GhostShadow

ok, I voted Kai Winn. but she isnt really annoying as a charachter, i just dont like the preson who played her. I was watching the special features and when she had her interview she wouldnt know what was star trek if it hit her upside the head. and she looked like a fish... sorta.

hey, I am with you. I have been converted. Before I hated VOY, but now that I re-watch it, it seems better than I first remebered. yes, there are some flaws in it, but it is far from being the worst show. It is better than TOS and ENT on my list. and I have heard a lot of theory to the orgins of WWII, I even heard some one say that GWB started it :thinking: buy yea, VOY=cool

In TNG the borg where protrayed as a beast. They had only one purpose, assimilate. There was no comprimise, they knew no other words than "you will be assimilated, resitace is futile" In VOY the borg had a face, Janeway made an alliance with them, they where easy to avoid, and yes, they where still a powerful foe, but having 7/9 on the show have the borg a littel color. And what ruined it was that most ppl liked the blackness of the borg. They where literaly "Perfection", the perfect enemy.

no one has really brought up Jake and Sisko's situation into all of this. I mean if you want to evaluate a man, look at what Sisko has done. He lost his wife to the borg invasion, he was sent into a hot zone on the cardassian border and he rasied a son. He established a new life and thrived. He got a new wife and moved on. I dont see Picard doing that, he struggles with children and is rather prude. So to me, sisko is gonna take the cake as a measurement of a man. And as far as a starfleet officer, agian I say sisko. Starfleet does want ppl who can tell right from wrong. they also want ppl that can anilyze a situation. And Sisko realisticaly did that when he brought the Romulans into the war. He saw that the Federation, and the Alpha quadrent where about to be overtaken by the Dominion and he changed that. And I see that as a good starfleet officer. Picard is a good starfleet officer, but he puts to much faith in the federation. He believes it can do NO wronge. He is very good at drawing the line though. In the Eps where there is that spy found on ENT and there is a tribunal. He was a good officer then. But agian, he puts to much faith in the Federation, he thinks that its invinciable. He could have destroyed the Borg but he choose not to.... As a Friend, agian I say Sisko. He is a good man. He can take a joke and he can give a joke. He is determned and he is willing to go the extra mile to keep his friends safe. As a Commander, I will say Picard. Picard has been around the block a few more times than Sisko, and Picard led a very succesful carrer in the Dominion war. And as far as being wise, that goes to Picard. He thinks way into the future. He knows what he does today will affact tomarrow. but all in all my vote goes to Sisko. (I know, I should have made a poll but I forgot to, lol )

wait did we have to come up with these? If not then mine is " If a US ARMY Ranger cant do it, it cant be done " "Violence is not the answer... Its the solution"

SO hey ya'll. I am sitting her real hunry and all and I was wondering what all your favriote breakfests' are? Ah, man. I love potatos and hashbrowns with ketchup and sausage with alot of scrambled eggs and a big cup of OJ.... ah... I am sooo hungry....

DS9= Awsome You= lucky I have seen every eps of DS9 like at least a dozne times each. So I can play an eps in my head. But I miss the good old days when it was all fresh. I wake up at 7 in the morning on a summer day with the dew comming threw the window and I flip on to spike TV and my 5 hours of trek starts.... Sorry, I was getting nostalgic.

well, I wouldnt say that it is warping human sexuality..... and if a couple breaks up b/c one of htem is looking at porn then I guess we all know how strong that relationship was...

What about newsgroups. as long as there are computer and the internet then File sharing will never go away. And ppl will just start to use News groups if the MPAA actualy does make some mircale case. So to hell with you Butt F###ing sons of bitches MPAA. ( am soo gonna get yelled at for that )

Its all about Ronald D. Moore. He did great work. Altough I like others that are not on his poll, I.E. Piller

crap, I spent like 10 min making this really long post then my internet crapped out and I lost the post when I hit reply.. grr. well what I was gonna say is that I think that sisko takes the cake when it comes to the best Starfleet officer. I mean that sisko got dirty when it came down to it. He knew the limits of the federation and he know how important the federation is to the alpha quadrent. When he brought the Romulans into the Dominion war he was showing that he did not like what he was doing. He knew that it had to be done. He knew that if he did not then the Great Republic of which he served would soon fall. That to me shows that his morals where in the right place. To keep the peace in the alpha quadrent and to have every one live free.

I am not talking about killing every one who cost to much. I am talking about baybies that are deformed, and their parents cant afford to care for them and the termanation of that babies life. If A parent is willing to care for a defective child and can afford it (like doctors bills, health care, and bacis care. And all of that for a retarded/deformed person is not cheap mind you) then I say let them. OR if the baby is still young enough in birth and the paretns can afford to pay, then you can have its DNA "re-sequenced".

That would cost a lot of money... to have ppl's lives enriched instead of keeping them alive on basic. there would be a large chunk of an economy that would go down the drain by makeing ppl feel better. oh, and I love the Nietzscheans. I love that show :rolleyes:

I know there have been a lot of threada bout the best captan, but THese are my two fav captians. Which do you think is better? as a leader, commander, friend, and star fleet officer.

ok, this is all well and good. but does any one care to throw out a solution, or at least throw out a way this could better be delt with..? I say that if the child is defective then its ok to terminate it. If parents want to keep it, then so be it. If parents want to have it geneticaly altered so be it.. as long as THEY pay for it. That is how I see this situation. No fancey terms. No beating around the bush, just stright up rollin'.

