Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 2,173 (Showing 26-50)

Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Jun 8, 2020, 10:43am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S3: The Savage Curtain

@ William B,

I agree, but that's also because g*** was always an insulting slur, whereas negro was at some points used by all concerned as simply the correct term to refer to black people. So g*** is more similar to the N-word in this sense. Not sure if the writers really wanted negress to be jarring, or if they just wanted an out-of-date reference to seeing each other according to color. I think it was the latter, and that it was supposed to mean Lincoln saw her - in a positive way - as a black woman, whereas in the 23rd century your first reaction to seeing a black person wouldn't be "oh you're black!" His apology may make it sound like he realized he said something dirty, but maybe it's just that he himself is a bit confused about the era, having the knowledge of a 19th century guy but also being quite aware that he's been summoned to participate in a 23rd century game.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Jun 8, 2020, 9:47am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S3: The Savage Curtain

It seems pretty clear to me they included that line just to provide the opportunity to say something about how racism is gone in the future. They used someone from the civil war to make that point, and someone with a reputation for trying to help the black population. So it ends up being rather apt. while not risking offending us because we do know that Lincoln was still from an era with a different way of talking. I don't know that 1960's accepted terms is necessarily the arbiter, but rather that they intended a civil-war era mentality that was forwarding-thinking to meet the result of his ambitions, far in the future. I suppose something similar would have been a phantom Ghandi meeting up with futuristic pacifists.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 11:11am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Chain of Command, Part II

@ Focksbot,

"First and foremost, it's a weaker rip-off of the same scene in '1984', but loses much from there being no point to the torture. Picard knows nothing worth extracting, and Madred is a weak man acting out a power fantasy - it says nothing about the effectiveness or otherwise of the Cardassian state, or of any particular ideology."

I think the homage to 1984 in this episode is more or less fine, as there is no information to extract from Winston either. The point of the torture is to make him betray that which he cares for the most, and in so doing turn him against himself. It's to make him accept doublethink and to love Big Brother. In Chain of Command that main drive of Madred's tortures seems to be to make Picard respect him and his culture, which is perhaps a bit weaker than trying to make him love it, but the main drive is the same: breaking someone towards an ideological goal. The Central Command may have wanted the defense information but I don't think that was Madred's primary interest. He was at odds with the Central Command on that, as we could see in the final scenes.

And there's another parallel too, which is that they offer to let Picard go in exchange for torturing Beverly. So far Picard refuses, but I assume that later on the idea is that he would relent and tell them to take her instead. Mercifully we don't see that happen, but I don't think that's a flaw, all it means is this isn't a cynical and remorseless show and they gave us a different plot (i.e. that the interrogation is ended early due to exterior factors).
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 11:35pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: Galaxy's Child

@ Mr Peepers,

You might be thinking of pre-fab programs, which we tended to see more on VOY like 'holo-novels', or on DS9 with the James Bond adventures. On TNG Worf's calisthenics are probably like this too. But there are plenty of programs that "save and end" and you resume it where you left off. Most Trek examples of holodeck use are the latter type, where you have an ongoing story that you can pause when you have to go back on duty or go to sleep or whatever. A technical or laboratory use of the holodeck would be especially useful to continue where you left off, and completely useless if you had to restart it every time. Why have to retread all the ground you already covered every time you turn on the program?

One example that comes to mind that may be a bit of both is Vic's program in DS9, where it does seem to be a long-form holo-novel type situation, but it's so long that you do save and end when you leave and this could go on maybe for years. I don't know what happens when that program 'ends', or if there is a natural end to it.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 1:53pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: Future's End, Part II

@ Elliott,

I guess what I'm saying about PT is that maybe it's not really interested in discussing systemic solutions, but rather the phenomenon of, as you say, filtering all these issue through our own lenses. Sisko sees it as a historically important event, someone else as a lesson in class; etc. Whereas the facts are that it wasn't "an event" at all but just different people in different situations, all living their lives. Or at least that's what I think the point of the episode was, hence its title "Past Tense", which I think is itself a way of categorizing something as "this happened" whereas the reality is infinitely more complex.

