Khaless, Ridge Issue

[12181802 0]

In a TOS 3rd season episode where the hot rock brings Lincoln, Sarek, Khaless, Col Green, and others to life to study the Enterprise crew. Khaless one of the evil ones has no ridges. In the TNG episodes the clone Khaless has ridges.

 

How would you explain this and keep in mind the last episode of Enterprise?

[Jack_Bauer 1]

In a TOS 3rd season episode where the hot rock brings Lincoln, Sarek, Khaless, Col Green, and others to life to study the Enterprise crew.  Khaless one of the evil ones has no ridges.  In the TNG episodes the clone Khaless has ridges.

 

How would you explain this and keep in mind the last episode of Enterprise?

306109[/snapback]

Yarnek created those images from the minds of Kirk and Spock. Kirk only ever saw Klingons with no ridges and so that's how Yarnek created him. Kahless always had ridges but Kirk couldn't have known.

[HRH The KING 0]

I think it was a mistake to try and explain what was very simply a matter of improving make-up techniques from the 1960's to the late 1970's and bigger budgets.

 

The line Worf spoke in Trials and Tribblelations was simply a humourous "in-joke" and should have been left at that.

 

It didn't need an elaborate and awkward storyline to explain it.

[MrPsychic 1]

This whole concept of Klingon ridges in Enterprise creates more questions than it answers....

[Takara_Soong 4]

This whole concept of Klingon ridges in Enterprise creates more questions than it answers....

306117[/snapback]

 

I disagree. I think they pretty much covered it with this last arc.

[MrPsychic 1]

This whole concept of Klingon ridges in Enterprise creates more questions than it answers....

306117[/snapback]

 

I disagree. I think they pretty much covered it with this last arc.

306118[/snapback]

Well, I did miss this episode, so perhaps my question I had was explained... I was eating out :biggrin:

[mj 7]

I think it was a mistake to try and explain what was very simply a matter of improving make-up techniques from the 1960's to the late 1970's and bigger budgets.

 

It didn't need an elaborate and awkward storyline to explain it.

306116[/snapback]

 

 

I do not think the story line was awkward.

Click For Spoiler

Since a klingon ship was so easily overpowered by a two augments, it is completely believable that they would move to get that genetic technology. Because of carlessness, they unleashed a genetic desease...it is a completely believable scenario.

[HRH The KING 0]

But why bother? What was the point?

 

Do they need to write another elaborate storyline to explain why in TOS everything and everyone on the Enterprise looked like they were from the late 1960's? or why the special effects on TOS were poor compared to today?.

Edited February 26, 2005 by The King

[VaBeachGuy 12]

But why bother? What was the point?

 

Do they need to write another elaborate storyline to explain why in TOS everything and everyone on the Enterprise looked like they were from the late 1960's? or why the special effects on TOS were poor compared to today?.

306208[/snapback]

 

Did you see the episodes?

[HRH The KING 0]

Yeah, the old series are repeated on UK television.

Edited February 26, 2005 by The King

[VaBeachGuy 12]

No, but I read the plot details.

 

It won't be aired until sometime in April in the UK.

306223[/snapback]

Ah, interesting.

 

What was the last full episode you did watch?

[HRH The KING 0]

Sorry, did you mean "TOS" episodes?

[VaBeachGuy 12]

Sorry, did you mean "TOS" episodes?

306225[/snapback]

No, what was the last full episode of Enterprise that you watched?

[HRH The KING 0]

I believe it was Azati Prime. The one with the Enterprise-J.

 

After that, I had enough.

 

I had give the show enough chances.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I believe it was Azati Prime. The one with the Enterprise-J.

 

After that, I had enough.

 

I had give the show enough chances.

306228[/snapback]

I see. How many full episodes did you see total?

[Rivendells_king 0]

Well maybe khaless did not have ridges because of the lack of advanced medical technology to fix the genetic problem for the ridges but when he was cloned in TNG they had the technology to fix the problem?

[HRH The KING 0]

I see. How many full episodes did you see total?

 

All of them up to Azati Prime, I think.

 

I wouldn't have even watched that episode, but I wanted to see the Enterprise J.

 

After that, I didn't watch anymore episodes.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I see. How many full episodes did you see total?

 

All of them up to Azati Prime, I think.

 

I wouldn't have even watched that episode, but I wanted to see the Enterprise J.

 

After that, I didn't watch anymore episodes.

306236[/snapback]

What was it about that episode that made you throw your hands up in disgust?

[HRH The KING 0]

It didn't really happen like that.

 

I was losing interest for some time quite possibly towards the end of Season 2 when the last scene was the NX-01 flying into the expanse.