That is crazy... and sad at the same time.

yea. The parents need to have the right to choose and I would make sure they did, but I am not expert but it seems like its a lot more costly to alter the human DNA than to put a baby to sleep. So perhpas its best to just put babies who are defective alseep and not alter any ones DNA until there is a costly way that every one can afford.

Well OK I'll answer that, I live in the UK over here we have a thing called the NHS its basic principles are as follows:- The provision of quality care that: * Meets the needs of everyone * Is free at the point of need * And is based on a patient's clinical need not their ability to pay The NHS was introduced to this country after the 2nd World War by a government elected into office in the largest landslide victory to date and with the creation of the NHS being the most popular policy it had to offer the populus here. If you want to know more about it look Here The idea that the rich will be allowed to support their disabled children whilest the poor will have them killed is ethically immoral and imo is just plain wrong. So my Question to you would be Why should wealth determine the right of a child to exist? As i see it if the parents want their child to survive or not then it is the governments duty to respect that decision. Now I dont think my Government should spend money on missiles and wars in far away lands that have nothing to do with my country, and my government spends more money doing this than it does on the NHS. I suppose in a way this is a reply to the post by bones2097 in that soldiers are naturally selected to be killed in a faraway field in a foreign land, because some politician wills it to be so. If our governments were to allocate its finances better then we all would be better off and issues of rich and poor wouldnt be an issue but not as it stands. Well, I am sure that program is great and I respect what is does. I would rather see the children live, plz dont get me wronge. I just dont think that the Government is the ogranazation that should pay for every child. To do so would create a communist-like government. I dont see the governement as a structure ment to make your life bettter, to bend at to your every whim and need. I dont see that wealth has anything to do with it. If the parents want to have their child under go genetic theorpy to fix their child. THey need to pay for it them slef. If they can not afford to care for a disabled child, they need to have it killed. To bring a child up in an enviroment where it can not be properly cared for is wronge. And isnt it possible to tell deformaties of a child before its even born. And If so, then the parents should abort the child before it is born.

wow, I seemed to attract a lot of hard headed ppl in here, sweet. But I have a question. Why should the Government pay for all of this? I dont see that as their position. Why should my tax dollars go the the aid of a retared child that belongs to another couples child...?

ok, I have a hard time understanding that... whole thing. Why do I have yu worried? And I dont think that we where on the same track, I created tihs to see if ya'll thought that killing a defective baby was ok. And now we are talking about makeing the human race better with gene theropy... EDIT: Sorry I posted this b 4 I was done, opps. But Also, what studies are these that is talked about... that religion is determined in DNA or sumthing.. I want to see these...

Has the MPAA ever thought about going after the bit torrent creators? Or try shutting down the BT network?

.

good thing to know that I start a thread about ethuinasia of babies and come back to see ppl aruge about genetcis... w/e But if ya'll want to go that way then go for it. I will just say that I think that is ok to fix babies genecticaly. I would rather do that then have them killed. But I dont want the government to pay for the genetics treatment. And I would rather see a baby die than to see it live defective and as a damper on society... I think that it is ok to enhance humankind through science. There comes a time that mother nature can no longer support the human race and we need to grow up. We need to take care of ourselves. We are no longer living in caves and depending on good weather to produce food, at least not to the extent that we used to. We can and should start to take the human as far as we can with technology, we need to evolve. at least imo we do.

seasons 4 & 5 where my fav.

You don't have to be in a state of bliss to pursue a peaceful course. You don't even have to be happy. Inner struggle does not require violence, and neither does positive social change. Ghandi did it. Martin Luther King did it. Many others activists, in America and around the world have done it and continue to do so. So can the rest of us. Such people aren't happy all the time by any means. They face numerous frustrations and obstacles. Such people don't put up with social injustice, and they don't give into violence, nor do they wage war or resort to violence to achieve their objectives. When asked after the Second World War how it should have been fought, Ghandi advocated non-violent resistance. People asked him how that could be possible. They said millions would have died in such an attempt. His response was to point out that millions did die anyway. Pursuing a peaceful course does not mean that you never suffer or that you are happy all the time. It does not mean that you never get angry, but that you channel your anger constructively instead of destructively. You use nonviolent action instead of violent action. Peace does not eliminate suffering. Natural disasters, disease, old age, death, and social injustice still occur. We simply fight using non-violent means. Not necessarily, and that's simply a catch phrase that some people use to justify the unjustifiable. Plus, I think it's a very big stretch to call these desperate times. My Grandparents, who lived through the depression and two world wars would laugh pretty hard at that suggestion, if they were still alive. First off just want to say War and Peace are not as diffrent as you may see them as. I see war as anger being released thorugh physical means. I see Peace as anger being stored inside and being relased on oneself. One can only be desolate for so long. And yes, peace will make ppl desolate. People will become stale in a sence. They will become... bored. Humans need conflict. And just beacuse Ghandi and MLK showed some restraint that does not mean that EVERY one can and will. That is assuming that every person is the same... and if we where all the same then there would probly not be war. and are you saying that despreate times call for CALM/LAME measures?? Yes, there where thoes monks that burned them selves alive to protest the british but what did that get them?? Nothing. It defeats the purpose of obtaining peace if you have to kill yourself to get it... ever hear of this..? That is life in a nutshell imo.