@ William B,

I would have loved for the "20th century hero concept" Paris to be prominent on VOY. I tend to agree he was supposed to be Han Solo or something based on character bible, but he comes off in person as more stolid than even Janeway is. So while a 'Paris bridges to the 20th CE' theme here would have been awesome, I never really saw that congeal on screen, like, "oh, I can see now why in a different era Paris could be seen as a great man." Almost like a more friendly Khan, a man out of time and place. Only trouble is, by this point in the series Tom has been domesticated and neutralized, so that spice wasn't really available anymore to go into this soup.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 12:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: Future's End, Part II

Thanks for the review, Elliott.

This may be one of the rare times I actually thought a VOY episode more fun than you did. I haven't actually seen it in quite a while, but I remember finding it enjoyable even when it first aired. Back then a little silly fun was still ok, in an era where Back to the Future didn't really have to make sense to be awesome. Your criticisms are probably well-placed, especially seeing as how I don't seem to bother re-watching it, but anyhow it's one of the more memorable ones somehow even though it's not great.

Some point about this:

"PT was obviously a much more serious story, with a serious tone, and a serious message. But it failed to actually confront the implications of the sociopolitical problems it wanted to tackle. The best the episode could suggest as a solution to systemic socioeconomic inequality was for people to “care more.”"

Actually one thing I like about PT is that even though its approach towards the topic is heavy handed "Look at the suffering!" type stuff, the takeaway is actually more subtle than it would seem. The episode does actually propose a 'solution', but it's not a systemic one: the actually plot involves Sisko and Bashir personally getting to know various people on different sides of the problem within the sanctuary, and Dax gets to know someone 'in the system' who sits on high. Trek does seem to say that these crises are in a sense historical inevitabilities, but in the playing out of the 2-parter the big takeaway is that until you know the individuals it's 'just a history lesson', and likewise for the people of the time if you don't know them then it's 'just a news report'. Of course it's easy to dismiss current events if you just think of them as informational news items. And at the moment this is possibly more relevant than even when that episode aired. It's also relevant in terms of dehumanizing people when interacting with them online; oh you're "just a Democrat/Republican" and you can neatly dismiss them into a 'group'. So PT seems to be telling us that we will certainly never get over these issues if we think of people as groups to be categorized rather than individuals with problems. That's a strong message and certainly deeper than "care more". It's not a question about caring more, it's about caring *correctly*. It's an equal but opposite problem to care a lot about some unspecified categorization of people but without knowing the individuals involved.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 11:41am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Nth Degree

@ Eric,

I think we have to assume they're in that category of super-advanced alien species, maybe in the ballpark of the Metrons or the Organians. It's not clear whether they're still corporeal or not, but for some reason they don't like to leave their home system.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 10:15am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S3: Day of the Dove

@ Chrome,

Having watched this ep for years and years, I never got the impression that the intent was to show that these were their secret hatreds coming to the surface. It always looked to me like the entity was actually creating the feelings in them, but which they would attribute to themselves. If we're going to call the episode poignant, it would be especially so if the premise is that a third party fills people with hatred towards each other, and they think these feelings are their own.

That said, if we did want to read the episode as showing the feelings coming on some level from the crew, we could still suggest it's the repressed hatreds in our genes and human history coming out; maybe akin to what happens in All Our Yesterdays to Spock. It doesn't necessarily have to mean that Chekhov and Bones have personally felt those on some level in their own lives.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Jun 4, 2020, 2:29pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Ethics

@ Jason R,,

Picard does bring up the argument, which is what put in my head that this should have been a far more significant theme in the episode. The way the episode it titles, and the way most of it is spent, we're given a lot of air time around two key issues:

1) Whether being crippled is as terrible for Worf as it sounds.
2) Whether Russel was violating medical ethics in using untested procedures.

