^^You'd love to see bleeped swearing in Trek Lit?
"Captain, the bleeping engines canna bleeping take any more of this bleep!"
"Captain, the bleeping engines canna bleeping take any more of this bleep!"
Agreed. I used to love MI-5 (Spook's US) when I used to watch it on A&E here in the states, that is until I learned it was edited. I'm so glad PBS is showing the show with all of it intact, except for bleeped swearing. I'd love to see something along those lines in Trek Lit.
And swearing? It's been a while since I've actually watched any Spooks, but I don't recall much swearing in it and non you wouldn't hear in everyday conversation.
^^You'd love to see bleeped swearing in Trek Lit?
"Captain, the bleeping engines canna bleeping take any more of this bleep!"
When I watched it on DVD there were a few uses of the f-word and shit, both of which had to be cut on US baisic cable.Agreed. I used to love MI-5 (Spook's US) when I used to watch it on A&E here in the states, that is until I learned it was edited. I'm so glad PBS is showing the show with all of it intact, except for bleeped swearing. I'd love to see something along those lines in Trek Lit.
Yeah they had to do that as it's a full 60 minutes when shown on the Beeb but when it's shown in other territories they had to edit it down because of pesky adverts! lol
And swearing? It's been a while since I've actually watched any Spooks, but I don't recall much swearing in it and non you wouldn't hear in everyday conversation.
When I watched it on DVD there were a few uses of the f-word and shit, both of which had to be cut on US baisic cable.
I get the feeling that the Typhon Pact series might serve as the launching pad for an Aventine book series....
To be honest, the Federation are somewhat insidious, annexing territories through a shared system of values. They also take the moral high ground when they really shouldn't and I do think that the Prime Directive has been honoured in breach as much as in being upheld. The Cardassians, Klingons, Romulans and Dominion have all attacked, as have most of the other members of the Typhon Pact. Looking at the Star Charts, and extrapolating up and down the z axis of the galactic plane, you can see that the other major powers are essentially hemmed in by the Federation.
Look at Romulan space. The Klingons were "asked" to cease annexation of new territory but they too appear to be encircled. I hope that the Typhon Pact meta-arc will allow the Federation to repair the damage done to its own worlds and allies and continue to explore the galaxy, and possibly withdraw from its outer territories that have no member worlds but are still claimed by them. I think they should only claim territory where member worlds or colonies exist.
There should also be an interstellar agreement regarding the non-interference with non-warp-capable species that all interstellar powers should abide by.
To be honest, the Federation are somewhat insidious, annexing territories through a shared system of values. They also take the moral high ground when they really shouldn't and I do think that the Prime Directive has been honoured in breach as much as in being upheld. The Cardassians, Klingons, Romulans and Dominion have all attacked, as have most of the other members of the Typhon Pact. Looking at the Star Charts, and extrapolating up and down the z axis of the galactic plane, you can see that the other major powers are essentially hemmed in by the Federation.
Look at Romulan space. The Klingons were "asked" to cease annexation of new territory but they too appear to be encircled. I hope that the Typhon Pact meta-arc will allow the Federation to repair the damage done to its own worlds and allies and continue to explore the galaxy, and possibly withdraw from its outer territories that have no member worlds but are still claimed by them. I think they should only claim territory where member worlds or colonies exist.
There should also be an interstellar agreement regarding the non-interference with non-warp-capable species that all interstellar powers should abide by.
Why is that a spoiler? Then... why? You're trying to apply human values to other races.
Why is that a spoiler? Then... why? You're trying to apply human values to other races.
Why should the worth of values be treated as relative? If noninterference is right, then it is right in absolute - the noninterfering species is immaterial. If it is wrong, then it is wrong no matter who acts in interference.
I'm sure Islamic terrorists could make a compelling case that strapping a bomb to someone and going into a crowed market is the 'right' way to conduct warfare. Hell, we've had terrorists as central characters in Star Trek shows.
I'm sure Islamic terrorists could make a compelling case that strapping a bomb to someone and going into a crowed market is the 'right' way to conduct warfare. Hell, we've had terrorists as central characters in Star Trek shows.
Any terrorists could -- or none could. There's nothing specifically Islamic about it, and in fact terrorism is in direct violation of Islam's explicit prohibition on killing noncombatants. Terrorism isn't an ideology, it's a tactic -- a response to a specific set of conditions. It's a tactic used against a superior force, particularly an occupying force, by an inferior force. If you can't drive an enemy out with superior firepower, then the only way to get rid of them is to make their occupation as undesirable to them as possible by striking randomly against their innocents. It's not about being right; in fact, it's specifically about being wrong, about doing things so horrible and unconscionable that you terrorize your enemy into leaving you alone. It's a desperation tactic when you no longer have the luxury of morality.
I'm sure Islamic terrorists could make a compelling case that strapping a bomb to someone and going into a crowed market is the 'right' way to conduct warfare. Hell, we've had terrorists as central characters in Star Trek shows.
Any terrorists could -- or none could. There's nothing specifically Islamic about it, and in fact terrorism is in direct violation of Islam's explicit prohibition on killing noncombatants. Terrorism isn't an ideology, it's a tactic -- a response to a specific set of conditions. It's a tactic used against a superior force, particularly an occupying force, by an inferior force. If you can't drive an enemy out with superior firepower, then the only way to get rid of them is to make their occupation as undesirable to them as possible by striking randomly against their innocents. It's not about being right; in fact, it's specifically about being wrong, about doing things so horrible and unconscionable that you terrorize your enemy into leaving you alone. It's a desperation tactic when you no longer have the luxury of morality.
You're absolutely right that it could be any terrorist. I also know the definition of terrorist.
But my original point about 'right' being a relative concept stands.
Are we not capable of making our arguments without resorting to most extreme cases available to us?
You're absolutely right that it could be any terrorist. I also know the definition of terrorist.![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.