What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

nowadays being a fan almost means hating instead of liking haha

no shade intended towards anyone here. but it often feels that way to me
It's often easier to express what you dislike than what you like. Most of the time when I ask people how their day is they go "Good." But almost not follow up or qualifiers.

Versus a bad day and they go "Eh, traffic was rough, computer was slow, boss/teacher was a jerk, and I hated my lunch today."
 
It's often easier to express what you dislike than what you like. Most of the time when I ask people how their day is they go "Good." But almost not follow up or qualifiers.

Versus a bad day and they go "Eh, traffic was rough, computer was slow, boss/teacher was a jerk, and I hated my lunch today."

Just like with customer service, if 10 people get good service they will tell 2, maybe 3 people about it.
If the service is bad then at least 7 or 8 hear about it.
 
It's often easier to express what you dislike than what you like. Most of the time when I ask people how their day is they go "Good." But almost not follow up or qualifiers.

Versus a bad day and they go "Eh, traffic was rough, computer was slow, boss/teacher was a jerk, and I hated my lunch today."

That and also positivity doesn't create nearly as much conversation with others.

Most specifically positive threads on forums pretty quickly devolve into everyone making one post about what they like and no one saying anything about what anyone else has said. Whereas negative posts lead to pushback and conversations (or arguments) that can go on for many pages.
 
It's often easier to express what you dislike than what you like. Most of the time when I ask people how their day is they go "Good." But almost not follow up or qualifiers.

Versus a bad day and they go "Eh, traffic was rough, computer was slow, boss/teacher was a jerk, and I hated my lunch today."
I agree to an extent.

Although, I think it’s more an up and down thing. Yes, people complain. But when something is “good” and grabs people’s attention, people will want to share that experience and talk about it just as much too. The “water cooler” shows where people are like did you watch “The Red Wedding”in Game of Thrones last night? When people find a piece of media they find really good, people will want to analyze and discuss it just as much as the stuff that people hate on, the same way a person that’s started a new relationship might be happy and chatty about it when it’s fresh and new.

But I do think the sort of fan negativity and dislike that permeates discussions after a while comes from a “familiarity breeds contempt” dynamic.

People are excited in their first experiences, but over time those experiences don’t give the same emotional “hit” in the same way. So if things don’t progress to be something more or fulfilling in a different way, they either get tired of the repetition or they’re so used to what’s good that what annoys and bothers them is what stands out.
 
Here's my controversial take:

I concur with TriAngulum Studios

NCC-Registry #'s are to be treated like Re-UseAble License Plate #'s.

There is no Rhyme or Reason as to why a StarShip has a Higher/Lower NCC-#.

It's what was available at the time and assigned to them when active.

Only certain ships get NCC-<# Number>-<Letter> with a fixed name due to historical relevancy of those ship names.

The USS Enterprise, USS Voyager, etc.

Everybody else, it's random NCC-<# Number> paired with a random Ship Name.
 
I'm sure there are lots of reasons why ships got the registry numbers they did, we just haven't been told what they are. All we know is that you can generally tell what time frame a ship is from by its number, and if they use the same number twice to honour a historically important vessel they put a letter after it. But you can't rely on the number to tell you precisely when a ship was launched.
 
If there's an inconsistency, I chalk it up to either politics or opsec. Just like real life. You ever try to make sense of US aircraft designations (i.e. F-15, F-16, F-117?, F-22, F..... -35?!?) ? Yeah, same thing.
 
Yes. It was massive.
Good to know. No one I knew watched or talked about GOT.

If there's an inconsistency, I chalk it up to either politics or opsec. Just like real life. You ever try to make sense of US aircraft designations (i.e. F-15, F-16, F-117?, F-22, F..... -35?!?) ? Yeah, same thing.
Yes, I have.

Thanks, Grandpa.

ETA: My real grandfather. Thank you for teaching me about military planes.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the clarification, I took that entirely the wrong way! All good here now! :beer:
Very much apologize for the perceived insult. Was not the goal.

I grew up with Tom Clancy novels, and models of the F117 in various conceptual stages that my grandfather had picked up over the years. I also studied WW2 history and played B-17 Bomber on Intellivision game console.

Following military plane terminology is actually kind of easy for me nowadays. A rather useless skill given I never served.
 
If there's an inconsistency, I chalk it up to either politics or opsec. Just like real life. You ever try to make sense of US aircraft designations (i.e. F-15, F-16, F-117?, F-22, F..... -35?!?) ? Yeah, same thing.

For the F-117 there is a story behind it's designation.
Designation
The operational aircraft was officially designated "F-117A".[43][5] Most modern U.S. military aircraft use post-1962 designations in which the designation "F" is usually an air-to-air fighter, "B" is usually a bomber, "A" is usually a ground-attack aircraft, etc. (Examples include the F-15, the B-2 and the A-6.) The F-117 is primarily an attack aircraft,[1] so its "F" designation is inconsistent with the Department of Defense system. This is an inconsistency that has been repeatedly employed by the USAF with several of its attack aircraft since the late 1950s, including the Republic F-105 Thunderchief and General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark. A televised documentary quoted project manager Alan Brown as saying that Robert J. Dixon, a four-star USAF general who was the head of Tactical Air Command, felt that the top-notch USAF fighter pilots required to fly the new aircraft were more easily attracted to an aircraft with an "F" designation for fighter, as opposed to a bomber ("B") or attack ("A") designation.[44][45]

The designation "F-117" seems to indicate that it was given an official designation prior to the 1962 U.S. Tri-Service Aircraft Designation System and could be considered numerically to be a part of the earlier Century Series of fighters. The assumption prior to the revealing of the aircraft to the public was that it would likely receive the F-19 designation as that number had not been used. However, there were no other aircraft to receive a "100" series number following the F-111. Soviet fighters obtained by the U.S. via various means under the Constant Peg program[46] were given F-series numbers for their evaluation by U.S. pilots, and with the advent of the Teen Series fighters, most often Century Series designations.[47]

As with other exotic military aircraft types flying in the southern Nevada area, such as captured fighters, an arbitrary radio call of "117" was assigned. This same radio call had been used by the enigmatic 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron, also known as the "Red Hats" or "Red Eagles", that often had flown expatriated MiG jet fighters in the area, but there was no relationship to the call and the formal F-19 designation then being considered by the USAF. Apparently, use of the "117" radio call became commonplace and when Lockheed released its first flight manual (i.e., the USAF "dash one" manual for the aircraft), F-117A was the designation printed on the cover.[48]

The F-22 came from it's competition during the ATF Competition Program. That was between the then YF-22 & YF-23.
The F-22 being the winner is still a little bit controversial in the Military Aircraft Enthusaist community given how the YF-23 performed and should've been the winning plane given it's performance.

The F-35 designation was technically a error since it didn't follow the Tri-Service Aircraft Designation system.
The F-35 designation, which was out of sequence with standard DoD numbering, was allegedly determined on the spot by program manager Major General Mike Hough; this came as a surprise even to Lockheed Martin, which had expected the F-24 designation for the JSF.
Blame Major General Mike Hough, he made a error in labeling, and it stuck.
 
Back
Top