VaBeachGuy

I don't believe I had ever watched an episode of Becker before today. I just happened to catch one of the first episodes from 1998 this evening and my initial thought is "This is the crap that Terry Ferrell left Deep Space Nine for?!?"

I suppose people liked the show, it lasted from 1998 to 2004 so it had success but leaving a good show like DS9 for THAT?

Alright, I apologize. I was wrong. I unfairly took out some my anger and frustration at the other 'haters' (for the record, I don't think you're a 'hater'. Your complaints are based in fact and are rational). I'm just really tired of having the same argument over and over again. So I think now we should just agree to disagree at this point. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. Let's just end it. (Plus, constantly quoting each other is really tiresome and confusing).

 

I know I switched things around there. I felt this was the better place to finish.

I'm going to watch Azati Prime shortly, I remember the instance that you're talking about but don't fully remember it. My memory of it is that they were talking about projections, like in a presidential election here in the U.S. when they project that this state will vote this way and that state will vote that way and when all is said and done they were wrong and the votes went a different way.

And you're correct, I'm not a hater. If I were I wouldn't have created a special section for the movie with a special portal box for it. I know that I'm somewhat vocal with my disappointment in them making an Alternate Universe movie rather than making a "Pre-TOS" movie. I was excited to see the "Pre-TOS" movie that never came. As much as I liked the movie I also felt let down by several things.

One thing that I do like in terms of Star Trek (2009) and the 'alterations' is the idea that "Our Spock" and Nero from "our universe" didn't time travel within our timeline but rather jumped into an alternate universe. That gives Spock the 'cover' that he would need to avoid breaking the temporal prime directive and not attempting to set things right.

Also, to clear up any confusion... when I say that the Defiant didn't time travel but rather jumped into an alternate universe at a different time I'm not considering that as "time travel". To me, time travel would be of they had stayed in 'our universe' and went into 'our past'. The Defiant went into a different year but in a different universe.

As for leaving things as they are and agree to disagree, that's fine with me. Personally, I enjoy good debate about subjects that are debatable. As I tried to explain to someone else, this is the proper place for such a debate to take place. Especially when it's between people that have publicly stated multiple times their enjoyment of the movie as a whole.

I, as have many people have voiced negative opinions about Star Trek V and about Star Trek Nemesis in the past, but there hasn't been such a reaction to those negative opinions. I find it curious that when some aspects of this new movie are criticized that there's such resistance and such an effort to silence the negative opinions.

To the topic of this thread though, the timeline and time travel maybe a detailed review of all Star Trek time travel episodes, what happened in them and what the attitudes/laws in them were would be helpful.

Brett should retire. Period.

No, I think he should play another 10 years. Play for the Vikings for a couple, the the Bears and heck maybe even the Lions...

Azati Prime establishes that the Sphere Builders are capable of seeing multiple timelines, thus indicating the existence of multiple timelines.

If I remember correctly (and I may not) they can see the probabilities of those timelines taking place. In other words, the actions of Archer and the Enterprise crew had the ability to prevent those timelines from coming into existence. If 'a' happens then the 'b' timeline will take hold but if 'c' happens then 'f' timeline will take hold and so on.

Alternate quantum realities (i.e. parallel and alternate timelines) do in fact branch off of one another. The idea is that every option that can happen, does happen. So for every choice, every alternative happens in an alternate timeline. As for the mirror universe, there is some debate as to whether or not it did branch off at some point.

Fact? Parallel universes and different timelines is a theory, not a fact. I accept this theory in Sci Fi, I reject it in reality.

As for the mirror universe 'branching off', where in canon is there evidence that it did? The only evidence that I've seen is that it existed at the time of the trireme (4th or 5th century I believe), it existed at the time of the pirates (15th to 18th century), it existed in the early 20th century (WWI and WWII), it existed at the latter half of the 20th century (Moon landings and nuclear subs), it existed at the time of first contact, it existed in the time of Archer, it existed in the time of Kirk and it existed in the time of Sisko.

I may be forgetting some event in Star Trek history that would indicate that it did branch off but as right now I can't for the life of me think of what that event might be and would be very interested in knowing it. I haven't watched Mirror, Mirror for a while so maybe I'll watch it tonight.

And there can be different rules for different methods of time travel. The Defiant's move between universes and time frames is an example of that.

The Defiant, according to Enterprise went from one universe to another. That's not time travel as such. That's moving from one universe to another, it just so happens that the time in the new universe is different than the time in the old universe.