(1) sort of gets addressed by way of showing us that for a Klingon being crippled is as good as dying, but what it doesn't show us is how much that applies to Worf. The extent to which he really will follow Klingon teaching should be the focus here, but instead it becomes "human vs Klingon" which we kind of already knew. (2) takes center stage later in the episode, but actually ends up being a loose end that's never tied up. We come out of the episode having made no progress on whether in fact Russel was being unethical, as the matter gets dropped once they realize they have to operate on Worf. We also don't learn much of anything about the merits (or demerits) of using experimental procedures on patients who request them. There's actually a whole arc in Boston Legal (which I just finished watching) about whether terminal patients should have the right to use unapproved medications, because what have they got to lose. That's quite an issue to unpack, but it wasn't even mentioned here even though it's essentially the issue in question.

So my idea, having said all this, is that the question of medical ethics vis a vis patients of different cultures, could have been an interesting one. Picard did come in to speak on behalf of respecting Klingon culture, but in terms of the plot that only served to squash discussion of the other topic, that of Russel's ethics. So the two lines of argument were at cross purposes and the result is the episode is a muddle, with none of the above situations really getting a full hearing or resolution.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Jun 4, 2020, 10:13am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Ethics

I do like the idea of Pulaski mirroring Picard's viewpoint of respecting Klingon culture, which fits in with some development she had in S2. What the episode tried to be but failed to an extent was to argue that medical ethics would actually change depending on the species involved. Crusher is essentially right if the patient was a human, and she is also right *if* Russel was using patients for her own ends (which I'm not convinced is the case). But Crusher is dead wrong about Worf, and the reason the episode fails is that, as Skeptical suggests, there is no drama if Crusher is just out to lunch, and it's also bad optics to have a main character look like a fool. As things stood here, the only reasonable choices were try to experimental treatment or Worf dies. Him killing himself should have been considered as inevitable if they didn't do it. Yes, *maybe* they could talk him down from that, but this is a separate ethical issue of its own, regarding whether they even have any business telling a Klingon that his culture is wrong about suicide. And that issue is barely touched on in the episode, even though it's even more relevant to our plot than the medical ethics issue is.

Having someone defend Russel's procedure not on its own terms, but on the terms of it being the right choice *for a Klingon* is what the episode needed. It needed the message that although professional ethics have to be objective (meaning every doctor follows the same rules in the Federation), the weight of which procedures they should be performing should change based on the species in question and their belief system. As we see in Babylon 5, it might be wrong to do invasive surgeries on a species that forbids it, and likewise it might be reasonable to do dangerous surgeries on a Klingon warrior who is absolutely willing to accept the risk and doesn't fear death. The reason the episode becomes tedious is because it comes about Crusher's hunch that Russel is being unethical, even though we essentially know nothing about Russel beforehand, and also don't really care either way. Russel says she's being reasonable, Crusher disagrees; big whoop, we know nothing about the science either way since it's technobabble, so we are stuck having to sort of agree with Crusher on principle because she's a lead. The entire problem doesn't hit home and barely even makes sense other than if we just take Crusher's word for it. Having a Pulaski instead of a Russel, basing her idea on Worf's well-being rather than standard human values, would be both interesting and challenging: can medical ethics change based on the patient?
Set Bookmark
Peter G/
Wed, Jun 3, 2020, 9:53am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: A Piece of the Action

Or a bunch of guys in costumes running around doing T-rex chicken arms.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Tue, Jun 2, 2020, 9:13am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S1: Hide and Q

THIS JUST IN:

Art design on fledgling science fiction show is wacky! This is not a drill, all personnel secure your art history textbooks, THIS IS NOT A DRILL.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Jun 1, 2020, 4:27pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

@ Omicron,

"Because I've been wrecking my brains on this for three months now"

Freudian slip, I think you meant "wracking" :)
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Jun 1, 2020, 11:23am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: By Any Other Name

@ Chrome,

I suspect the title implies that you can call a thing anything you like, but it is what it is. When taking the human form, you could call them Kelvins but they *were* humans, and this was their weakness.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" essentially says that Romeo would be just as good as he is if he were called something else, i.e. not called Montague. Changing his name would not alter any of his essential qualities, but would remove the need to call him enemy.

