Top Ten Reasons I Hate Enterprise

Discussion in 'Star Trek: Enterprise' started by where'sSaavik?, Aug 29, 2003.

  1. Samuel T. Cogley

    Samuel T. Cogley Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Location:
    Hold still, Jim.


    As is your right.

    And I think "Starry Night" is pretty, but I can't really tell you why.





    Agreed. Let's find the person who originally suggested that the rules said he had to argue any point with me to my satisfaction, and you and I will show that person the error of his ways.
     
  2. Xenoclone

    Xenoclone Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    ^Okay, well, once again Sam flashes his ability to dance around debate and focus on an insult. Look, I seem to recall demanding someone else stop dancing around the topic awhile back. It was you, wasn't it?

    And, sheesh, stop freaking out every time I say you use middle-school debate tricks. It's not an insult to you. It's an insult to your arguments.

    I took NoName's point to be all the shows are flawed, no? And that his "Trek experience" was equally valid to make a point as was the original TOS viewers who bash ENT. I simply elaborated upon that. Had I not I have a feeling you'd been asking why I didn't contribute to the discussion.

    See, Sam, you have the perfect list of responses you use every time there's a debate to dance around arguing.
    _______________________________________
    Stock responses such as:

    *"What's your point?"
    *Harping on an implied insult
    *Taking a quote out of context and asking how it applies to the whole (i.e., can't follow implied logic)
    *"Why haven't you added anything new?"
    *"Why are you off-topic?" (this and the one above can interchange for any argument)
    *"Is that all you got?" (Playground level of debate, if you're so fascinated with what grade each argument theoretically corresponds to.)
    _____________________________________

    Anyway, to follow your style, what's your point? That Noname's post was insufficiently constructed to present his point clearly to you? If so, then how can you tell me that my interpretation of his post is invalid? I was attempting to clarify and expound upon his post for your benefit, since you apparently struggle to follow his argument.

    Lots of words and pretty verbal dancing doesn't make an argument. I honestly found a point to his posts. I'm still scratching my head about yours.
     
  3. Samuel T. Cogley

    Samuel T. Cogley Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Location:
    Hold still, Jim.


    Agreed. Yet I found Noname's post interesting, nonetheless.





    A skill you use equally well with "Enterprise" each week. I am in awe.





    Stop before you get to the skull. ;)
     
  4. Jack Bauer

    Jack Bauer Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 1999
    Location:
    Jack Bauer
    NoName, great post. I agree with just about every word.
     
  5. spocklives

    spocklives Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Location:
    Six's shoulder
    TRUE
     
  6. Vestboy

    Vestboy Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2001
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    It's a time-honored technique, dating back to Socrates.
     
  7. Jonesy

    Jonesy Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    You know, Xenoclone, as a strict lurker to this thread I still feel that I have to comment on one specific point. I don't think that Sam danced around any point, nor did I feel he was trying to focus on insults.

    I feel that you've decided to criticise his posts strictly because his viewpoint differs from yours, not because of the content of his post to Nonamegiven was lacking.
     
  8. Odie

    Odie Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Response to ConnerLass :


    This was the one I threw in for sarcasm. Guess it wasn't as obvious as I originally thought!


    Not just the P'Nar Syndrome, which has never been mentioned again, nor do we see any degenerative affects on her. There were no consequences to Trip and Archer's relationship after Cogenitor. Trip's command style really isn't a point here. The point is that the show ended with a very poignant scene between the two, frought with disappointment, disapproval, shame, ect. Yet next episode they're perfect pals again. There was no punishment for Trip's behavior and no affect on his relationship with the Captain. there was no consequences after SNW, when Archer ignore's T'Pols advice to scan the planet further before setting a shuttle down, almost gets her and the whole landing party killed....and nothing happens. No apology, no admission that he was wrong, no policy changes...its the same thing again we he decides to take a shuttle down to the planet in Minefield just before they hit the mine. They haven't scanned it or done anything new because of the lessons they should have learned in SNW. Did you see any of T'pol's new struggles to deal with her newly remembered memories after the Seventh? Me niether. Archer never seems to draw conclusions and learn lessons. This is unforgivable. It's okay that he's green and that they make mistakes, but we're missing the part where they learn from them and make policy changes or personal changes. Trip's suspicians against t'pol and all other Vulcans are displayed in SNW. It's implied that he will challenge his preconceptions from these horrific events. Hell, he almost killed T'pol in cold blood. They're back again in Breaking the Ice and again in Shockwave II (the bridge scene rant). Does he learn from his mistakes?


