gjnave

anyone seen them? What do you think?

just do more of the same thing... new and interesting aliens... good concepts .... entertaining tv that you can watch with the family

#1 - The Star Trek bashers

I saw Brent Spiner in "I am Sam" and was thrown back a bit (although he did a good job).

There used to be a farewell thread (some long time ago), but I can't find it... SO.. this is the new and improved "Catch you Later" thread. I'll start with the first post. Im travelling out of country for awhile so won't be back for a bit to log in what Trek episodes I've watched (which wont be many). Catch you in a week or so!

We are not talking about the validity of secular government. We are talking about whether God can be mentioned in a secular government or not. At any rate, as far as I’m concerned what the founding fathers desired in a “secular†govt. comes back to that they did not want the head of the state to also be the head of the state. No one should tell us how we should view and worship God (even if that means we should view God as non-existent and not worship Him at all). Or in other words, no one person should rule both the country and the church: separation of church and state. Onto the subject of worldview: To say that religion is not worldview is not accurate. You cannot have religion without worldview. For example, I see the world as created by a loving God who desires to have relationship with us. However through our own act of rebellion we have turned on back on His plan for our lives, causing self inflicted pain. Through His desire to heal us He has sent His son Jesus to be an agent of change and healing in our lives. This effects the way I look at governments, individuals, history, science, families, the list goes on and on. An atheist looks at the world as created by random chance and billions of years of development. He does not believe in the spiritual but believes solely in the physical. That salvation must come from mankind itself. This also effects the way that he would look at governments, individuals, history, science, families, and on and on. The confusion between religion and worldview comes when you began talking about religious “acts of worship†and religious worldview. There is a big difference between the two. Should someone be forced to partake in mass at school? Absolutely not… but should the mentioning of God be outlawed? Absolutely not… Even so religious acts are still only acts based upon a worldview. “Because I see the world in THIS way, I respond in THIS wayâ€ÂÂ. We all do that whether our worldview encompasses God or not. If I look at the world as an uncaring place then I don’t trust people and that shows in how I act around others, etc.. So then even atheists/humanists/whatever also have their own acts of worship/and or religious service. Because they see the world in a certain way they respond in another. Some people, because they don’t believe that there is anything to be found outside of themselves, look in a mirror every morning and affirm their own deity/value/whatever. They see this as important to their worldview. In a sense this becomes their daily service. Likewise people who believe in God see the world in a certain way and believe (whether right or wrong) that they must respond in a certain way. So for example, a Christian sees the world and him/her self in such a way that he believes he needs to pray daily or meet with others weekly for encouragement. You get enough people who have the same worldview, then they get together and a “church†is founded. You get enough atheists together and an organization is founded: atheists even have their own international symbol to unite themselves with. Although an atheist would never call himself religious, his beliefs run deep and there ARE basic tenants of the faith: just like any other religious worldview. The point we are debating though is what should be allowed. We would all agree (including myself) that we shouldn’t force one construct of thinking upon another. However, by disallowing or teaching only secular topics, you are endorsing a secular worldview. People will believe SOMETHING. When the school system says that a subject like (say) evolution can be taught but that another thing (say) like Intelligent Design (or whatever) cannot, they are sanctioning a specific worldview. – saying that it is more valid than another. People will believe what they are taught. So when we say that one topic shouldn’t be taught because it’s “stupid†or “superstition†then we are effectively biasing people towards how they should view the world (at any rate, who wants to be considered “stupid†or “superstitiousâ€ÂÂ)?. So.. if no faith based view can be expressed then people will believe the secular worldview which has been presented to them. Which means the government is endorsing a specific worldview. The answer is to somehow give room for different worldviews to be taught and not just Christianity, or Islam, or whatever, and not just Secular.

I wonder if the whole Trek United thing messed with the episode. What I mean is, mayeb the writers were holding out that they were going to get the next season, and so when it fell through they were unprepared. hmm...