When I flew to Las Vegas last summer I went from the Eastern time zone to the pacific time zone. Did I time travel or simply go to a different place that calculated time differently from the place that I left from?

But if you want to get all bent out of shape about things getting erased? Go ahead. That's your choice.

Excuse me but this isn't my poll question, I'm not 'bent out of shape'. The question was asked, I am calmly voicing my thoughts on the subject, and yes it is my choice. I also believe I've earned that right with the amount of money I've pumped into this site for the past 6+ years not to mention the amount of time as a fan of the franchise that I've spent over the past almost 40 years.

We've been given a perfectly acceptable explanation as to how the prime timeline is preserved. To worry over possible erasure is needless worrying. But if you want to that is your right because no one is forcing you to accept it.

"Perfectly good" for some is garbage to others. I'm not saying that it's either but I do think it's a bit of a cop-out by lazy writers that didn't want to honor Star Trek canon.

As for "worrying over possible erasure", I'm not worrying about anything. Alterego asked the question, it's a good question and can stir good debate. I welcome it and I welcome everyones opinions on the matter but don't expect me to just sit on my thumbs and not express my thoughts when asked to, and this question being posted is asking everyone to express their opinion.

But this is where the franchise is now and where it will be staying for the time being. Don't like it? Don't watch it again. Don't buy it. Just watch the old episodes and movies.

Shall I link to the multiple instances where I said that I really liked the movie in and of itself? I've watched the movie multiple times, I went out and paid a lot of money to get 4 full sets of the glasses from Burger King to save. When the DVD comes out I'll get a copy of it for my collection. Just because I'm disappointed in the direction that they decided to go in doesn't mean that I all of the sudden turn my back on the franchise. I believe that some choices that they made were a mistake, I believe Star Trek V was a mistake... I still have a copy of it though. I believe Star Trek Nemesis was a mistake... I still have a copy of it.

Something to consider when thinking about Star Trek (2009) and it's success. I haven't seen any other polls around the internet and I haven't seen any other discussions at other sites, so I can only judge the reaction based on what we have here right now.

I don't know the exact number of Star Trek fans but let's say it's around 20,000,000. If our rating poll for the movie is representative of the fanbase as a whole then on the surface it looks pretty good...

81.38% of the voters (myself included I feel I must add) either loved it or at least liked it a lot.

4.9% are indifferent.... think it was 'average'

13.72% either disliked it a lot or outright hated it.

Looks good, but if this is the way the rest of future Trek will be and you have almost 14% of that 20,000,000 disliking/hating the direction of the franchise that's a huge loss if they stop paying for tickets and DVD's.

You have to suppose that you'll pick up new fans, but I would doubt that you'd pick up almost 14% of that initial 20,000,000. So if the purpose was to gain fans and our poll is indicative of the fanbase as a whole, they've actually lost fans. That 20,000,000 number would be something like 17,256,000 to 18,256,000.

I have no idea if those numbers have any basis in fact or not, I'm just thinking out loud. But the possibility of losing 14% of your avid fanbase is something that really could kill the franchise... at least as far as future projects are concerned.

Now, in keeping with your theme of "if you don't like it then don't watch it..." I'll say the same thing, these are my opinions. I believe you'll agree that I'm entitled to them and I believe that you'll agree that I've earned if not paid for the right to express them. If you don't like them, you don't have to read them. Remember, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you. I didn't pose the question. I just gave my honest and open opinion... as I always have for the past 6+ years and will continue to do for as long as I keep the site online.

Your example for #1 doesn't really fit. The Mirror Universe isn't a timeline but rather a complete universe that originated on it's own and only 'touches' our universe in those instances where there's a crossover like in "Mirror, Mirror", "Crossover" or "In a Mirror Darkly". Those episodes aren't portraying a universe that is an "offshoot timeline" but rather a completely independent universe.

 

Well, the Mirror Universe is an alternate timeline in that it is an alternate series of events that continues even when there is no contact between the two. There is no evidence to suggest it isn't just another alternate quantum reality as shown in Parallels (well really, no strong evidence either way). However, it definitely seems to be one that is not particularly difficult to make contact with.

 

As to the gist of the question (or what I think the gist is), falling back on 43 years of Star Trek episodes and movies I believe that Star Trek has established that there is one single timeline. It can be altered and altering it changes the future of that single timeline thus requiring a temporal prime directive in order to protect history, the present and the future.

