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: 627 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 26
Set Bookmark
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 10:23am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

Care to explain that last remark, Jason?

Because I don't recall Booming ever telling us his/her gender.

I'm also wondering what - exactly - you are so happy about here. First time for *what*, exactly?

(I have a pretty good guess regarding what this is about. I hope to God that I'm wrong).
Set Bookmark
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 4:46am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S4: Rejoined

Booming, please don't feed the trolls.

Thank you.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Nov 16, 2019, 6:52pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women


"Here's the bottom line: you're using the word 'scientific' in the way you always do, which is to make some kind of authoritative claim on a thing that puts you above all of us because you're a "scientist" and therefore what you say is beyond dispute."

Not true.

You've been here for quite a while now, so you probably know how I hate it when people try to pull that "I'm the big expert and you are all stupid" stunt. You also know that I've called several people on pulling this kind of sh*t.

But here, Booming hasn't done anything wrong.

So leave the guy alone, will ya?

Also, if you are so eager to discuss the original topic of objectification (with or without a direct relation to the TOS episode), why aren't you doing that? Nobody is stopping you.

"I'm thinking there may be some folks in this discussion who are also on the spectrum. That's not an insult, or an accusation, or anything that has to be defended against. Just an observation."


You diagnose a bunch of strangers on the internet with a mental deficiency just because they have a different perspective on things than you? And then you say that it isn't something to be defended against?

I've known these people here for many months, and I assure you that none of them have any problem in understanding metaphors. Speaking of which: Why would a person who doesn't get metaphors, be interested in an allegorical sci fi show such as Star Trek?

I also think that your statement does a great disservice to any autistic people who might be writing on this site. There are probably quite a few of them here, given the high incidence of autism in geek culture. And they certainly don't need to hear the kind of gross generalizations you've made (while some autistics indeed have a problem with metaphors, there are plenty of others who get them just fine).
Set Bookmark
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 2:41am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

Can anybody please enlighten me as to the *point* of this entire debate on whether objectification is "a scientific term" or not?

Objectification is what it is. And it seems like both sides of this discussion have a pretty good idea what that word means:

Booming: "Objectification or dehumanization is about lessening the humanity of a group or person"
Peter: "It is *not* any old use of metaphor or simile"

Both 100% correct.

So why, again, are we debating the question of scientific definitions? Who the ****-ing cares, whether a word is a "scientific term" or not, when we all agree on its usage? The only thing that matters, is whether a given definition (academic or not) is USEFUL in helping us to understand the concept at hand.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 6:18pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

William is correct.

Spock, in the episode, spoke solely of the crystals when he said that line.

This does not, however, change the fact that when we look at this statement within the greater thematic context of the episode, it doesn't look good. We can't fault Spock on this, but we most certainly CAN fault the writers.

The problem here, at any rate, isn't the mere comparison between a person and an object. It's the nature of the comparison. Peter says that it hints at some kind of "inner beauty"? Perhaps. But what kind of inner beauty, exactly, are we talking about here? At no time, not even once, does anybody refer to Eve and co. as actual people in their own right. Everybody, including the women themselves, just expects them to play the traditional role of a housewife (or worse).

So yes, that's a pretty bad case of objectification.

The most maddening thing here is that the writers obviously intended this episode to deliver some kind of woman empowerment message (as Kirk said: "you either believe in yourself or you don't"), but they botched it so badly that it just makes you cringe. This, really, is the worst form of prejudice: The kind that people hand out without even realizing what they are doing.

Definitely one of the worst episodes of TOS.
(the idea that Gene Roddenberry actually thought this episode was a worthy candidate for being the TOS pilot truly boggles the mind)
Set Bookmark
Sun, Nov 3, 2019, 10:25am (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S3: The Council

The weapon was indeed moved, after Archer got caught trying to sneak into the weapon's original underwater hiding place. That happened a few episodes ago, in "Azati Prime".

And a future episode does answer your other question: It makes it clear that the 3 codes are only needed to deploy/arm the weapon. They aren't required for merely moving it, even though this technically involves a launch.

Not saying more, just in case you're a first-timer who cares about spoilers. Hope my reply helped.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:20am (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S4: Fourth Season Recap

"Fans have lauded season 4 as when the show got good, but I don't see it. If anything, season 4 is every bit as uneven and boring as seasons 1 and 2. I really don't get the praise that this season gets. I think fans were so excited to see more ties to the cannon, that they had blinders on."