I suppose we could look even deeper into this meaning and infer that perhaps the Kelvins could have come to see humans as allies or friends if they had ceased to differentiate based on "your race" and "our race". The focus on the name of the species (i.e. their differing origins) would seem to be the only reason to alienate the alien. I'm not really sure if the episode puts any focus on that, although it is a Trek message.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:06am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Rascals

Hey, I like The Game!
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, May 29, 2020, 9:41pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: Honor Among Thieves

@ Dan W,

"I honestly don't understand why they would ask the Chief of Operations of Deep Space 9, which is the most important station in the quadrant, to do an undercover assignment. You're telling me no one from the Orion Syndicate has been to DS9?"

Because O'Brien must be tortured? It's like a tradition, man.

"I am honestly surprised the Vorta didn't recognise O'Brien, you'd think the Dominion would have profiles on DS9's senior staff, no?"

Maybe the Vorta did recognize him and was enjoying watching O'Brien's seasonal flogging?
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, May 29, 2020, 10:15am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: Return to Tomorrow

"It's worth mentioning since others commented on the disappointing ending that there was a controversy with this episode's writer John Dugan, a Catholic. He wanted Sargon and Thalassa to live on in the end as spirits without bodies, which is how he ended it in the original script. Roddenbery changed it so the two would simply fade into oblivion."

What a petty argument? Are both of them under the assumption that Kirk is a wizard and can "just tell" when a person dies whether their spirit 'goes on' or fades into nothing? I don't even know what it means to argue about this point. Catholics already believe that we have an afterlife *and* that you see nothing special when someone dies. Haha, what a dumb thing to fight about. And actually, the idea of disembodied human spirits floating around isn't even a Christian concept afaik. Or if it is one it's one of those quasi-pagan superstitious beliefs they had been in the 1500's when the old religions were still bound up with the new in many places.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, May 27, 2020, 11:56pm (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: A Private Little War

Thanks Jay Marks!
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, May 27, 2020, 1:56pm (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: A Private Little War

@ Chrome,

"The PD doesn't apply here because the Klingons already messed with the natural development of the people. Kirk's solution is supposed to correct that interference."

I'm citing the PD because I think the spirit of the PD is what's in play here - to give them a chance at a normal development, or as close to one as is possible at this point. TOS did more actually than the later series did to not only spell out the PD, but also to spell out that as a law it requires on-the-fly interpretation and that it's never black and white (which on TNG they often make it). A Captain is uniquely in the position to determine the best way to maintain its spirit when the letter of it is no longer possible (see A Piece of the Action for another example of a zany way to try to follow the spirit of the law). I brought it up because this is a viable alternative as a theory for why Kirk helps, as opposed to the more realpolitik interpretation that the Federation was being just like the U.S. in the Cold War.

"But as the episode discusses, it seems likely to lead to escalation and ramped up interference by Starfleet. Maybe in the Star Trek universe, escalation never happens and the Klingons back down, but in the parallel real world conflict *this episode mentions specifically* that wasn't the case."

I agree that the prognosis doesn't look good for paradise on this planet. The bottom line is that the Klingons ruined it, and the only thing left to do is salvage whatever scraps of it remain. The reason I keep mentioning the friendship is that I think it demonstrates that there can be reasons for arming a people other than to manipulate them into your own private conflicts. It might well be possible to do 'cold war type stuff' but in a spirit of friendship, depending on context. The best Kirk could do here to maintain balance was a least of evils choice, no question about that. My only contention is that I don't think it was necessarily an error, nor does it have to be seen as done for the purpose of having a proxy war against the Klingons.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, May 27, 2020, 12:59pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Relics

@ Jason R.,

Hah! At least with that one I could believe it's a result of false boasting on their part.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, May 27, 2020, 12:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Relics

@ Jason R.,

The Doomsday device was also made of neutronium!
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, May 27, 2020, 12:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: A Private Little War

@ Chrome,

I might have to re-watch for tone, but I don't recall ever getting the impression that we're meant to feel that Kirk made a mistake at the end. I don't think he was happy to have to intervene in this manner, but I don't recall anything indicating any awareness that he was making an error.