 

Many Star Trek episodes do suggest one mutable timeline, however there are others that do suggest multiple parallel timelines (Parallels, Non Sequitor, Azati Prime). Additionally, the form of time travel may not always be clear, especially due to the fact that forms of shielding do exist (The Guardian of Forever, temporal wakes, temporal shielding, etc).

 

I'm not sure how to vote though, I'd want to know something first. At the start of Star Trek (2009) are we in the same timeline, same universe and same reality as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies or are we in an alternate/parallel universe that has nothing to do with TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies?

 

That is presumably the case, but may not necessarily be so. I believe that was definitely the intention, though.

 

If the movie begins in the same timeline, same universe and same reality as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies but then is altered by Nero going back in time and doing the things he did then in my view based on the precedents set down by 43 years of Star Trek all of Star Trek history is altered from that point forward.

 

If it's not in the same timeline, same universe and same reality from the start then it's just a Mirror Universe movie.

 

The case can be made that Nero and Spock Prime start in the prime timeline and jump into the past of a slightly alternate timeline. There is a precedent for this (The U.S.S. Defiant NCC-1764 moves from 2268 in one universe to 2154 in another). Plus there are no known incidents in the Star Trek universe for time travel caused by traveling into an artificially created black hole, so nothing is really contradicted. So, I suppose technically one could look at it is "not real", but no single quantum reality is less valid than any other. They all happen, they all count.

I believe people get confused when talking about parallel universes vs. timelines.

To me the timeline is just that, a line composed of the past, present and the future. It starts at the dawn of creation and goes on into infinity. In Star Trek we have the ability to jump backwards and forwards on the timeline and we have the ability to alter what happened in the past and by altering the past we alter the future. The existence of the Temporal Prime Directive means that in the universe of Star Trek the timeline is a straight line with no branches. Alter yesterday and tomorrow will be completely different than it otherwise would have been.

The past 43 years of Star Trek indicate that there are parallel universes and maybe even parallel timelines, not timelines that branch off from a single starting point but completely independent timelines... which to my thinking would just be a parallel universe.

Parallels and Non Sequitur, in my mind are very much the same. Worf is flashing between parallel universes caused by Geordi's VISOR. Harry doesn't have Geordi there to flash him into different parallel universes. In these 2 episodes, they aren't dealing with time travel but rather parallel universe travel. Harry wakes up on Earth in the current and proper date he's just in a different place with a different position and different life experiences. Same in Parallels, Worf isn't in a different time he's in a different Worf.

With Azati Prime, you'll have to refresh my memory on it's time travel/parallel universe aspects. I can remember Daniels taking Archer into the future but don't remember how that episode is relevant.

I also don't accept the notion that different methods of time travel can cause the 'rules' of time travel to be different. If, as Star Trek has established over 43 years time is a single straight line that can not deviate left or right then the method of jumping backward or forward makes no difference. You're still on the same single straight line.

If you're not on the same, single straight line then you're in a parallel universe of which the Mirror Universe is one. Worf jumps to multiple others and Harry jumps to one. They jumped off "our" timeline and into another one. So yes, the Mirror Universe is a different timeline but it did not originate from 'our timeline'.

'Our timeline' means going back to Archer and Enterprise through Cpt Pike in "The Cage", through Cpt Kirk in TOS and right through to Star Trek Nemesis. That is 'Our Timeline'. The Mirror Universe didn't come into being because Kirk, Scotty, Bones and Uhura were part of a transporter malfunction. Their timeline was already in existence. So in all of these discussions, my understanding of the term "alternate timeline" was that we begin with the TOS timeline and something happens that changes history... Nero travels back in time and kills George Kirk altering all of history from that point forward or Bones McCoy travels back in time preventing the death of Edith Keeler and altering all of history from that point forward and so on thus creating an alternate history within our timeline. Our future is changed because of an alteration on the past. If those events aren't corrected then we're in an 'alternate timeline' and what might have been will never happen unless the timeline is set right by traveling back and correcting the thing that causes history to change.

A parallel/mirror universe is just a duplication of what makes up our universe (or we're a duplication of what makes up their universe). Those multiple parallel/mirror universes are independent with their own timelines. What happens in one doesn't have to happen in another and what happens in another doesn't affect what happens in any other.

