Theunicornhunter

Ships Crew
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    9,564

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Theunicornhunter

  2. Posted

    We don't have a UPN affliliate so I have to wait until 11:00 for ENT anyway. So I guess we never get counted in the ratings. Besides I don't have a Nielsen box so I guess it doesn't matter

  4. Posted

    I'm really not interested in this type of plot (which is where I'm afraid its going). I would rather see bad guys with depth and complexity. There are plenty of slasher movies to fulfill the senseless evil gap.

     

    I would like to see a female villain - she could not be trusted and always had an ulterior motive but also attractive (not a sexbabe getup like T'Pol) and interesting. Those villains are so much more entertaining.

  6. Posted

    My all time favorite moment was Spock and Leila Kalomi in the transporter room.

    Also, after Kirk experiences a devasting loss (lover dies) and Spock puts his fingers to Kirks head as he sleeps and whipsers forget.

    Of course Spock's death

     

    The scene on the Enterprise D when they find biosigns of the young Bajoran ensign in the debris field.

     

    I am sure there were others but brian is slow today.

  10. Posted

    cptwright,May 12 2003, 11:26 PM its always amazed me that some people can actually look up to the sky and say, oh, so boring, my wife being one of them, anything space is out for her, but in acutallity there is sssoooo much beauty to behold in the stars above. i love to lay out on a blanket, on a dark clear night and look up into the stars. this sight brings those pictures right to me.

     

    That's sad that she doesn't enjoy sitting out underneath the stars. ... When I was younger and lived out west I had the opportunity to sleep out under the stars a few times when camping. The skys are a little clearer there and I was always amazed at how many "shooting stars" you would see.

     

    I was living there when Halley's comet was here last - on the last night of good visibility the local astronomy club was setting up telescopes up in the canyon. We drove up about 4:30 in the morning. If I remember correctly there were over 10,000 people on top of that mountain that night. Aside from the fact I nearly froze (mountain tops get cold at night) it is one of my favorite memories. All of these people were there to share a common experience. There was a family with young kids and a grandmother sitting behind me. I heard the father helping the kids find the comet with their binoculars and I kept thinking next time it comes those kids will be the grandparents. Anyway I have rambled on waaaaay too long.

  11. Posted

    =SuraksSoul,May 12 2003, 11:01 PM

    It was Trip's fault for breaking the natural mentality of the cogenitor, not Archers.

    Remember....it did not originally ask for help -- only after human interference did it become aware.

     

    According to the neurological scans the cogenitor was of equal intelligence and ability as the other two genders. However, that being said it doesnt' make sense the congenitor could be that intelligent but not be aware of it until Trip came along. I think that was faulty logic in the script.

     

    The truth is there were a lot of logic gaps in the whole premise of this episode. IMO the logic gaps make it an imperfect model for what it was trying put across. But I think it probably takes the record for the most thought provoking episode

  12. Posted

    Unicorn Hunter wrote:  Emotional instability was one of the arguments for keeping women out of responsible positions in employment and government. I think the neurological scans showed their brain functions were identical to the other genders.

     

     

    Then why did it kill itself so quickly? That doesn't sound very stable to me.

     

    I'm not saying that the Vissians are, or are not, treating the Cogenitors unfairly. I'm just saying that we don't have enough information to make that judgement. When enough information is gained, and if Humanity still believes that they are being treated unfairly, then I'm all for doing what we can to improve their lot in life. If they can't follow the rules of the Federation in how they treat their people, then they shouldn't be admitted.

    suicide isn't always considered unstable - some Earth cultures have considered it a point of honor. But I agree that Trip shouldn't have gotten involved without understanding the culture better. However, once the cogenitor asked Archer for help it was a different situation.

  15. Posted

    The Star Trek future is not necessarily ideal to me; I also think it is based on some faulty assumptions - ie (no money + no religion = peace).  I wouldn't want to live in a world where I was forbidden to believe in God.

     

    While we talk about world conflict; the truth is the US is one of the most violent countries in the world.  I think we are fettered from solving many of our problems because we are fragmented into too many special interest groups  - and each group opposes anything (even the truth) that doesn't meet its political agenda. 

    Athough I do not understand how we will ever live without using money, the Star Trek future looks pretty good to me. The only thing I do not care for is all of the fighting with other species.

     

    I'm not sure I agree with your perception of what Star Trek is based on. This is a quote from the Great Bird himself from The Trekker's Guide to The Next Generation by Hal Schuster. "I had seen science fiction movies before, but I'd always thought to myself, 'Not enough characterization, not enough motivation.' "Perhaps I could use this as an excuse to go to those far-off planets...and be able to talk about love, war, nature, God, sex and all those things that make up the excitement of the human condition." I do not see any faulty perceptions here. He just wanted to tell a story using "far-off planets" to "talk about the human condition". This of course is just my humble opinion, I am in no way saying you a wrong, just that I do not agree.

     

    I wasn't aware that the US is one of the most violent countries in the world. Are you sure about that? They might report it more than other countries but who knows what's really happening in third world countries. I do however; agree with the rest of your statement.

    I did read statistics on violence and only one country had more violence than the US and it was in a civil war. There have of course been more civil wars since then so we may not be so close to the bottom but we are still a violent country.

     

    As for Roddenberry's view of Star Trek - I understand he wanted to use the fictional context to explore social issues. I believe he used the term "wagon train to the stars".