The reason season 4 is lauded by so many, is that the ties to previous cannon were done *well* (most of the time). At least two of the trilogies (the Vulcan one and Romulan Marauder one) were stories that screamed to be told. The rest of the season (except perhaps "Bound" and the horrible horrible finale) were also good stories. It was also done with a masterful attention to detail.

So yeah, many fans loved Enterprise Season 4 and for a good reason. Not sure where those "blinders" come in. It was, indeed, a great season (and a lesson in prequel-making that the creators of the newer Trek shows should take to heart).

@Baron Samedi
"If Enterprise had 7 seasons, I could see the first two being looked at as the bad ones, three as the transition where it got good, and four as the beginning of its peak."

...and the fifth season giving us the beginning of the Earth-Romulan War.

Man... that would have been awesome.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 2:32pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S6: Man of the People

"Kennedy is a little bit more difficult because what did he actually achieve what people will remember in say 200 years. Not blowing up the planet?"

His inspiring Moon speech ("We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy but because it is hard, etc. etc.") and his commitment to actually follow through the promise and start project Apollo.

That's about the only thing Kennedy will be remembered in 200 years.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Oct 27, 2019, 2:26am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: The Motion Picture

To be fair, I've always thought 2001: A Space Odyssey also ended up feeling lost, pretentious and over-ponderous. Never understood why that film received such high praise. It took a great fascinating *idea* and turned it into a sluggish script. It's only saved from being a complete dud by a few iconic scenes that uplift the boring slog that's the rest of the film.

The special effects were amazing for the time, though. I'll give them that. "Ambitious misfire" pretty much sums that film up.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 2:35pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: For the Uniform

Agreed that drama-wise this episode is top-notch. That was never the problem for me.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 4:10am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S3: The Most Toys

To be fair, Lara's comment was stupid as ****.

I'm not a fan of Mr. Trump, but people who shoehorn politics into unrelated discussions are annoying AF. It's borderline trolling, in my view.

It's a pity, though, that after ten months of obscurity, her comment is suddenly put in the spotlight. I was perfectly happy not knowing it existed until today...
Set Bookmark
Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 3:40am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S4: Rejoined


But unfortunately, there are too many current shows that believe that *just* because they show LGBT people (or colored people or women), this means that any person who criticizes their writing is a bigot.

Or worse: they believe that just because they show some token representation, this automatically means that the show is beyond any other kind of moral inspection. They can support torture or war crimes or prejudice against other groups, but you aren't allowed to touch any of that because they have an LGBT (or colored or woman) character.

That wasn't a problem in 1995 (when this episode first aired) but it sure is a problem today. It has, in fact, become a staple of our times.

Gotta tell you, that a member of minority myself, I don't appreciate it when people like me (and you) are used as human shields against the critics.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 1:19am (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S1: Dear Doctor

Bucktown, I love your ending! That would have made for an amazing PD episode.

As for the episode we did get:

I think the point of the episode is that Archer and co don't have enough information to make the call.

The analogy of two individual patients isn't accurate. We're talking about two sentient species that share an ecosystem and have some sort of symbiotic relation. So yes, one should be very careful before they decide to intervene in such a case and upset the balance. Anyone who thinks Archer or Phlox thought that "the Valakians 'should' die" is completely missing the point here.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that their decision was right. Maybe it wasn't. Helping people in need is also important, after all. It's a fascinating dilemma which we should discuss. But even if we reach the conclusion that Archer and Phlox were definitely wrong, that doesn't make them genocidal monsters. The situation is way too complex for us to make such judgement.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 12:24am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S4: Rejoined

"Lesbian Kiss: Let's be honest, it's a ratings grab."

In 1995? Not very likely.

I think you're projecting current sensibilities into a completely different era. Back in the 1990's, such a kiss would be more likely to scare people away then to lure them in.

Besides, the kiss was something like 10 seconds. An episode does not get praise for advocating diversity/tolerance/freedom-of-choice just because of a 10-second scene. It gets praise for these values being promoted by THE STORY ITSELF.

You could argue that the story doesn't make sense (though I'd disagree with you on that). You could argue that Farrell's acting brings the episode down (and I kinda agree with you on this one). But accusing the writers of doing it all for the ratings? That's a bit much.

By the way:

I completely agree with you that modern TV shows (and films) do the cr*p you've mentioned all the time. The good news is that once you are aware of this, it becomes really easy to spot, because you can see the ugliness and the prejudice right under the thin veil of "diversity" in these shows.