Chekov being born in 2245 in "our universe" doesn't mean that he can't be born in 2241 in an alternate/parallel/mirror universe but if he's born in 'our universe' and he's being represented as being the same person then he has to be born in 2245, not 2241. If he's born 4 years earlier then he's not the same person

If time in Star Trek isn't a single, straight line then why does the Temporal Prime Directive exist? Why does Temporal Investigations exist? Why did Daniels bother with making sure that "the timeline" wasn't altered?

Remember, we're not talking about what current day science believes about what time travel is or could be. We're not talking about the latest, greatest theory and most up to date thought process on quantum mechanics. We're talking about what has been established as "Star Trek reality" over the course of 43 years.

If we have 43 years worth of an incorrect theory (when it comes to reality) then we just have an incorrect theory in a Sci Fi show, but because we have 43 years worth of history with that possibly incorrect theory we have to stick with it as 'reality' for the Star Trek universe. We can't just throw out 43 years and say "Well, they were wrong and now we're going to change the rules". Changing the rules means invalidating the previous 43 years of 'history'.

The case can be made that Nero and Spock Prime start in the prime timeline and jump into the past of a slightly alternate timeline. There is a precedent for this (The U.S.S. Defiant NCC-1764 moves from 2268 in one universe to 2154 in another). Plus there are no known incidents in the Star Trek universe for time travel caused by traveling into an artificially created black hole, so nothing is really contradicted. So, I suppose technically one could look at it is "not real", but no single quantum reality is less valid than any other. They all happen, they all count.

Yes, it is possible that they didn't 'time trave' in their own timeline but rather jumped into a parallel universe. If that's the case then again, this is a "Mirror Universe" movie and I wish they "the people in charge" hadn't made that choice. I accept it either way, but I remain disappointed in the choices that they made when making this movie.

Your example for #1 doesn't really fit. The Mirror Universe isn't a timeline but rather a complete universe that originated on it's own and only 'touches' our universe in those instances where there's a crossover like in "Mirror, Mirror", "Crossover" or "In a Mirror Darkly". Those episodes aren't portraying a universe that is an "offshoot timeline" but rather a completely independent universe.

As to the gist of the question (or what I think the gist is), falling back on 43 years of Star Trek episodes and movies I believe that Star Trek has established that there is one single timeline. It can be altered and altering it changes the future of that single timeline thus requiring a temporal prime directive in order to protect history, the present and the future.

I'm not sure how to vote though, I'd want to know something first. At the start of Star Trek (2009) are we in the same timeline, same universe and same reality as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies or are we in an alternate/parallel universe that has nothing to do with TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies?

If the movie begins in the same timeline, same universe and same reality as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the first 10 Star Trek movies but then is altered by Nero going back in time and doing the things he did then in my view based on the precedents set down by 43 years of Star Trek all of Star Trek history is altered from that point forward.

If it's not in the same timeline, same universe and same reality from the start then it's just a Mirror Universe movie.

Star Trek (2009) is in a different timeline from all other Star Trek though isn't it? Anything that happened in Star Trek (2009) doesn't count/affect the rest of the Star Trek universe. That was my understanding of it anyway.

Otherwise if there's something of Star Trek (2009) showing up in 'our' Star Trek movies/series then the whole discussion/argument of 'alternate timelines/universes' kind of gets thrown out and we're left with the argument/discussion of how our Star Trek's timeline has been totally altered by Star Trek (2009).

The way I'm understanding it, the way the writers/director wanted things was for this movie to be separate from all other Star Treks in every way other than in name. In other words, for Star Trek (2009) to be a 'stand alone' movie... sharing the franchise name but also not part of the franchise freeing them up to do whatever they wanted and not have to honor Star Trek canon.

If the Nexus is a result of the red matter then that means that Star Trek (2009) happened in a single timeline which means that Journey to Babel couldn't happen the way it did originally because Amanda was killed before that would have happened. Star Trek IV couldn't happen the way it originally did as well... for the same reason. Amanda was dead before ST IV, there'd be a lot of things from Star Trek canon that could never happen if Star Trek (2009) happened in a 'single timeline' universe.

If, as it has been suggested it did not happen in a 'single timeline' universe and is instead a branch-off in time forming a whole new timeline and not altering the real Star Trek timeline then the Red Matter couldn't be affecting anything within 'our' Star Trek timeline... at least not within my understanding of how it works.

This concept of alternate timelines and the future not being affected by the past/present is new to me though so I suppose I could have it all wrong. In which case I'm interested in reading everyones opinions/explanations on how it all works.