    I agree that there has been some character development, expecially with T'Pol. She has changed the most and we know much more about her now than in BB. Yes, there have been some changes, but what have we learned about these people? What are the challenges they struggle with, the life changeing events they've endured, the losses and loves, etc? What makes them tick? We still don't even know WHY T'Pol is even on the Enterprise after two full seasons. Why is Hoshi still such a whiney bitch? Why is Travis so undefined? How come Archer keeps making the same mistakes and keeps getting captured? The development I'm looking for is a fleshing out of these characters so that we feel like we know them and care about what happens to them. The changes we've been shown are largely superfcial and don't go to the heart of the character. Malcolm's growing attachment to Trip is the closet to this that I can see and some of the backstory we've gotten on T'Pol. That's it. I think it is a problem that they better recognize and resolve in S3. a lot of the fans just can't identify with this crew because we don't really know them that well.

    It's all about opinion here, of course. I liked The Seventh because it revealed a lot about T'Pol and the struggles she faces and some of her background was fleshed out a little. But the ratings don't lie. too many of these shows are rehashes of other shows: Dawn/Enemy Mine, Canamar/Con Air, etc. Some are just too sloooow and dull. These should be exciting and scary adventures, full of awe and expectation. Do you sense any of that? Shouldn't we?

    Are you arguing that she "forgot" she elected to try the mind-meld even after advice from the Doc to go slow, even after Tolaris explains the intimate nature of the meld, even after he offers a guided meditation in lieu of the meld? that's a lot of forgetting for such a bright gal. I think that they could have written a story in Stigma about the consequences of unwise choices (too many people are still having unprotected sex, this is topical). Instead they needed to portray T'pol as a victim (just like the aids victims that received their death sentences from transfusions or tainted blood were pitied, while aids from gay sex was considered a God given punishment, somehow deserved). So they concocted the forced meld. Remember the scene in Fusion when Archer confronts Tolaris? Tolaris pratically screams that no one forced T'pol to try the mind meld. It was her choice. So did Archer forget this, too, in Stigma? Did the doctor forget what T'Pol told him had happened? We know she did, because Archer mentions it to Tolaris. So everyone forgot the one thing that would make T'pol even slightly responsible for the risk she willingly took. She's a rebel. There should be consequences when unwise choices are made. There are in real life, so wwhy not here?

    [

    Here we can agree to disagree. I saw loads of chemistry. I also saw the symbolism of these two people representing a growing mutual trust and respect between their peoples that will be needed for the BOTF. To me Archer/T'Pol are Human/Vulcan. They start off so criticala nd suspicious of each other and are growing over time to trust and respect each other. I don't want T'pol boinking anyone on this ship. But as a closer, at the end of seaason seven, I'd love to see A/T'P end up discovering a need for each other that mirrors the need the humans and Vulcans will have for each other in the future. We'll see. this could still go my way. ;)


    PS. I love a good debate and, while I expect we will find much we do agree on in future threads, this has been fun. you are quite the wit and i enjoy your posts.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Accepting the mantle. Continuing the adventure. Star Trek:Enterprise




    [/QUOTE]
     
  9. Pavlova

    Pavlova Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2001
    Against my better judgment: good, interesting, entertaining and disaster :eek: are wholly subjective concepts. You state your opinions as if they are accepted fact or, more to the point, law handed down to the patriarch, Cogley, on the Mount. Easy to do when your venue is this crowd who hate ANiS either becasuse their manhood won't abide a Captain who can show concern and deep affection for his damn dog, or because they were thrown into spasms of panic because they thought the ep might portend a romantic relationship between Archer and T'Pol.

    The fact of the matter is this episode DID work on many levels. Their were scenes bright with whimsy, and exceptional physical comedy. Their were moments that held poignancy and introspection and, in the end, great character growth for the Captain, who came to understand that acceptance of cultures - especially ones that are prickly and that he doesn't particularly like - is sina qua non for an explorer and ambassador to alien societies.

    The episode not only received a Hugo nomination but was a favorite among more casual, less professionally Trek viewers. No matter how many times you blazon your negative opinions about ANiS, those facts remain.



    Have a nice day! :)
     
  10. Samuel T. Cogley

    Samuel T. Cogley Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Location:
    Hold still, Jim.



    You state your opinions as if they are accepted fact or, more to the point, law handed down to the [m]atriarch, [Pavlova], on the Mount. Easy to do when your venue is this crowd who [loves] ANiS either becasuse their [wo]manhood [will] abide a Captain who can show concern and deep affection for his damn dog, or because they were thrown into spasms of [ecstasy] because they thought the ep might portend a romantic relationship between Archer and T'Pol.
     
