. All it does is illustrate how weak the Vissian's position is, because it's literally comparing a sentient, intelligent member of their own species to a lower life form that is definitely in the shallow end of the intelligence pool. You're going to compare a person who can learn to read from scratch in less than a day to an animal that sometimes manages to drown itself in the rain? Really?

"Lower" lifeforms? Who says they are lower? That's a concept which you believe because you were raised to believe that humanity is somehow more important than the other animals on this planet. I don't believe that there is such a thing as "lower" lifeforms, there's just different kinds of lifeforms with each having their own niche, ours being intelligence. But why is intelligence the measurement system by which we judge species, why not judge them by height, or weight, or sound?

Humans decided that intelligence was the most important factor in determining a species' importance and, conveniently, that put us at the top of the ladder. If you asked a giraffe how they determine importance they'd probably choose height. So, if an alien species were to espouse the same viewpoint that I hold they could well believe that we are a reprehensible, amoral species and interfere in order to stop us from eating living beings.

And yes, I do eat meat, joyfully, but I am comfortable with the fact that I'm a hypocrite.

Yeah, it's that whole lack of sympathy for people who enslave others so they can basically rape them.

Well okay, but I'm of the opinion that genocide is a bad thing no matter what race it happens to. Except the Belgians.

Are you somehow suggesting no cogenitors would be willing to go in and donate whatever genetic material is needed the way men go in every day to jack off into a cup? They do pay men to do that, you know, even though I'm sure there are a few guys who would be willing to do it for beer and porn.

Some guys would, but not enough to maintain our species. I wouldn't do it, I'd prefer to have a family and try to raise and teach my offspring with the information which I think will be important to them, I don't want to rub one out into a cup and spend what little cash they gave me on lottery tickets. Besides, what if 20 years later I saw a woman who I found strangely attractive...

And even if all the cogenitors agreed to donate their essence in order to maintain the species, it still doesn't change that fact that Trip didn't bother to think about the consequences of his actions before he took them.

Does it really matter? Even if the apparent lack of cogenitors was completely biological does it really justify them treating the people they need to keep their species going like crap? if anything shouldn't cogenitors have been treated extra well because of their importance? Given how the Vissians seem to think of cogenitors, I honestly get the impression the reason there are so few of them is because couples abort them before they can be born or commit infanticide, sort of the way the Chinese do when they find out they're having a girl instead of a boy because they are restricted to one child and already have misogynistic tendencies ingrained in their society.

There's no reason to believe any of that, and FJ Rio's character makes it quite clear that the low number of cogenitors in the population is a natural occurrence. And remember, I'm not trying to support the oppression of the cogenitors, all I'm saying is that Trip, who knew very little about Vissian society, had no right to interfere with it.

No, it's just that everyone seems all interested in trade with the Vissians and come off as being angry that Trip exposed this aspect of their society. To me the only justifiable reason for Archer to not grant Charles asylum would be if he was risking war with the Vissians by doing so. I could even understand Archer being pissed about Trip sneaking around the way he did, but that isn't what Archer chewed him out about. Instead Archer became a hypocrite by chewing him out for "interfering."

That's not the way that I saw the episode, as I said, I clearly had the impression that Archer was uncomfortable with the Vissian captain after arriving back, the whole situation was weighing heavily on his mind.

The question becomes - how far are you willing to go? What moral values will he compromise in the name of a beneficial relationship with another culture?

Are you going to accept Theft? Rape? Slavery? Murder?
Are you going to accept those things only when the menbers of this other culture are practicing them among themselves? Or you'll accept them even when your people are being victimized by these aliens?
How far are you willing to go with this "moral relativity"? With betraying your morals?

Archer was obviously more than willing to accept slavery - and some posters seem to agree with him.
Trip was not willing to make this moral compromise - and I, along with other posters, share his opinion. This moral sacrifice lies far beyond what one should be willing to give up for the "friendship" of these aliens.

Okay, but you're going to have to do away with the Khitomer accords because the Klingons are pretty brutal. The UFP will have to stop all peace attempts with the Romulans because they enslave other races. Cardassians too. Both the Vulcans and Betazeds have a system of forced marriage, so they should probably be kicked out of the UFP... Humans aren't going to have many friends if we expect every race to conform to our values. Hell, we don't even have a common set of values, as evidenced by this thread.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

I don't think what Trip did was wrong. Arguably it was right in a way, but it was not sensible because he did not know enough to be able to foresee the consequences. I see the episode as a cautionary tale rather than an attempt to have the last word on our relations with other cultures.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Moral relativity vs moral absolutism - that's what Archer and Trip represented in the episode.