Seperation of Church and State was never meant to meant to remove God from all levels of government. If you follow history, the early Americans had left England to get away from religious opression; at the time, if you did not follow the king's version of Christianity (which was Angicanism) you were killed. Many protestants were being burned as heretics. When writing the constitution, the founding fathers (who of the majority were devoted Christians) wanted to make sure that no king or other political figure would be able to tell people HOW they could worship God. In sense they were saying, that you were able to follow your Chrisitianity in whatever denominational manner you wish: without fear of imprisonment. In other words... the head of state is not the head of the Church (as was the case with the king of England) and cannot impose a law stating you MUST adhere to one form of religion or another. The irony is that in interpreting the consitution the way we have, we are actually doing the VERY thing that the founding fathers were trying to avoid: making laws regarding how you can worship and how you cannot. By saying that God CANNOT be part of government (and topics like Intelligent design cannot be discussed) we are in actuality imposing a state funded religion: this being Secular Humanism (aka Atheism). Religion is merely another word for "worldview" or "belief system". Thus, atheism is also a religion: they strongly believe in what they believe. If you want to do away with religion in government, then you had better 1) do away with all worldview (including atheism and evolotion, etc..): which of course is impossible. 2) tell people how they must think and safeguard it with legislature: which is what is taking place and is the very thing the consitution was written to avoid in the first place. This will probably be my last post in this thread and I usually avoid these threads like the plague. Enjoy!

No problem.. i didnt expect anything from such a backward (no offense) country as yours. Thirld world envy (no offense) is very common place. You shouldnt feel bad. :D -- *wink* LOL -- :D

The teacher obviously believes in the importance of the flag and what it stand for (whether you (the person reading this) believe in it yourself or not). I personally believe that allegiance to the federation of planets is just as good though, since we're all sentient and of value no matter where we're from. However, I dont think its fair to villainize this lady for her conviction. Good post C4! :)

Thank you for the compliment C4 (can i call you C4? ;D ) HOWEVER, I have to admit that I didnt write the review. It is from Jammers Reviews: what I count as my main source for Trek Reviews. Although he doesnt like Voyager much so I take those with a grain of salt. I thought this was hilarious