  11. Pavlova

    Pavlova Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2001
    Despite your attempt to trivialize my reasoning, Sam, you're wrong. I'm not on the edge of my seat watching for any little intimation that Archer and T'Pol are going to hook up. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't particularly like to see that happen.

    Now if we're talking about giving Archer a passionate, adult relationship with a female of whatever species... then you got me. 'Cause if the writers don't make that happen PDQ, I'm going to be one very tee'd off camper!

    Oh and btw, thanks a lot for having the respect to argue on the merits of the case, rather than resorting to the sarcasm for which you are so reknowned. ;)
     
  12. Xenoclone

    Xenoclone Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Well, I disagree with that... but that much is given. :lol:
     
  13. Samuel T. Cogley

    Samuel T. Cogley Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Location:
    Hold still, Jim.


    Nor would I. I couldn't care less who gets together with who on "Enterprise." I have never cared about that. Yet you tell me above that one of my problems with "A Night in Sickbay" was that I was part of a group that "[was] thrown into spasms of panic because they thought the ep might portend a romantic relationship between Archer and T'Pol." You've got me confused with somebody else.

    You then allege that I'm one of the people whose "manhood won't abide a Captain who can show concern and deep affection for his damn dog." Again, you are wrong.

    I am a man. I have a dog. I love my dog and would do anything for her. I would consider Archer a bastard if he didn't "show concern and deep affection" for Porthos.

    However, as captain of this ship, his primary duties are to his crew and to Starfleet. He placed his concern for the dog (and, really, what he did was place his stubborn and misplaced pride above even the concern for his dog) above both the concern for his crew and Starfleet. This is unacceptable.

    If he wants to put snuggling with his dog as priority number one, send him back to Earth so someone capable can be the captain.



    I don't give a shit about the romantic relationships. Star Trek never does them well. Do it, or don't do it. I don't care. My problems with "Enterprise" are elsewhere.

    By the way, the writers aren't going to make that happen PDQ, so you might want to let that go.

    And why does his love interest have to be female? She can be "whatever species" but she still has to be female? Interesting. ;)





    Don't talk to me about respect. You came charging at me with both condescending guns blaring. You denounced my words as opinions (which they obviously were) and then tried to refute them with nothing but your own opinions (which you called facts). My reply to you was meant to be nothing more than the obvious comment that your opinion carries just as much weight as mine. If you want to call that sarcasm, then so be it. Besides, if you think I'm so "reknowned" for sarcasm, than you should have expected it. ;)

    Because I'm one of the so-called "bashers" around here, I often get called upon to defend some kind of collective basher argument that the "gushers" have formulated.

    I have very specific problems with "Enterprise," but my issues are very different than the issues that others have with the show.

    Now, I don't expect you to follow me around and memorize which arguments are mine, and which belong to others. But on that same point, I'm not going to defend every other "basher" argument that someone mistakenly attributes to me. I would be here all day. Besides, how can I argue someone else's opinion for them? (Unless they are paying me to, of course. ;) )

    I'll argue my own beefs with the show, but not other people's. I can't help it if people want to attribute to me a bunch of things that I never said or cared about. That's not my problem. The only times I'll sidestep an argument is when someone falsely describes my position and then expects me to defend it anyway (which you did), or when someone tries to distract discussion away from the actual argument with theatrics that have nothing to do with it (as Xenoclone attempts to do above).

    Was that sarcastic enough for ya? :p
     
  14. Xenoclone

    Xenoclone Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Oh, the irony... :rolleyes:
     
  15. Samuel T. Cogley

    Samuel T. Cogley Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Location:
    Hold still, Jim.


    Jonesy's a lawyer... Don't trust him! ;)
     
  16. Samuel T. Cogley

    Samuel T. Cogley Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Location:
    Hold still, Jim.


    See what I mean? :lol:
     
  17. Jonesy

    Jonesy Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    LOL :lol:

    Naw, not a lawyer - but I do sound like one in that post, eh?

    Too polite.. :)
     
  18. Jonesy

    Jonesy Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Of course you do! :)

    But I still think that's the core reason why you dismissed/ricdicule Sam's post. :)
     
  19. Samuel T. Cogley

    Samuel T. Cogley Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Location:
    Hold still, Jim.


    Sorry, Jonesy. I could have sworn that you said you were an attorney at one point.

    (Which we all know is solid proof on the internet, right? ;) )

    EDIT: I must have been thinking of Joisey! My mistake! Never mind. :o ;)
     
  20. Jonesy

    Jonesy Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    S'o.k. I didn't know that there was someone else on ths bbs with a "name" so similar to my own. :)