Different species/cultures will, inevitably, have different morals. If these cultures want to have substantial contact between themselves, certain moral "compromises" will have to be made, a certain "moral relativity" will have to be accepted by them both.

The question becomes - how far are you willing to go? What moral values will he compromise in the name of a beneficial relationship with another culture?

Are you going to accept Theft? Rape? Slavery? Murder?
Are you going to accept those things only when the menbers of this other culture are practicing them among themselves? Or you'll accept them even when your people are being victimized by these aliens?
How far are you willing to go with this "moral relativity"? With betraying your morals?

Archer was obviously more than willing to accept slavery - and some posters seem to agree with him.
Trip was not willing to make this moral compromise - and I, along with other posters, share his opinion. This moral sacrifice lies far beyond what one should be willing to give up for the "friendship" of these aliens.

Okay, but you're going to have to do away with the Khitomer accords because the Klingons are pretty brutal. The UFP will have to stop all peace attempts with the Romulans because they enslave other races. Cardassians too. Both the Vulcans and Betazeds have a system of forced marriage, so they should probably be kicked out of the UFP... Humans aren't going to have many friends if we expect every race to conform to our values. Hell, we don't even have a common set of values, as evidenced by this thread.

I can't help but noticing that you're only offering trekverse/fictional examples, without countering my argument in any meaningful way.
Can you give real-life examples that share similarities with "Congenitor" and you think are "morally correct"?

Still, these fictional examples are much easier to rationalize as ~moral than what happened in "Congenitor".

About the klingons - yes, the Federation accepted a very large moral compromise when it became allied with these brutal conquerors. But consider the alternative - total war, billions of dead.
The Federation chose the lesser evil at Khitomer and, since then, tried to change the klingon's murderous ways from within (this was most likely beleived to be the best way of effecting change) - with limited success.
And make no mistake - this "lesser evil" is by no means insignificant.

In "Congenitor", Archer accepted slavery and rape for some technological trinkets, for a hypocritical "friendship".

About the romulans - what peace process? The romulans and the humans have been cold warriors for centuries!

Cardassians - canon trek ended with 800 million dead cardassians, the result of the war they started with the rest of the Alpha Quadrant.

Vulcan and Betazed - forced marriage.
Did Deanna or Spock married against their will? Vulcan and Betazed have a system of arranged marriages - which is VASTLY different.


In the end, it comes down to this:
Archer/You? are willing to accept slavery and rape in people you trade with, for profit - and your justification is "[I have] no right to interfere with it".
I am not willing to accept such things and flush my moral values down the toilet for a so-called "friendship".

 

[TheGodBen]

I can't help but noticing that you're only offering trekverse/fictional examples, without countering my argument in any meaningful way.
Can you give real-life examples that share similarities with "Congenitor" and you think are "morally correct"?

I never said the treatment of the cogenitors was morally correct, I said that Trip didn't have the right to interfere with a situation he didn't understand. I read a story in the news the other day that an extremist Islamic faction in Somalia stoned a man to death for adultery, and they are going to stone his girlfriend once she gives birth to their child. I think that's a horrific story but I know very little about Somalia; I once saw a documentary detailing the real events that were portrayed in Black Hawk Down, so all I can do is offer an ill-informed critique of the situation there. I'm not going to try and interfere with the situation there because I'm clueless as to what people are like there and I have no way of knowing what sort of consequences my actions could have.

About the klingons - yes, the Federation accepted a very large moral compromise when it became allied with these brutal conquerors. But consider the alternative - total war, billions of dead.
The Federation chose the lesser evil at Khitomer and, since then, tried to change the klingon's murderous ways from within (this was most likely beleived to be the best way of effecting change) - with limited success.
And make no mistake - this "lesser evil" is by no means insignificant.

So it is okay to ally with a brutal foe if it stops the deaths of humans and other UFP species? Why can't Earth try to create good relations with the Vissians and then try to convince them to change their ways later, once they have a better handle on the situation?

In "Congenitor", Archer accepted slavery for some technological trinkets, for a hypocritical "friendship".