Here's a good review of the last episode. Thought it brought a decent balance. It's a long post, but this thread was basically dead anyways so .... **** In brief: Some individual moments are good, but overall it's an unsatisfactory way to "wrap up" this series. One of the interesting things about Star Trek after 39 years is how the library and time settings have grown so expansive, and yet so familiar, that storylines can drop us into the middle of wherever (and whenever) and we instantly recognize where (and when) we are. We don't bat an eye, because we realize that, hey, here we are in TNG's seventh-season episode "The Pegasus," which happened 11 years ago and now is happening again (for us, anyway). In Star Trek, it's almost a natural occurrence. Timelines don't matter for the audience because Star Trek, at this point, is happening simultaneously in all forms at all times, as a part of the imagination. "These Are the Voyages" knows this about Star Trek, and that's somehow comforting. Flashback, flash-forward, whatever you want to call it: In this universe it's a perfectly appropriate approach that allows for an unusual way of telling a story. And, more than that, it demonstrates how Star Trek itself has transcended its own mythos and exists as a larger-than-life milieu, TV ratings and box-office sales notwithstanding. On any other day, that would be what we might see is being demonstrated here. On this particular day, however -- on which Star Trek: Enterprise is airing its final episode and the franchise itself is going away for the first time since TNG started 18 years ago -- I'm not so sure it works. Check that; I know it doesn't work -- not as presented. What I don't know is whether it could've worked given better execution. I suspect it maybe could've. The central conceit of "These Are the Voyages" is that it's actually framed as a TNG episode (I'm tempted to call it "Pegasus 1.5") in which Commander Riker looks at a holodeck program depicting the crew of the NX-01 on their final mission before the signing of the charter that will eventually form the United Federation of Planets. The central problem with "These Are the Voyages" is that, really, this doesn't make any emotional sense as a series finale for Enterprise. Riker looks at events in order to gain insight about himself (a recommendation from Counselor Troi), and to decide what to do about the central dilemma he faced/faces in "The Pegasus." In short, he's using the NX-01 crew as a tool to resolve a personal conflict. Wouldn't it have been better for this premise to simply look back at the NX-01 crew to study it as history, as a turning point in human society? By making the show about Riker's personal problem, the show painfully short-changes the historical context of the NX-01 crew. Granted, the historical context is a focus in the episode, but it really doesn't have much to do with William Riker (or vice versa). I guess it's just as well that Enterprise was canceled, because by the looks of things from what this episode tells us -- which takes place six years after the events of "Terra Prime" -- nothing of any significance would've have happened in the course of the next six hypothetical seasons of this series. The members of the Enterprise crew are not going to change. Not. One. Single. Bit. Hell, they don't even look any older. Forget six years; this episode might as well take place six weeks after "Terra Prime." Quite frankly, that's depressing. If the narrative is going to move forward several years into the future, couldn't it at least show that the characters have changed ... even a little? TNG's finale, "All Good Things," and Voyager's finale, "Endgame," both showed hypothetical futures in which characters had moved on to new things. But here, Sato is still a communications officer, Mayweather is still a helmsman (both are apparently still ensigns, which is just ridiculous), Trip is still the chief engineer, and so on. Everyone is exactly where they were six years earlier, and there isn't even so much as a hint that they've advanced during that time. What about Mayweather's talk in "Demons" about reconsidering his personal options and possibly moving back to Earth? I guess it was just that -- talk. And what about Trip and T'Pol, who went through the agonizing loss of their child in "Terra Prime"? You might think that their relationship would've evolved after such an emotional turning point. But from the looks of things, they've soldiered on in neutrality for the last six years ... until the prospect of the crew now about to split up forces them to take stock of their relationship one last time. One would hope that they haven't been spending the last six years playing Will They or Won't They. If they have, we can at least be glad we didn't have to watch it. And yet the framing device of TNG is somehow comforting. I grew up on TNG and will always have a soft spot for it, and there's something reassuring about the idea of future generations looking back upon the past. Several sets from TNG have been reproduced for a number of scenes aboard the Enterprise-D, much the way the TOS sets were reproduced for "In a Mirror, Darkly." The emotional nostalgia is present and accounted for. There's also a new CG version of the Enterprise-D that looks great. But there's a built-in problem with the use of flashback for the storytelling, which is that the scenes don't gain any momentum. Every time we start getting into the scenes involving the NX-01, Riker pauses the program, or fast-forwards to later in the day, or inserts himself into the story, until we're all too aware that he's literally driving the narrative and that none of these events are actually happening, except in a holodeck. There's also the bigger problem of the historical record, which is to say, most of this shouldn't even exist on record. There are private conversations here that couldn't be a part of any record, unless they were reproduced from published memoirs or extrapolated from someone's