 

But when it came back, I started watching again, but as the weeks went by, I just became more disillusioned. After the Enterprise-J episode I thought "that's it" and it was quite sad for me because it was the first time I had ever thought that about a Trek show.

 

From that point to the cancellation, I didn't really say much about the show other than general discontentment until the "Save" campaign started.

 

:biggrin:

Edited February 26, 2005 by The King

[VaBeachGuy 12]

Well, it's certainly your right to like or dislike any show you wish to. Azati Prime aired almost a full year ago though, so there's almost a complete season that you haven't seen.

 

My understanding is that of the 3 and 3/4 seasons that are completed you have seen about 2 and a half to 2 and 3/4 of them so you are basing your current opinion of Enterprise on outdated information. This season has been by far the best of any of the 4 seasons.

 

As to the topic of this thread, I think the way they dealt with the Ridge issue was nicely done. They tied it into a previous storyline, they gave a valid and plausible explanation and they did it with an exciting 2 part story. Not only that, they were able to tie 3 series together with those 2 episodes. Enterprise, TOS and DS9.

[HRH The KING 0]

Well, it's certainly your right to like or dislike any show you wish to. Azati Prime aired almost a full year ago though, so there's almost a complete season that you haven't seen.

 

I know. We generally trail American broadcast dates by quite some time.

 

My understanding is that of the 3 and 3/4 seasons that are completed you have seen about 2 and a half to 2 and 3/4 of them so you are basing your current opinion of Enterprise on outdated information.

 

Not really. I've based my opinions on what I have seen, for sure, but even if Season Four is an improvement as you claim, that still means that I have been unimpressed by what I saw up to that point. So that's two full seasons plus one more (minus the final few episodes) that I feel were wasted and were lacking in quality. ENT fans wax lyrical about the fourth season, yet for all the claims of high quality, consistantly the episodes finish last in the ratings every week. This is all up to date information.

 

I have never said "Season Four is weak and poor in quality" because I haven't seen it. My views on quality concern the episodes I did view, obviously.

Edited February 26, 2005 by The King

[VaBeachGuy 12]

ENT fans wax lyrical about the fourth season, yet for all the claims of high quality, consistantly the episodes finish last in the ratings every week. This is all up to date information.

306246[/snapback]

 

It's good to see that you have such a full understanding of the American television rating system and that you put so much faith into it.

 

I myself, as an American do not have any faith in that rating system. A system that takes a sample of about 5,000 families and base their calculations on that small number. Especially when they don't take into account a lot of factors such as satellite television viewers, TiVo, the fact that not all areas of this country are able to get UPN and they don't factor in the encore presentation that is re-aired on Saturday or Sunday.

 

Also, if the Ratings were correct there wouldn't be such a big outcry and such a big push to "Save" the show. People wouldn't care and there wouldn't be demonstrations in front of the network.

 

I have never said "Season Four is weak and poor in quality" because I haven't seen it. My views on quality concern the episodes I did view, obviously.

 

Maybe not, but would it be fair to say that the overall impression that you give is one of complete and total dissatisfaction with the show named "Star Trek Enterprise"?

[HRH The KING 0]

Click For Spoiler

Especially when they don't take into account a lot of factors such as satellite television viewers, TiVo, the fact that not all areas of this country are able to get UPN and they don't factor in the encore presentation that is re-aired on Saturday or Sunday.

 

But don't you think it's entirely possible that the reason for low viewing figures could be that people simply didn't like the show and tuned out? Could that not explain the fall in viewing figures?

 

UPN is available to around 91 million people across the United States, ENT is averaging viewing figures of around 3 million. That's a massive gap. It means that a lot of people CAN watch ENT, but choose not to.

 

As for TiVO, the first episode attracted 12-15 million viewers. Now it gets 3 million. One could speculate that those lost numbers are Tivo-ing the show, but it's all pure speculation.

 

There is one fact which is apparent. The cost of producing ENT and the low viewing figures and lack of advertising revenue does not justify it's continuation.

 

Also, if the Ratings were correct there wouldn't be such a big outcry and such a big push to "Save" the show. People wouldn't care and there wouldn't be demonstrations in front of the network.

 

Big outcry? Big push? Where has this been???

 

The demonstrations attracted about 100 people to Paramount in LA.

 

It's hardly "big" in any sense of the word.

 

Maybe not, but would it be fair to say that the overall impression that you give is one of complete and total dissatisfaction with the show named "Star Trek Enterprise"?

 

That would be reasonable to say. But it's not like my dissatisfaction with that show is irrational. That opinion is based on an honest belief that ENT is simply not good enough for me to support any campaign to save it.

Edited February 27, 2005 by The King

[VaBeachGuy 12]

Click For Spoiler

Especially when they don't take into account a lot of factors such as satellite television viewers, TiVo, the fact that not all areas of this country are able to get UPN and they don't factor in the encore presentation that is re-aired on Saturday or Sunday.