"It's not until Klingon interference is confirmed that Kirk is forced to get involved as a matter of duty. This makes it look like Kirk's interests are in line with Starfleet's and the burden he has to bear is for Starfleet's cause - i.e. winning or maintaining balance against the Klingons."

But I think this is a Prime Directive thing. He would have let them kill each other under normal circumstances due to the PD. What changes is that the Klingons interfere on one side. Technically that should not alter the Fed position that intervening is a breach of the PD; I don't think the PD has 'unless' clauses. So I suppose it's my interpretation that Kirk's personal friendship is what pushes him over the edge and makes him feel that it's just unacceptable to follow the letter of the law and let his friend's people die due to Klingon interference. Kirk's solution seems to me like the best he can do to re-establish non-interference. In effect, to try to match and therefore undo the Klingon interference in this culture. But I don't think it's to serve Starfleet's agenda in defeating Klingons; I think it's to fix a PD violation, even though technically it was the Klingons who violated it. I think the spirit of arming both sides is something like recognizing that what happened is not fair, and not representative of letting a culture evolve on its own. He needed to arm Tyree's side to give them a chance to settle their cultural dispute on their own terms. I see it as trying to re-establish normal cultural development there.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Tue, May 26, 2020, 9:59pm (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: A Private Little War

@ Chrome,

I hear you on some of these objections. For my part Nona annoyed me as a kid, since she comes off as so antagonistic and manipulative. However looking back I wonder whether there isn't something deeper to be found there. Basically she wants a strong leader, yes, a 'real man', and also one she can manipulate. A man of peace wouldn't have much room for her type of thinking, whereas an emotionally agitated and movable man would. To me this says something about how men of peace might come off to others who are expecting the "strong man". For instance, could a moderate and peaceful person have taken over Saddam's Iraq back in the 90's? Or would that have been rejected by all involved as weak and that person been deposed? It begs the question of not just which approach is enlightened, but which will actually work. No point putting a 'man of the future' in power if in the present they cannot possibly rule successfully. I think Hamlet is all about that. In an less developed society you can't have a peaceful person at the helm. And maybe Nona is our vehicle to that realization, especially as she's the female presence which, reputedly, is more attracted to the alpha type than the 'decent person.' Or at least that is an impression we may get observing the success powerful men and celebrities get in the romance department. My point is that maybe all signs point towards "nice guy can't lead us" in a more primitive society.

Regarding the proxy war aspect, I'm not sure about your conclusion that it should be seen as a failure of a policy. The cold war setting is established by the Organian Treaty, and so Kirk has to choose between letting Tyree's people be run over, or to arm them and give them a chance. Now in the actual Cold War the situation was IMO more like both sides were pillaging the Third World and using the 'war' as a cover. But in our Trek context we know Kirk wouldn't do that, and that he legitimately just wants them to be able to defend themselves. The proxy war in this case isn't necessarily about containment of the Klingons from expanding as an empire, but could be seen as just trying to help these people. Part of our backstory is Kirk's personal friendship with Tyree. Given a choice between watching them die or helping by arming them, I'm not so sure that arming them is illogical. I think maybe the motive matters a lot. Protecting a vulnerable people is really a different objective than using some other people to fight a war for you that you don't want to fight directly, using them as canon fodder.