subjective interpretation. There can be no objective truth in a recording like this -- at least as far as private conversations go -- and we begin to realize that we must be watching the 24th-century equivalent of a made-for-TV movie in which the narrative is "based on a true story." After getting over the initial gee-whiz effect of TNG settings, the holodeck framing device gradually becomes a distraction and a big liability for the events being depicted. The final mission of the Enterprise before it returns to Earth to sign the charter is less than enthralling. It involves Shran coming to Archer and asking for help (Archer, of course, owes him) to rescue his kidnapped daughter from some aliens whom he'd had some vague dealings with. They want something that might best be described as this week's MacGuffin, because it certainly has no more relevance than that. This leads to some typically generic action scenes with a less-than-epic scope, hardly befitting a series finale. It's perhaps ironic that Shran is the only character in the story to have changed in any significant way in six years (he has a family), while the human characters have apparently all become mechanical slaves to their jobs. Foreshadowing alert: Troi in the holodeck mentions how Trip doesn't know he won't return from this mission. Trip sacrifices himself in the course of the episode to save Archer. It might be called a heroic sacrifice, if not for the sheer incompetence of how it's depicted. First there's the whole silliness of how the aliens so swiftly get aboard the Enterprise after we've already been told the Enterprise is safe. Then there's the way the hostage situation actually plays out -- underwritten and overplayed -- with Trip flipping out, knocking Archer down, and then leading the aliens to a panel where he pulls out a cable and blows himself up along with the bad guys. This is painfully contrived and poorly, ham-handedly executed. It's exactly as if Trip had said to himself, "Well, this is where I've been preordained by an already-written history to sacrifice myself, so let's git 'er done!" How many times have we seen exactly this sort of crisis situation play out, where the Enterprise crew is always able to figure out how to cleverly escape -- but not this time, simply because the plot demands that Trip die. This is not a satisfying death scene for a major character by any stretch of the imagination. It borders on goofy. Similarly, the all-too-muted reaction to Trip's demise is puzzling. Archer consoles T'Pol, but the episode never stops to think that maybe it should be the other way around, considering how Archer has been best friends with Trip for countless years and T'Pol is, well, a Vulcan. There's no funeral, no service, nothing -- at least, not on-camera. Perhaps funerals, services, etc., have been done to death and are seen as cliche, but you simply can't purport a heroic death of a major character and then not deal with it. All that said, the level of downright hate for this episode is strangely fascinating. Jolene Blalock famously called it "appalling" in an interview, and fans denounced it on the Internet as an unmitigated travesty -- sight unseen -- weeks before it even aired. Personally, I find the vitriolic bile leveled at this episode (and the vilification of Berman and Braga in particular) from the Internet Trek community to be somewhat over-the-top. Judging by comments I've seen on message boards, you'd think Berman and Braga had strolled into a hospital nursery and murdered a room full of newborn babies. No, this episode does not work, but is it the worst episode of Enterprise ever made? Worse than "Precious Cargo" or "Bound" or "A Night in Sickbay" or a dozen others? Hardly. This isn't even the worst episode this season. It's a mediocre show with some highlights and lowlights. The episode itself probably would've fared better had the concept not unfortunately also served as the series finale. What's kind of sad is that the episode is actually, genuinely well-intended. It has general ideas and sentiments and historical perspectives that are in the true spirit of Star Trek. It's just that the generalities are not adequately developed as specific ideas for the Enterprise characters, and the show ultimately comes across as an ill-executed, ponderous, miscalculated melding of two Trek series, neither of which comes into real focus. Like much of Enterprise as a series, it doesn't stop and ask: Who are these people, exactly? What do they want out of life? What makes them tick? Perhaps it's not about the individuals but about the state of the Federation -- but even then, I was left confused because this story seems to make a distinction between the alliance being formed here and what will ultimately become the Federation. My thinking is, if we're going to fast-forward six years, why aren't we seeing the actual Federation charter being signed? Perhaps I'm confused. And perhaps that confusion is justified. The whole episode builds up to a speech that Archer is scheduled to deliver, and just as he's walking out to deliver it, Riker interrupts with, "Computer, end program." The sound you heard immediately after that line was fans across the country throwing objects at their television sets. Perhaps ending two episodes in a row with a speech by Archer would not have been ideal, but the anticlimax of ending the story before the would-be dramatic payoff is just flat-out wrong. As a final act of redemption, "These Are the Voyages" does get the last 30 seconds right, with a series-melding montage that blends TNG, TOS, and Enterprise, with three captains speaking the famous Star Trek mantra. It's the right note for an episode that contains a number of wrong ones. And that's how Trek comes to an end after a run of 18 consecutive years -- with a somewhat ponderous whimper that still manages to show its self-affection. Maybe too much misdirected affection for TNG. And not enough for the characters we've been watching for the past four seasons.

