Today's Enterprize by Steve580

I didn't realize it was a simulator until the plazma leak. No way would Archer take a chance like that - not have two breathers? So, I knew it was a set up and the only safe set-up would be if they were absolutely safe and sound. 1+2=3. Flight Simulator.

As for the second one ... I'll stand my Scotty's old line, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." They didn't fool me twice. :)

See ... You can learn from Star Trek.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 6:04 PM

STEVE580

There was a little Enterprize promo that ran just before the show, and it made a comment like "Plus, take a glimpse into a dark future" or something, so I was convinced for that first one.

As for the second time...I've always been fairly gullible. I was sure it was a setup at first...but as time went on, I began to doubt. I was never completly sure it was real, mind you; doubt was every-present. But, the ship was shaking and what not...how did they do that, anyway?

Oh yeah, and why the hell would a spaceship have an air intake? In the beginning, that captain (whatshisname) spewed plasma from his ship, and it got sucked into his pursuer's "intake manifold".
-Steve

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 6:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
But, the ship was shaking and what not...how did they do that, anyway?-Steve

It's simple enough to tweak a car's engine or frame enough to make it shake, rattle and roll.

Imagine having the controls that are at the hands of the Enterprise crew. Play with the shields, the engines, the gravity generators, the slurpy machine ... tweak it just out of parameters enough to make it shake, rattle and roll.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 6:29 PM

STEVE580

I suppose...I son't know, the magnitude of the turbulance, coupled with the fires and explosions...just seems a bit unsafe. I'm sure it'd have been simpler, if much less entertaining, to simply replay the original scenario, perhaps while en route to the original coordinates.

Ot maybe not, who knows.
-Steve

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 6:36 PM

I don't think there was a bit of danger. I think everything was controlled from the bridge and there was no real danger -- other than the Xindi keeling over from stroke. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 7:17 PM

DRBORIS

I'm not sure of the technobable exactly, but I belive it is an 'intake' of hydrogen particles (when you move really fast, there are a number of them you actually pass, even in space) What really causes problems is, at the same time, it is responsible for vaccume cooling the really hot parts of the engines. Clogging it with the right substances causes things to overheat, thus engine shutdown.

---
"If I ever kill you, you'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed." - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 7:36 PM

STEVE580

Ah, well that makes sense. Guess my knowledge of spacel travel is somewhat lacking.
-Steve

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 5, 2004 4:18 AM

Enterprise is the worst show I've ever seen. I'm actually an old Star Trek fan, I even enjoyed the TNG/DS9 stuff... but now. And I thought Voyager was bad.

Did ya SEE that Fanatical Suiside Bomber crap on Enterprise? Let me get this straight... it's OK for Enterprise to parallel all of Islam as insanely evil morons but Firefly gets called racist just for being a space-western?

Makes me want to shoot someone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 5, 2004 4:46 AM

Why do you jump to the conclusion that they paralleled Islam with the wacko religious-types?

* David Koresh didn't come to your mind?
* Witch burnings in Salem didn't flitter through your skull?
* Burning widows on the funeral pyres of dead husbands didn't make an appearance?
* Torturing heretics and jews in an effort to 'save their souls' didn't flutter a mental eyelash?

The entire point of the episode was that fighting over religion or philosophy - any religion or philosophy - brings nothing but death and distruction.

Take another look at why you assumed they were talking Islam.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 5, 2004 4:57 AM

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

I actually watched the last half of this episode last night, more out of boredom and nothing else on TV than anything else. This was not the worst episode I have ever seen, but it was not the best either.

Ghoulman wrote:

Quote:
Did ya SEE that Fanatical Suiside Bomber crap on Enterprise? Let me get this straight... it's OK for Enterprise to parallel all of Islam as insanely evil morons but Firefly gets called racist just for being a space-western?

I had read the info on cable about that episode, but decided not to watch it. I am kind of tired of all the "crazy, religious zealot suicide bomber" plotlines on TV and in movies right now. I think we are all aware of threat of terrorists and don't need to be beat over the head with it.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 5, 2004 4:59 AM

^^^ they made no parallel to those other things in the show. Certainly not witch burnings, your examples don't have the 'elements' seen in that ENT episode. This show made a purposful parallel to ISLAMIC suiside bombers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 5, 2004 5:10 AM

That's spelled suicide.

So, the episode of TNG that was built around the people who had no gender identity except for person who saw herself as a 'woman' and fell in love with Riker. That wasn't about homophobia and acceptance because it specifically detailed the idea of "No Gender Identity"?

Yes, they took a (unfortunately) common terrorist strategem and placed it in a fictional future. That does NOT mean they are condemming Islam.

Steven King had Ben Richards crash a plane into the headquarters tower of the bad guys at the end of "The Running Man". Does this mean we should try him alongside Osama Bin Laden for giving him the idea?