Don't you think?
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Tue, May 26, 2020, 9:45pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Relics

@ Jeffrey Jakucyk,

I think you raise some good points about the tech side of the episode. My main gripe is that the tech side wasn't interesting, more so than the fact of certain illogical omissions. I guess I do have a few possible explanations I could suggest:

"Second, how does the sphere create such a huge gravity well when it's mostly hollow? Yes if it takes up all the matter present in a solar system to build (and then some), that's a lot of mass, but they go into systems with stars big enough to go supernova, quasars, etc., and they don't seem to have any problem with the gravity."

If you took all matter in our solar system there is NO WAY you'd have enough to encircle a star like they did here. So I guess we need to conclude that they used matter from many star systems, shuttling it in to complete the job like a giant Death Star. I guess if it was the combined matter of like 100 systems maybe that could explain it? But even then that shouldn't compare with the mass of a large star, so yeah...

"Third, how does anything cling to the inner surface of the sphere? Its center of mass is still at the star. I suppose they can use some tech to explain this, since they do get all of the star's energy to harness."

This one actually seems sensible to me. The issue isn't the center of gravity of the star system, it's the force of gravity at any given point. If the sphere is very far from the star then its gravity would be minor compared to the gravity of the immediate matter. That is why we don't fly off of the Earth into the sun every day. It ends up being a math question about how much matter is how close to you, to determine the net force applied to you when you're on the surface. I can't do that calculation, but it would have to do with how dense the matter is near you and just how big that sphere is. The mass of the rest of the sphere ends up mattering less the further it is from you, but still the parts of the sphere closer to you would all impact you a lot, just as the matter 'beneath' your feet would. Unlike Earth, where the majority of the Earth's mass is 'beneath' you, in the sphere it would largely be to the sides of you (the furthest points being 'above' you, but also too far away to matter much compared to the nearer parts). So it is possible that the net gravity acting on you would, let's say, make you hover 100 feet off the ground! Or it could be anything like that, it depends on what numbers (radius and density) are plugged into the equations.

"Fourth, it should've taken years for the Enterprise to get from the portal to anywhere near the sun at those speeds. Even if you assume those tractor beams accelerated the ship at impulse speed (let's say 1/8 impulse, which would be 1/32 light speed), it would still take nearly three hours to travel the 100m radius of the sphere."

Let's say for argument's sake that the sphere's radius is equal to the distance of the Earth to the sun (151 million km), and that the Enterprise as you say was going 1/32 C. C = 1 billion kph, so 1/32 C = 31 million kph. So at 1/8 impulse (if your figure for it is correct) the Enterprise would move from the portal to the star in around 15 hours, assuming no acceleration as it got closer. That does roughly seem to match what the show portrays.

"Fifth, what idiot designed the portal to fling ships directly towards the sun anyway? Of course, since it would really take so long as to be irrelevant..."

I, uh, assume the system was malfunctioning by this point. Like, presumably air traffic control or whatever would shut off the beam once the ship was inside.

"Seventh, Geordi could've opened the portal, hailed the Enterprise, and conversed with them as many times as needed to figure out a solution. Jamming the Jenolen into the hatch was just a contrivance."

I guess what they were trying to suggest was that they could only successfully keep it open for seconds, so they needed to buy a little time?
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Tue, May 26, 2020, 3:11am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S2: Sanctuary

"There is no rational argument for settling the Skreeans on Bajor."

Agreed. Maybe I need to watch it again, but I think the only reason why their claim would even be worth considering is some sort of analogy to what the Bajorans went through. Like, somehow this used to be their world and they ended up as refugees, and now need to come back home after all these years. That could vaguely parallel Bajor coming out of the Occupation, and bitter pill here is maybe supposed to be that the Bajorans find themselves unhappily close to a Cardassian position here, which is "our people have to take priority over your people." But I think that only makes sense if the Skreeans are supposed to be understood as having some sort of right to be there. Otherwise it's just a request that comes at the wrong time, mixed with an unreasonable refusal to settle elsewhere despite a nice offer by the Federation. Unless it's their ancestral home they're being stupid. Even if it *is* the case is debatable, but if it's not then they're just being a pain.
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2020 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.