     

    As for religion in the future I think we had this discussion on another thread. ST has taken the position of actively denouncing religion among humans (it seems to be okay for aliens). I don't think that is a realistic view of the future.

     

    I don't think a common enemy would unite everyone. There are always going to be people who are self serving and if money isn't an issue - something will be - pride, fame etc.

  16. Posted

    your forgeting one thing, IT wasnt male, or female. so he wasnt a feminist. anyway, basic human rights are looked at by all freedom loving people, are they not, i know i beleive women have the same rights as man, black has the same rights as white, and so on. every human on this planet deserves the right to pursue their own life the way they want, except murder crime etc., the only places that dont do this on earth are those dictatorships, and other forms of government that repress their people for their own gain, which by the way are the people with the biggest guns. but mostly, those repressed people express a wantin desire for freedom, and THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. ALL MEN WERE CREATED EQUAL. now onto startreks time. earth is pretty much united as one planet, thus humans have human rights, also to be part of the federation is there not bylaws about such things, no slavery, and any other kind of infringements of any beings rights. so therefore we are in a way imposing our views of inalienable rights, but its the choice of whoever enters the federation to do so. no if your not in the federation, or its a first contact situation, we have no right to tell them they are wrong in what their doing, just as much as they dont have a right to tell us about our business, TILL they want to join the federation, then there are guidlines that must be followed. but your also going to have to look at it from the standpoint of there people, if only 3 percent of your population was the third party needed to procreate, your going to have to have somekind of method to spread out the ability to have children, and protect these attributes. without them the world dies. no way to keep going generation after generation. i dont have an answer that would work, do you. so judge not lest ye be judged. walk a mile in their shoes first, then tell me how you would do it. its not like they just throw them around day after day, its a process, i dont know what else to tell ya. but i know you dont have a perfect answer either, im sure none of us do.

    I understand what you're saying and most "freedom loving people" do agree somewhat (not perfectly) on what basic human rights are. But the words "all men are created equal" are from the declaration of independence which is a man made construct. My question was more what basis do freedom loving peoples have to impose their views on non freedom loving peoples. I'm not talking about what I believe or how I think things should be. I am talking about the ability to say with absolute certainty that something is "right" or something is "wrong". Without some "absolute" standard everything is relative.

     

    If there is some absolute standard then I don't why it would stop at the edge of our planet's atmosphere. Now, for reasons of prudence it's not a good idea to tick off people with bigger weapons. That applies to other humans or "aliens". So Trip was definitely not prudent.

     

    As for a better answer - I think I've stated this in another post - if someone could help me have a child I would be willing to help them achieve something they want in return. If the congenitor wanted a book I'd buy it one. In fact since the congenitor only participated in the procreative act I don't see why it couldn't work during the day since no one was at home to procreate with anyway. The fact that the Vissians cared nothing for the "person" that could give them what they presumably wanted leaves me with a very bad opinion of them.

     

    Of course - I think the whole idea of this episode was to get us thinking - about ourselves our views on culture etc and it seems to have done that for a lot of people.

  17. Posted

    She's precious - but I did read a description of Chows by a Vet. He refused to take Chows as patients because they were so unpredictable. My sister's bit her son when he came over to feed it. Can you believe he's a postal carrier and the only time he's been bitten was in his mom's back yard?

  21. Posted

    cptwright Posted on May 12 2003, 01:33 AM

    how can you compare an alien race's procreation process, to womens rights. or any other thing human for that matter. and im not trying to impose my morality on anyone here on earth, but universally HUMAN rights relate to all HUMANS, thus people of earth, not humanoids, otherwords aliens.if you go out and pick a fight with every race whos customs or ways you dont agree with. were all in trouble, might as well go jump off a building now. also only 3 percent of the visians were cogenitors, there has to be someway to divy them up to have babies, or the race of visians would die out. their not used in sex, just used for procreation. leave it at that.

    I believe I stated there was either a universal right and wrong or there wasn't. I didn't maintain my position on either. On what do you base the assumption that there is a universal "human" right? That is an opinion - many people, cultures and societies througout human history have disagreed with that. What gives human societies the right to impose their beliefs on other human societies? I guess I am asking what is your basis or standard for asserting a universal human right - other than who has the biggest weapons.

     

    As for the analogy of women's rights. Have you read much history - the treatment of the cogenitor mirrors pretty exactly the historical treatment of women - their sole purpose was for procreation. In Victorian times a proper gentleman would have a mistress for sex and a wife to bear his children (obviously some contact was required but only enough to accomplish the purpose) That way of thinking still exists in a lot of places. I was even once told "my place was to be a wife and mother and I didn't need a college education for that" Well he married somebody else and I went to college.

     

    My last point and I re-iterate was that if there is not a universal right or wrong (or at least a uniform "expressed - preferably in writing" code of behavior) - then how can you expect someone to know how to act? I go back to my analogy of parenting. If you do not provide a consistent pattern of behavior your children won't learn the proper behavior for certain situations. Archer had a history if inconsistency yet was mad that someone else couldn't read him.

     

    thayln Posted on May 11 2003, 11:32 AM

    ... how can we decide if the Cogenitors are virtual slaves or what when we don't know all the facts. .. Maybe they're so emotionally unstable that they can't handle stimuli.

     

    Emotional instability was one of the arguments for keeping women out of responsible positions in employment and government. I think the neurological scans showed their brain functions were identical to the other genders.