I was there in 2000, I think. My dad was in the Army, too, and we went on a ski trip with another family. We spent a week there and all we did all day was ski. It was pretty awesome.

 

Perhaps you recognize this place...

 

Not that I can remember... I did have a birthday at a place there, but I think the name had "Frau" in it. Is that you guys in the picture?

 

All other 'vacations' that I've taken from work have been stay at home and sleep vacations.

 

Sounds like fun to me! Which brings up the point... what would you consider a real vacation? How long do you have to spend and what do you have to do for it to be a vacation? Is visiting your family over the weekend a vacation? I did that just two weeks ago. But the last time I went on a vacation, I think, was a few years ago when I visited New York City. However, in April I drove up to Kansas to watch couple of Aggie baseball games. I don't consider it a vacation, would you?

I wouldn't call visiting family a vacation, though I suppose it could be. I think the definition of a vacation is probably a little different for each person.

To me it would be going to a place that you've either never been or rarely go to for the purpose of recreation. Like going to Orlando, Fl for Disney World or going to Las Vegas for... well Las Vegas.

For me going to the Beach wouldn't really be a 'vacation' since I live 15 minutes away from the beach... unless the beach that I was going to was in Hawaii or Florida or California or something like that and even then I wouldn't go to the beach... after all I live 15 minutes away from the beach lol.

I'll be going to Maryland/Washington, D.C. in a couple weeks, for me that's not a vacation because that's where I grew up and where all (almost all) of my family is. For someone else though going to the D.C. area would be a vacation, for me it's just going home.

To me I've just always assumed it was a way of expressing " hootin' n hollerin' ".

In conjunction with the other question about favorite vacation spots I was wondering how often do you go on vacation?

In 40 years I can only think of 3 'vacations' that I've taken. By 'Vacation' I mean where you leave your home/city/state/country for an extended point of time for the sole purpose of having fun.

I suppose I could count all the times I went on leave when I was in the Army and went back home to Maryland, but in my mind I don't count that as a vacation. On that line of thinking though I will count the 4 or 5 days after I got out of the Army and drove here to the Virginia Beach area. My brother had flown out to Texas to help me drive (I was exhausted after about 2 or 3 months of 18 to 20 hour days 7 days a week getting ready for the Gulf War).

We stopped in Dallas for a few days to go to Six Flags and then a Cowboys-Bucs game. Then stopped in Memphis to visit Graceland (Elvis' house).

Aside from that and the others that I mentioned in the other thread (Florida and Vegas) I haven't really taken vacations.

For the record, I am a loyal Star Trek fan. I don't consider myself a "Trekkie", because frankly, I don't walk around in public (or sleep in) my starfleet uniform.

But wouldn't the fact that you have a Starfleet uniform make you a Trekkie?

Wow, time really does fly!

Happy Anniversary!

As Amy can attest, I've never been a big Favre fan but I do understand him wanting to keep playing now that his sports mortality is in sight. He's almost 40 and the number of days left for him to play professional football are just that, days. If he wants to hold on and go out kicking and screaming then I don't blame him. He should play for as long as he wants to, as long as someone will pay him to play. Because once he hangs it up for good and steps away, it's all over. There's no going back.

For myself, I've actually only gone on 'vacation' a few times. Once being last year when I went to Las Vegas with Mandy and the only other 2 times that I can think of were to Florida (once in 74 to New Port Richey and once in 1997 to Orlando). I did go through Memphis on my way to Virginia from Texas after I got out of the Army but I was only there for the day and wouldn't count that as a vacation.

Both times in Florida I wound up in Orlando and I'm planning on going back at some point, so I'm going to pick that for now. All other 'vacations' that I've taken from work have been stay at home and sleep vacations.

Yeah...its not as though they were Ravens tickets....... :)

Yeah, there's always plenty of Ravens tickets available. Easy to get any time...

The Ravens sell out every game.

Yeah, but selling 35,000 tickets to fans of the opposing team doesn't count...

lol I'm teasing of course.

I've been past their stadium a number of times, but it was back before it was being used. In fact I believe the last time I saw it they were just installing the seats. I was going to the University of Maryland hospital quite a bit back then to visit my nephew in law.

Yeah, I could sell the ones I don't go to, that wouldn't be a problem and was my plan. My concern is that I wouldn't get face value for those tickets and would take a sizable bite on them.