These people also had a space ship. Does this mean that NASA (they use space ships) is evil.

They wore ugly ass dumpster-looking clothes. Should we march in protest against Old Navy?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 5, 2004 5:56 AM

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Knibblet wrote:

Quote:
Why do you jump to the conclusion that they paralleled Islam with the wacko religious-types?

* David Koresh didn't come to your mind?
* Witch burnings in Salem didn't flitter through your skull?
* Burning widows on the funeral pyres of dead husbands didn't make an appearance?
* Torturing heretics and jews in an effort to 'save their souls' didn't flutter a mental eyelash?

The entire point of the episode was that fighting over religion or philosophy - any religion or philosophy - brings nothing but death and distruction.

Take another look at why you assumed they were talking Islam.

The way the info read on my box was something along the lines of the crew must deal w/ "fanatic suicide bombers". Unfortunately w/ the images of 9/11 forever burned into our minds, and the suicide bombers going into Israel in the news on CNN every night, it is hard not to link the image to Muslim extremists. Guess you could say that the media, and world events have colored our judgements.

I did not watch the show, so I do not know if direct comparisons were made to Islamic religion or not. I think any rational person will acknowledge the fact that the Muslim extremists make up a very small percentage of Muslims and that one should not be mistaken for the other.

Not sure I really understand your examples in relation to terrorist bombings, other than the examples seem to be ones of religious extremists.

Knibblet wrote:

Quote:
That's spelled suicide.

Let he who is without spelling errors cast the first stone:

Knibblet wrote: "The entire point of the episode was that fighting over religion or philosophy - any religion or philosophy - brings nothing but death and distruction.

I think that is destruction.

We all make mistakes.

No need to get our feathers ruffled.

Knibblet wrote:

Quote:
So, the episode of TNG that was built around the people who had no gender identity except for person who saw herself as a 'woman' and fell in love with Riker. That wasn't about homophobia and acceptance because it specifically detailed the idea of "No Gender Identity"?

Saw that episode and found it very interesting. I think the episode was geared more towards making each of look inside ourselves and rethink how we view gender and sexual preferences. I didn't really think of homosexuality when I watched that episode.

Knibblet wrote:

Quote:

Yes, they took a (unfortunately) common terrorist strategem and placed it in a fictional future. That does NOT mean they are condemming Islam.

I agree. I don't think any producer or network in their right mind would condemn Islam. Islam as a religion has no more issues than any other religion.

Knibblet wrote:

Quote:
Steven King had Ben Richards crash a plane into the headquarters tower of the bad guys at the end of "The Running Man". Does this mean we should try him alongside Osama Bin Laden for giving him the idea?

These people also had a space ship. Does this mean that NASA (they use space ships) is evil.

They wore ugly ass dumpster-looking clothes. Should we march in protest against Old Navy?

Bit extreme don't you think? I read Ghoulman's post & I don't really see anything I would consider condemning or accusatory.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 5, 2004 5:58 AM

^^^ Well, you are all over the place with your examples. Why you are trying to convince me the ENT producers (all 16 of the goofs) were NOT making a parallel to Islamic Suicide (checks spelin') bombers makes me wonder... what the frell did ya think those fanatical guys looking to blow up everything they saw were about?

We are talking about a literary parallel. The show itself made direct lines to Islam. Not Irish, not Timothy McVie... but Islam. Why do I insist this is the case? Because it seems very clear to me this was the intent of the show.

The producers of ENT did this on purpose and were very vlear in thier dialoge and action portraying them as Islamic. That is: a clear fanatical leader who demands Pope like obedience (remember how the leader told his worried co-bomber how he had a direct line to 'God'?). These guys were in a war and thier goal was to get Enterprise and weapons (WMDs parallel). And I could go on and on...

The point is - ENT made a parallel to something real and a part of all our lives... with all the alacrity of a Nazi propoganda film. Think about it, what was that ep of ENT about? What was the moral of the story?

I'll tell ya: All suiside bombers are evil, insane, and deserve to be killed.

Face it - Star Trek is no longer a lefty space adventure inspired by Humanism and the Civil Rights Movement but a right wing propoganda piece for the bourgeosie.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 5, 2004 5:59 AM

Sorry, I meant to point to KNIBBLETs' post Browncoat1

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 5, 2004 6:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

The producers of ENT did this on purpose and were very vlear in thier dialoge and action portraying them as Islamic. That is: a clear fanatical leader who demands Pope like obedience (remember how the leader told his worried co-bomber how he had a direct line to 'God'?). These guys were in a war and thier goal was to get Enterprise and weapons (WMDs parallel). And I could go on and on...

Ahhhh... Perhaps the episode is actually anti-Catholic. After all, you described the leader as "Pope like".