What technological trinkets? There is no evidence that they traded anything with the Vissians once the situation regarding the cogenitors came to light, all there is is the magical appearance of photonic torpedoes in The Expanse, which could just as easily come from the Andorans, or another species, or a secret experimental technology Starfleet was working on for years.

About the romulans - what peace process? The romulans and the humans have been cold warriors for centuries!

Ignoring the alliance between the UFP and Romulans during the Dominion War, the UFP has wanted peaceful relations with the Romulans throughout TNG, it has been the Romulans who didn't want to normalise relations.

Cardassians - canon trek ended with 800 million dead cardassians, the result of the war they started with the rest of the Alpha Quadrant.

And before that the UFP signed a treaty with them and handed over star systems and industrial replicators.

Vulcan and Betazed - forced marriage.
Did Deanna or Spock married against their will? Vulcan and Betazed have a system of arranged marriages - which is VASTLY different.

Spock didn't get married because his fiancée wanted someone else and was content to see Spock die instead, which is a barbaric ritual. Deanna only got out of her arranged marriage because her fiancée infected himself with a disease and he couldn't come back.

Forced marriage is still a morally bankrupt concept for an institution supposedly based around love, but the UFP doesn't have a problem with it.

In the end, it comes down to this:
Archer/You? are willing to accept slavery and rape in people you trade with, for profit - and your justification is "[I have] no right to interfere with it".
I am not willing to accept such things and flush my moral values down the toilet for a so-called "friendship".

That's your decision. I'm saying I don't have a right to interfere with a system I don't understand.

 

[Disillusioned]

Moral relativity vs moral absolutism - that's what Archer and Trip represented in the episode.

Different species/cultures will, inevitably, have different morals. If these cultures want to have substantial contact between themselves, certain moral "compromises" will have to be made, a certain "moral relativity" will have to be accepted by them both.

The question becomes - how far are you willing to go? What moral values will you compromise in the name of a beneficial relationship with another culture?

Are you going to accept Theft? Rape? Slavery? Murder?
Are you going to accept those things only when the menbers of this other culture are practicing them among themselves? Or you'll accept them even when your people are being victimized by these aliens?
How far are you willing to go with this "moral relativity"? With betraying your morals?

Archer was obviously more than willing to accept slavery - and some posters seem to agree with him.
Trip was not willing to make this moral compromise - and I, along with other posters, share his opinion. This moral sacrifice lies far beyond what one should be willing to give up for the "friendship" of these aliens.

I think you've pretty much nailed the argument on the head.

"Lower" lifeforms? Who says they are lower? That's a concept which you believe because you were raised to believe that humanity is somehow more important than the other animals on this planet.

I've not only been raised that way, I grew up in a rural environment and was able to be around these various animals myself. I still have plenty of experience with them. I can say with certainty that the domestic livestock we raise for our food supply are lower life forms because they lack intelligence and give no indication of operating above anything higher than instinct, e.g. they are not sentient. If someone wants to argue it's wrong to kill any animal in order to survive then that would be a different argument and I would use the same argument I use against the more fanatic vegetarians. Basically that argument is to remind them that they are killing live plants, and probably even eating them alive. If they try to say that animals and plants can't be compared, I'd point out that they just compared animals to humans so by that logic it would be entirely fair to compare plants to animals. So basically if they have a problem killing an animal or a plant to survive, then they should just starve themselves because the worms would be more than happy to eat what's left of them.

I don't believe that there is such a thing as "lower" lifeforms, there's just different kinds of lifeforms with each having their own niche, ours being intelligence. But why is intelligence the measurement system by which we judge species, why not judge them by height, or weight, or sound?

Because intelligence and awareness of our surroundings is what separates us. It's why animals like dolphins and the apes aren't considered as low as say a chicken or a cow. I even tend to balk at the idea of using dolphins or apes as food, even if someone like Ted Nugent wouldn't.

Humans decided that intelligence was the most important factor in determining a species' importance and, conveniently, that put us at the top of the ladder. If you asked a giraffe how they determine importance they'd probably choose height. So, if an alien species were to espouse the same viewpoint that I hold they could well believe that we are a reprehensible, amoral species and interfere in order to stop us from eating living beings.