There's another way that I'll do it where I'll have to make a big investment up front but can sell the unused tickets for at least twice face value (pretty much guaranteed). So it's better to pass these by, plus I still retain my place on the waiting list. So if all else fails I'll be able to buy cheaper seats in the year 4009 or 4010. I just wonder if I'll have the energy to go to the games at that point... lol

I know less about Voyager then any of the other 4 series. I've only seen about half to 3 quarters of Voyager now but so far I would say that any episode with the Kazon ranks as bad for me.

 

Any episode featuring the Doctor as a prime player ranks high for me.

I've seen all of them multiple times now and the one that sticks out in my mind as my 'least enjoyable' episode (aside from the Kazon episodes) is Warlord. I just didn't care for it. I wouldn't call it the 'worst' but like I said it's one of my 'least enjoyable' episodes.

I liked the episode, I thought it was a good way to show her coming to terms with being part Klingon and I thought it was good to strengthen the relationship between her and Tom.

Yeah...its not as though they were Ravens tickets....... :)

Yeah, there's always plenty of Ravens tickets available. Easy to get any time...

Wow, I hope you don't have second thoughts about your second thoughts. :)

lol No, I won't. After thinking harder about it I decided that there were just better things that I could do with the money. I also was told that they make these offers every year and that I could actually get a better deal buying directly from someone that currently owns a season ticket rather than buying from the team. So when the time comes, I'll do it that way.

Congratulations! Sounds like a dream come true.

Thanks, though I'm doing what I always do with big purchases... having second thoughts... and third thoughts lol.

The seat that I'd be getting is an awesome section with a great view but thinking about the amount that they cost just has me re-thinking. So since I haven't actually sent the check (the check is NOT in the mail lol) I think I'm going to call and cancel.

More like a nightmare :)

lol No, dream. I've been an Eagles fan since 1978 and have never been able to get to a game yet. I've been to Redskins and Cowboys games, but not the Eagles... yet.

So thanks everyone for the help in a premature celebration... but I think I have to pass for now.... well I should leave the passing to Donovan McNabb lol

That is great hope you can get them, even if I could get Bear tickets I live about 1500 miles away.

Yeah, I'll probably keep at least 1 ticket for this season (Cowboys, Redskins or Giants) but sell the rest. I'm about 300 miles south of Philly, which isn't too bad to drive... maybe 5 hours but my main purpose in buying them right now is to secure them for the future.

I asked them how my name came up since I was #16,041 on the waiting list and I knew that 16,040 people hadn't given up their seats and they explained to me that sometimes when they get season tickets available they'll go to the list and see who has tried to buy tickets through them recently (within the last year or 2) and if their waiting list number is 1,000 or greater they'll call and see if they're interested in buying. That way, someont that's #16,041 won't have to wait the typical 2,000+ years it would normally take to cycle to the top of the list.

Basically, if I had passed up on this offer I'd never have gotten another chance other than by paying five to ten times more than face value through eBay.

That'll be great VBG, then you can see the Eagles blow it up close and personally!

lol... now, where's that Ban button... :)

lol

On Monday I woke up from a dream that I was at an Eagles game and the crowd was chanting the Eagles chant "E - A - G -L - E - S, EAGLES!!". After I had been awake for about an hour I got a phone call... from the Eagles.

I assumed that they were calling to try to sell me tickets for individual games. I was wrong, they said that they had 8 season tickets available and my name came up on the list. Well, it all caught me a tad off guard and with the way the economy is I hesitated and told them that I'd have to think about it and get back to them.

After pondering it for a day I figured that I'd blown my chance, that all 8 seats would be gone by the time I called them back. So I called at about 9:15 am and talked to them and sure enough they no longer had 8 seats available. They only had 6 available... well now they only have 5 available! (Club Level seats I might add )

I don't believe I'll be able to make it to all 8 games, I might not be able to make it to any of the games at all but after thinking about it and coming to the conclusion that seeing as I am #16,041 on the list I probably won't pop back to the top of the list ever again so I better try to take advantage and sign the lease... which is a 10 year deal. So I'll have the rights to the tickets for at least 10 years, even if I wind up selling most of the tickets I'll have my choice of which games I might want to go to.

Of course all of this might fall through if they can't wait till tomorrow (the 9th) for payment...

Yeah, all 7 seasons. But I haven't watched any of them for ages. 3 seasons remain unopened.

Well, it's time to crack those babies open and have a marathon lol

So, did you ever get those Voyager DVD's?