Do you see any of that here?

I understand that you think the story itself is stupid. Fair enough. But do you see any indication that the writers were anything but completely sincere?
Set Bookmark
Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 1:49am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: A Simple Investigation

I know you won't.

That's what you get for thinking that you're smarter than everyone else, and when you come here to belittle others rather than to exchange opinions. You never learn anything.

I personally think that coming to a discussion board with such an attitude is a complete waste of time. But whatever rocks your boat, sir.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 1:15pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: A Simple Investigation

There's somthing hilarious in a guy who comes to a discussion board for Trek nerds and:

(1) Makes a jab at their IQ.
(2) Claims that they are morons because they "think Star Trek is real" (talk about being completely unable to understand nuances).
(3) Tops it all with statements about his own great intelligence.

Talk about a person just not getting it...
Set Bookmark
Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 2:56am (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S1: Broken Bow

@Nukey Shay

Glad to see a fellow Trekkie rediscovering Enterprise! That show is criminally under-rated in my opinion (and yes, "Marauders" is regarded as one of the weaker episodes of the series).

By the way, TOS's "The Man Trap" was never intended to be the show's first episode. The true pilot (and first episode by production order) is "Where No Man Has Gone Before", which is a far better introduction the ship and crew than the salt vampire one.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 2:44am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S3: A Matter of Perspective

Well, I didn't really care for all the character drama stuff in this one.

What I absolutely loved about this episode is the twist ending. It was an ingenious sci fi idea which, to me, makes up for the... ehm... less-than-stellar moments that came before.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 2:35am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S2: Melora

"I do find the point interesting that Melora is not strictly a disabled person, but an alien who travels outside of environments her species has evolved for. Does the euphemism "differently abled" apply more strongly? After all, the problem is the environment around her, nothing inherent to her body."

The same could be said about many of the "disabilities" in the real world, though.

People in wheelchairs would be able to do everything a walking person could do, had they lived in a suitable environment. Does it really make a difference, whether this ideal environment actually exists on some planet or not? The only reason these people have such a hard time in the actual world, is that we live in a society that takes walking for granted.

And the simple fact is that the word "disabled" nearly always refers to some kind of external standard: You can't be "disabled" in a void. It's always in comparison to some set of requirements for being "able-bodied" which is - in the end - a largely social construct.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 2:05am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S2: Melora

It's kinda hilarious (in a bad way) that the crew of a space station on which different SPECIES work together, make such a big deal of something as simple as making access for a wheelchair. You'd think such a place would need to accommodate a far bigger spectrum of diverse needs, like extreme temperatures or unusual breathing mixtures or the-devil-knows-what-else, on a daily basis.

Yes, I know that in Star Trek 99% of the aliens are basically humans with prosthetics. And in an ordinary episode this would be fine. We just accept it as a conciet needed due to the constraints of television story-telling.

But when you have a story like "Melora", the rediculousness of it all suddenly becomes evident. In short, this is a story that shouldn't have been made in the first place (even if they fixed all the problems).
Set Bookmark
Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 1:39am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: In the Cards


Don't worry. I have absolutely no interest in continuing on this futile tangent.

Now back to discussing DS9 and this episode:

I actually agree with Lew's general point of how the people onboard DS9 are behaving too much like 20th century humans. It's a thing that bugs me too about this show (and to lesser extent - about Voyager).

I just don't agree with the specific example he gave here. I don't see anything "greedy" or "primitive" in the idea of cheering Sisko up with a sentimental gift. In fact, I find this episode heart-warming and beautiful (and much of the stuff with the Geiger fellow was also hilariously funny).

It's ironic. Because my biggest gripe with the characters of DS9 is how often they fall into being egotistical and petty (at least when compared to the earlier Trek shows) and the spirit of *this* episode is precisely the opposite of that.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 4:50am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: In the Cards

@Lew Stone

It's amazing that every single thing you've accused the people here of, is a thing that you yourself are doing.

Can't accept criticism? check.
Arrogantly assuming that you're better then everyone else? check.
Playing the role of a victim? check.
Taking everything here way *way* too seriously? check.

So you might want to lighten up...

Also, please remember that this a Trekkie discussion board and that one of our favorite hobbies is to nitpick and overanalyze and correct EVERYTHING we see. So if you see people doing that to your comments, try not to take it personally.