By that logic wouldn't they only care about animals that are taller than us. Of course we're talking about giraffes here, and I've seen a giraffe try to have sex with a Zebra at a zoo once. Yeah, I hope that mental image sticks with you for a while.

Well okay, but I'm of the opinion that genocide is a bad thing no matter what race it happens to.

I see a difference between actively killing a species and their end coming about from their own short-sightedness, as in they shouldn't have enslaved the cogenetors and if by freeing them the Vissians go extinct, I'd just shrug and say that karma was a bitch.

Except the Belgians.

What about the Dutch? They're just so damn evil.

Some guys would, but not enough to maintain our species. I wouldn't do it, I'd prefer to have a family and try to raise and teach my offspring with the information which I think will be important to them, I don't want to rub one out into a cup and spend what little cash they gave me on lottery tickets. Besides, what if 20 years later I saw a woman who I found strangely attractive...

And even if all the cogenitors agreed to donate their essence in order to maintain the species, it still doesn't change that fact that Trip didn't bother to think about the consequences of his actions before he took them.

Let's see here, we're talking about a way to let the Vissians to survive without enslaving the cogenetors and otherwise treating them like crap, right? So who's to say that with the survival of their species and civilization that the majority of the cogenitors wouldn't donate their genetic material in order to save themselves? Doesn't that make a lot more sense then deciding since the cogenitors are in the minority that they must be sub-human ... erm, sub-Vissian, and that they should be enslaved, passed around and raped?

There's no reason to believe any of that, and FJ Rio's character makes it quite clear that the low number of cogenitors in the population is a natural occurrence.

And we only have his word on that. I think that it could be argued this is a case of, "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" We saw how Charles was treated and regarded, we have testimony from Charles, as well as the evidence Trip collected.

And remember, I'm not trying to support the oppression of the cogenitors, all I'm saying is that Trip, who knew very little about Vissian society, had no right to interfere with it.

And I'm basically saying added information wouldn't have added much and that he was right to interfere given the situation.

That's not the way that I saw the episode, as I said, I clearly had the impression that Archer was uncomfortable with the Vissian captain after arriving back, the whole situation was weighing heavily on his mind.

I could tell that was there, but at the same time so was the impression that Archer was way more upset that this issue came up at all and put the kabosh on what up until then had been a blossoming friendship with the Vissians. Yeah, that's kind of disappointing, but considering what it was, you'd think he'd be way more angry with the Vissians than he was at Trip for doing the right thing.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The sad thing is, back in the day, all the focus was on continuity crap and very little was on moral dilemmas (with the exception of Dear Doctor because that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way). People were generally positive about Cogenitor, but "the Borg episode" had all the focus. I think I've linked to the Sussman/Cogley thread before, but that pretty much sums things up and shows that he thankfully put a lot of thought into the continuity issues (and has a very early post by me, go figure).

This season, there was a decent amount of hype about upcoming episodes. The return of the Tholians (in an episode that was originally called "Crash Landing" and then changed, I think because of Columbia), the return of the Borg, a Tellarite cameo, and the starting of the hype about how they knew Season 3 had to be different. But the last two are still to come.

The next two episodes, btw, were originally aired on the same night. I can't remember a single commercial that emphasized the first episode at all (or an entire storyline of the second episode).

 

[Disillusioned]

Having been through the Sussman post, I could probably make a pretty good argument against pretty much everything he said.

 

[bluedana]

I don't think what Trip did was wrong. Arguably it was right in a way, but it was not sensible because he did not know enough to be able to foresee the consequences. I see the episode as a cautionary tale rather than an attempt to have the last word on our relations with other cultures.

I think this is the essence right here. Trip was arguably right, but went about it in a way that undermined his good intentions.

I can't help but noticing that you're only offering trekverse/fictional examples, without countering my argument in any meaningful way.
Can you give real-life examples that share similarities with "Congenitor" and you think are "morally correct"?

Sure. Woman comes to the US on a student visa. She overstays her visa and makes a petition to INS not to be returned to her home country. Her reasons include that she will not be able to make her living doing what she's been studying, that she will be expected, perhaps even forced, to marry and bear children (when that is not what she wants to do), that she will be treated as a second-class citizen and not have any of the social rights as her male counterpart. She argues that her country does not recognize her social and human rights the way the US and that she should be allowed to stay. INS, the Immigration Judge, and the relevant court of appeals all deny the petition for asylum. Bottom line reason given: that a country is entitled to impose its standards and culture on its citizens, and the US government was not going to step in unless a higher standard is met. That's one of many, many scenarios decided every day across the country. It's not limited to the Trek-verse.