I just watched "Visionary" Deep Space Nine Season 3. That was a great episode! At one point I thought the founders might be up to something... My wife has come up with a way of telling 2 star episodes from 3 or 4 star episodes (based on a 4 star scale: which we get from Jammers Star Trek Reviews - http://www.jammersreviews.com). As she puts it, a 2 star episode makes you feel like you have been watching the episode forever... a three and four star episode keeps your attention. This episode kept our attention and had us talking into the night about temporal mechanics. fun! As for Twisted... i dont remember it being terrible. IN fact in all 7 seasons there are probably only a handful of episodes that i would consder kak. I dont believe this was one of them.

I dont think mine defines ME per say.. but it does show what i think is cool. Honestly, I have to admit that if i had a cheesy avatar (like a power-puff gilr or something) I would be embarrased about what I would perceive people to think about me. Funny huh? --- that is.. how you can be embarrased on account of people you've never even met.

Which brings up my whole point... that advertising agencies, knowing that people are ignoring their ads more and more, are devising and researching different ways to get the advertising "in your head" without you consciously paying attention to it. In the 50's (or was it the 60's) they used to use subliminal messaging at the drive in movies... "Im hungry... buy a drink.. etc..".. behind the movies (you never even knew you were seeing it): drink and popcorn sales went up. Eventually, this became illegal and they stopped doing it. With more and more people "tuning out" advertisements, they will need to come out with more and more ways to get us to buy their product. Of course, it wont be as blatant as flashing words at a high speed behind the t.v. screen, but subtle and subliminal nonetheless. THIS would be what would lead to the question.. "at what point in effective adertising does the buyers will no longer play a part?: is the buyer purchasing because he wants to, or because he has been told to?". The question comes down to "why do we buy?" Do we buy because we want to, or because somewhere inside of us we have believed a commercial which told us the product would make us happier/sexier/etc... Has our *worldview been changed? Have we been manipulated? And if so, then maybe our freedom of choice has been infringed upon? *Ironically enough, this is the same argument which is used in regards to removing the 10 commandments from public school: that the very having of them there biases a child to think in a certain way (religiously), and thus infringes on his freedom of religion. Isn't that what advertising is all about: trying to bias you to think a certain way about a product (and to buy it)? NOTE: This was not a religious post. Although I mentioned the 10 commandment controversy, that's not where I'm intending to steer the topic. It was merely used an example to show how the court can interpret different freedoms

How do you see your avatar? Do you see it as something that reflects on your personality? Or is it just something cool you like to see? in other words (or) or else/and also Do you care what people think about your avatar? Or could you care less?

Just a thought... we already have laws interpreting freedoms that we would never have thought of 50 years ago. With the litigious nature of the USA, I wouldn't put such ideas out of the realm of possibilit. Heck... people are suing McDonalds for being fat and unhealthy. Irregardless of whether you think those people are stupid or not, the legal structures of the country ARE allowing for their claims to be seriously looked at and considered. Whose to know what our legal structures allow for tomorrow. If nothing else, these are the kinds of thoughts that make good fiction. :D

Sounds like the original "Let's make a deal". Choose a curtain... will you sell it? .. no?... you won... a. A donkey b. A neeeeww Car!! The best part of this show was the costumes! You gotta love it! ;D

I have a vision of a possible America in the future (not necessarily for good or for bad - you decide). Let's say that some (unspecified) years from now, the courts decide that advertising itself infringes on the rights of the individual. Lawsuits are brought forth showing that advertisers willing manipulated consumers through the use of color, sound, & imagery to buy their product. The lawsuit states that in engaging in these activities, the end-users rights were violated in that they never really had the choice of what to buy: they were manipulated and thus their right of choice was infringed upon. Of course everyone knows that marketing school has researched for decades what gets a product into a persons mind and how to get them to buy it. So the laswsuits are easily able to prove that advertising has been created for the explicit purpose of "steering" a persons thinking in a certain direction; the end-users right of choice has been infringed upon and this is criminal. Advertisers across the country are faced with billions of dollars of punitive damages. The advertising industry as we know it basically shuts down. No more neon billboard signs, flash advertising, or product placement (as these are seen as subliminal and thus illegal); all advertising MUST be straightforward and very explicity "non manipulative": users must be warned before an advertisement is to be shown, so that they can prepare themselves to for the information about to be given. This applies also to grocery stores or other merchandise handling facilities: product placement, or the placing of items at the checkout stand for "last minute" buying are illegal. In situations where it is possible, advertisers must have the explicit permission (generally in the form of a thumbprint or voice-print) to air their information to an individual. If it can be proved that advertisign took place in a way which could have violated the users rights, heavy fines are tolled. Just a thought that came to me last night.

Just wateched the episode where Kira is trapped in a crystal.. wow! didn't see that ending coming. (the episode actually kind of stunk up till the last 5 minutes).

in a Shat kind of way..or just pure Shat? (har har ... in a dumb neolithic sort of way)

(CHANTS) WE WANT MORE! WE WANT MORN! WE WANT MORE! WE WANT MORN! (and on .. and on..)

So what does Gates McFadden basically say in the commercial?

I just watched "Fascination" - DS9 Season 3. Yuk.., what a bad episode. I knew it was going to be bad, but it was worse than I imagined. The acting was terrrriblee. (Trrrribble?.. errr.. forget it). Started Past Tense (P1).. good episode. Wife just watched Voyager "Emanations" .. not one of my favorites, but okay. ADDED: Watched Part 2 of Past Tense