(you might also want to take it as sign that you should try and improve your arguments)
Set Bookmark
Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 9:29pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S2: Melora


"And don't forget. Disabled people got that episode which is meh but think about what the transsexuals got... a sex change for Quark and gay men were completely absent."

Representation done wrong is worse then no representation at all, tough. I was actually astounded to learn that the writer of this episode was himself disabled, because Melora (both the episode and the character) annoyed me to no end.

And it's not true that the LGBT people didn't get anything. They got "rejoined" which - in my view - did everything right on this front: It managed to demonstrate that same-sex relationships are a non-issue in the 24th century, while ALSO giving us a compelling "gay rights" allegory.

Of-course, I'm not gay myself, so feel free to dispell my enthusiasm for that episode :-)
Set Bookmark
Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 6:45am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: In the Cards

"I never said Sisko was "forever depressed" or going to eternally sulk, your words, not mine, but nice try. I stated that it is silly to think that a baseball card, or any gift for that matter, will alleviate the depression that comes from a looming conflict such as war."

Look... I've lived through my share of impending wars and existential dangers, and I can tell you from experience: The most important and most healthy thing you can do in these situation is to realize that LIFE GOES ON.

Yes, it is *natural* to become preoccupied with the thoughts of doom and the horrors of death. But it isn't healthy. At least, it isn't healthy to be like that ALL THE TIME.

And yes, small actions of goodwill can do wonders in this respect. It may not be 'logical' but human emotions seldom are logical. The simple truth is that it often works.

Of-course, this doesn't mean that now everything will be bubbly and happy forever. It just makes coping with the impending doom easier.

Also, it isn't just the baseball card that cheered Sisko up. It's the fact that everybody on the station was a little less tense because someone has done something nice to them that day.

I know, I know... It is terribly cliche. But it is cliche because it is *true*.

"I'll even give you a quick example that I just thought of. How about a tie-in to Jake's writing ability to have him write a an ode, a sonnet, any kind of poem, or short story, for Sisko that incorporates Sisko's life, his present love interest, as well as themes of peace, love, and acceptance, the beauty of life, the nobility of fighting and dying for your beliefs, and have part of the episode revolve around THAT."

The nobility of fighting?! Dying for your beliefs?! How the hell is that supposed to cheer anybody up? And shouldn't the 24th century Federation be above this kind of thing, anyway?

To be fair, it does look fitting on paper. But unfortunately, to a person who actually *lived* through similar situations, it just doesn't make any sense.

Unless it's a Klingon ship. Writing that song to Worf and Martok would certainly get their spirits up :-)

"Oh well, maybe you guys need to read more classic literature, you don't seem to get it."

Or maybe classic literature isn't as "realisitic" as you think it is, when it comes to the human condition?

"Oh, and the 'are you stalking me now' was a joke, or couldn't you tell?"

Of-course I couldn't tell.

As Booming already told you a few episodes ago, people cannot tell your tone of voice over the internet. He also recommended that you use emoticons to clarify your intentions, to which you replied "good point".

In the post we're discussion right now, you didn't use any emoticons. So if you *were* joking and people didn't get it, the responsibility for not getting the message across lies squarely on your shoulders.

"I'm beginning to think some of you have no sense of humor, take things way too seriously, and are overly-sensitive. You kind of showed your nasty attitude there Omi but whatever... "

How did you leap from "not understanding a joke" to "nasty"?

Seriously, if you think any of the replies you've got here are "nasty" then perhaps it is you who are overly-sensitive...
Set Bookmark
Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 4:16am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: In the Cards

"Are you stalking me now?"

Don't flatter yourself.

Every new comment appears on Jammer's "comment stream" page, which is where many of us hop to see if there's anything new.

Anyway, Booming summed up nicely why Jake's gift has absolutely nothing to do with 20th/21st century greed or material wealth. It's the sentimental value the matters, and the thought that counts.

Also, there's nothing in canon to support the claim that 23rd/24th century humans have stopped being emotional and sentimental creatures. As Spock would say, these emotions are completely illogical. But as Kirk would say (with a huge self-satisfied grin on his face): It is these emotions that make us human.

Besides, would it really be more logical for Sisko to be forever depressed because of the war? Will eternal sulking help the Federation win? Being pereptually stuck in a gloomy mood until the external crisis is solved, doesn't strike me as particularly logical either.
Next ►Page 1 of 26
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 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.