What I find interesting is that people assume that the cogenitor's contribution is necessarily sexual; that it involves rape; and that the cogenitor was mistreated similarly to the way we understand slavery in American history. None of those things has any basis in the episode itself.

 

[frenchman]

For me, the both point of view ( Trip's and Vissian's) were good. In a way, Trip represented the human point of view, like Bluedana said : sexual slave and rape (and you're right IMO), but for the vissian, that was cultural. Their whole civilization was based on that. The mistake of Trip was to say to vissian that the human point of view was the best. It's a little bit risky for a comparaison but it's like G.W.Bush who said "we will bring democracy in Iraq" and we all see the result. We can't decide for other what is good or not, especially if we think that our way of life is the best.

PS : I hope it's clear...

 

[SRFX]

I don't think what Trip did was wrong. Arguably it was right in a way, but it was not sensible because he did not know enough to be able to foresee the consequences. I see the episode as a cautionary tale rather than an attempt to have the last word on our relations with other cultures.

I think this is the essence right here. Trip was arguably right, but went about it in a way that undermined his good intentions.

This is basically how I view the episode. Trip should've taken the issue to Archer, and presented their viewpoint diplomatically.

Establishing a friendly and honest relationship with the Vissians would've been far more in the best interests of the cogenitors rather than what ended up happening.

Sure it might have taken time, and the cogenitor present in this episode may not have experienced the benefits of such a relationship, but given that the Federation was a looming galactic presence in the future would've meant that the Vissians would've likely changed their ways, to the benefit of all cogenitors for the future.

I think if Trip had gone to Archer openly and honestly about a situation he felt was violating their ethics and morality, and impuning the rights of an individual, Archer would've had NO hesitation approaching the Vissians about it and attempt to make some sort of impression. He's just that kind of guy.

Perhaps some sort of Gazelle analogy may have cropped up too.

 

[Glacial]

I LIKE TURTLES

(this thread needs more levity)

+1 on Regeneration, Ben. I excused the Borg getting whooped on by 22nd century technology by positing that what they had there was a tiny, brand-new hivemind -- if you see Borg drones as basically, well, drones, and the knowledge and collective intelligence of the Borg sort happening between them, like distributed storage and processing on the Internet, that baby collective would have no access to or memory of what Borg knew in the 24th century.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Regeneration: I loved it's similarity to The Thing!

 

[Voyagerian]

Archer and the gang did get a lucky break there. I liked the ep, and don't overly sweat the canon, though, Starfleet would've had it all well on record by the time Jean-Luc got his first glimpse of a Borg-and Data could've had any of that stored in that wonderful brain, certainly, a later review may have turned up that incident, but, eh....still works for me.Direct-connecting to FC was a cool concept. John Billingsley got to have his wife around, too, huh...if never working with her directly.Bonita was Borgified...

 

[Skywalker]

Honestly, whatever information United Earth (and later the Federation) kept regarding the Borg incident was probably so deeply classified that it still would have been difficult to know anything about by the 2360s.

My issue with the end of "Regeneration" was the line about how it would take two hundred years for the signal to reach whoever it had been sent to. We didn't need to know that; it would have been better if they could only tell that a signal had been sent in the direction of the Delta Quadrant, with no timeframe. That way Starfleet would prepare for a potential incursion, but as time goes by and nothing happens, they forget about the incident and turn their attention towards more pressing matters (i.e. the Romulans).

 

[Glacial]

My issue with the end of "Regeneration" was the line about how it would take two hundred years for the signal to reach whoever it had been sent to. We didn't need to know that; it would have been better if they could only tell that a signal had been sent in the direction of the Delta Quadrant, with no timeframe. That way Starfleet would prepare for a potential incursion, but as time goes by and nothing happens, they forget about the incident and turn their attention towards more pressing matters (i.e. the Romulans).

Well, a signal to the Delta Quadrant would've taken a hundred years or so to get there anyway, right?

 

[Voyagerian]

Interesting points made about the secrecy issue, etc, Skywalker; as for that line, for me, it was a nice little chilling 'warning' -er, reminder, about what was coming on the horizon...