I do agree that the masses are easily led. We wouldn't be in the war we're in if they weren't.

The only connection to Islam I saw was the use of suicide bomb murderers.

I just do not see the episode as being anti-Islam. I saw it more along the lines of the Roman Catholic / Eastern Orthodox break.

(The difference between 10 days and 11 days wasn't it?)

We're not arguing the basics of belief, we're arguing over the pronunciation of Carribean.

As for my examples being all over the map, it was an attempt to show how ridiculous arguing over religion is.

We've put our faith in the gods of retail and media. Old Navy has a lot to answer for :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 5, 2004 7:09 AM

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

You know, the greatest thing I think about the internet is the fact that you get to meet so many intelligent people, from all walks of life w/ different perceptions, views, and opinions on everything from the style of Mal's coat to current events. The problem is that this can also be an issue when it comes to debating a topic, especially ones as sensitive as religion and politics.

I must admit that I too get caught up in the heat of debate (see any Civil War thread), but I have to remind myself that even if I do not agree w/ what someone says or believes, I should always be willing to stop for a moment and try to see the subject from another perspective. Even if I do not agree w/ someone does not mean I will not take away a piece of valuable information or perhaps a fresh perspective.

I did not see the aforementioned episode of Enterprise, but it seems to have stirred some strong reactions from people. Perhaps that was what the writers were looking for; a response.

As Knibblet pointed out, the majority of the masses are content to follow, because it is easier than leading. I think as a country we have become complacent, more concerned w/ amassing personal property and gain than the welfare of our friends and neighbors. We are content to follow a government without questioning what they do w/ our tax dollars or why. I think discussion and educating ourselves on all manner of events and news will make us better equipped to deal with all manner of things.

Perhaps the lesson to take away from this Enterprise episode is how people who are not exposed to suicide bombers deal with the terror and damage they cause, and how they deal with said terrorists. Whether or not it was a direct parallel, intentional or not, to extremist Muslims, the principle still applies. That principle is dealing w/ terror and an unconventional enemy.

As Knibblet pointed out, the premise for this episode could easily be compared to the IRA in Ireland. It could also be compared to the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War, or the Palestinians in Israel and the Gaza strip.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 5, 2004 7:38 AM

lol KNIBBLET, your comments are great! You too Browncoat1.

The Pope is a bad example, see... I'M the Irish Catholic. *chuckle*... you know about the chip the Vatican puts into our mellons right?

Anyho'...

The leader on that ep of Enterpoop described himslef as having a direct line to 'God'. Which is what the Popes function is to his flock... and so are many Muslim leaders - like Usama Bin Laden. And why CNN insists on spelling his name wrong gets me worried. That is, the terrorist cell with the priest leader is precisely how Islamic groups are formed... not the IRA or witches. That's why I insist the portrayal must be a parallel with Islamic suicide bombers and nothing else. You know, the Enterpoop ep created a group of 'terrorists' that have the same set-up as in real life ISLAMIC suiside bombers. Not the IRA, not Tim in the van in Oklahoma, and not David and his flock in the big barn getting burned to death by FBI agents.

When a story presents a literary parallel it only works if we recognise the parallel. It seems very obvious to me the writers of ENT intended to do this. If they didn't why do the 'suicide bombers' on ENT behave, are structured like, and spit the same silly religious rhetoric as Islamic suicide bombers?

The IRA doesn't kill in the name of God. So I gotta say your wrong making a connection. :)

Why you keep trying to generalize the suicide bombers into an all encompassing metaphor seems to ignore what was actually portrayed on this particular ep of Enterpoop.

Not arguing religion Browncoat1 (but great points! You should be the mod here) just pointing out the political flavouring of Enterpoop - which has been there from show one but that's a whole other boring thread I won't ever get into again (I've already made the producers of ENT sick of me as 'Plum' over at the TrekBBS last year).

To sum up and in my humble opinion - ENT makes direct parallel to ISLAMIC suicide bombers as demonstrated by the characters themselves.

If you want something general, look to the old Star Trek 'Let This Be Their Last Battlefield' for a truly generalized (and brill!) portrayal of absoluteness and War. Both the left and the right get stripped in that ep. Really great stuff. You know, it's the one with the guys who are white on one side and black on the other. Great TV! :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 5, 2004 8:12 AM

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

All of this talk has me wishing I had watched this episode now. Guess I will have to catch it when it reruns.

As you describe it GM, it does sound very much like the way Muslim extremist terrorist cells are organized. Very disturbingly so.

It could be that the writers were trying to blend in real life current events into their episode in order to get viewers to relate to the situation and tune in, thereby boosting ratings. Far more shameful tactics have been used to drive up ratings for a show.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 5, 2004 9:52 AM