 

But don't you think it's entirely possible that the reason for low viewing figures could be that people simply didn't like the show and tuned out? Could that not explain the fall in viewing figures?

 

UPN is available to around 91 million people across the United States, ENT is averaging viewing figures of around 3 million. That's a massive gap. It means that a lot of people CAN watch ENT, but choose not to.

 

As for TiVO, the first episode attracted 12-15 million viewers. Now it gets 3 million. One could speculate that those lost numbers are Tivo-ing the show, but it's all pure speculation.

 

There is one fact which is apparent. The cost of producing ENT and the low viewing figures and lack of advertising revenue does not justify it's continuation.

 

Also, if the Ratings were correct there wouldn't be such a big outcry and such a big push to "Save" the show. People wouldn't care and there wouldn't be demonstrations in front of the network.

 

Big outcry? Big push? Where has this been???

 

The demonstrations attracted about 100 people to Paramount in LA.

 

It's hardly "big" in any sense of the word.

 

Maybe not, but would it be fair to say that the overall impression that you give is one of complete and total dissatisfaction with the show named "Star Trek Enterprise"?

 

That would be reasonable to say. But it's not like my dissatisfaction with that show is irrational. That opinion is based on an honest belief that ENT is simply not good enough for me to support any campaign to save it.

306257[/snapback]

 

I had typed a reply but my computer crashed before I could post it. I don't really feel like re-typing it all right now but my basic point was that you've based you're complete and total dissatisfaction on incomplete data. If you want to be fair in your vocal opposition to the show I think you should at least have complete knowledge of the show. As it is right now, if you never watch another episode you will have seen just over half of the entire series.

 

One of the points I typed in my "lost" reply, my local newspaper has had at least 2 stories about the push to save Enterprise and so has my local TV news. Just as I was typing this reply this came on the International Fox News Channel...

 

FoxNews.wvx

 

As for the Ridges, I think the way they dealt with it was ingenious. They tied 3 series together in a way that answers 2 major questions in the Trek Universe.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

The video link wasn't working but I've corrected it now.

[HRH The KING 0]

Click For Spoiler

my basic point was that you've based you're complete and total dissatisfaction on incomplete data.

 

Not quite. I based my complete dissatisfaction based on what I saw and the data I have seen which shows the decline in ratings for the show. Don't forget that although I haven't seen Season Four yet, what I have already seen was "Star Trek: Enterprise" too and from what I've seen, I am not impressed.

 

If you want to be fair in your vocal opposition to the show I think you should at least have complete knowledge of the show. As it is right now, if you never watch another episode you will have seen just over half of the entire series.

 

Well, it's impossible for me to watch the remaining season of ENT if it hasn't been broadcast yet in the UK. I think watching nearly three entire seasons of a Star Trek show is ample time to make a decision whether this show is good enough for my liking. I watched it, I did not like it. If it improved in Season Four then I'm afraid that's simply too late. IMO three seasons have been wasted and the show deservedly has ended.

 

One of the points I typed in my "lost" reply, my local newspaper has had at least 2 stories about the push to save Enterprise and so has my local TV news.

 

Yes, news groups have been reporting the effort to save the show and fund a new season. Unfortunately, they also mention it's low ratings and the general state of weakness of the franchise as a whole which they describe accurately as being in a state of decline. The situation will naturally attract attention because Star Trek is the most successful franchise in entertainment history. A nine-second mention on Fox does not impress me. Unfortunately, while many people may love Trek, as I do, not many people love ENT and this has been shown through low viewing figures and dismal turnouts at the rallies.

 

Whether the Brazaelians accept it now or later, they will have to eventually.

 

The Save Enterprise Campaign is over.

Edited February 27, 2005 by The King

[VaBeachGuy 12]

my basic point was that you've based you're complete and total dissatisfaction on incomplete data.

 

Not quite. I based my complete dissatisfaction based on what I saw and the data I have seen which shows the decline in ratings for the show. Don't forget that although I haven't seen Season Four yet, what I have already seen was "Star Trek: Enterprise" too and from what I've seen, I am not impressed.

 

The data that you have used to condemn the entire series is incomplete, you only watched 2 and 3/4 of the series, if that much.

 

This ratings data you are using has already been admitted to as being incorrect and misleading. I've never trusted those polls and stats anyway, they poll 5,000 households and then say it represents 300 Million people. In reality, as you said earlier UPN is only available to about 90 Million households in the United States. The ratings don't account for the second airing and don't account for satellite subscribers.

 

If we listened to polls we would have "President John Kerry" right now, but as you know we do not so I do not accept the ratings as valid.

 

You're opinion of Seasons 1, 2 and part of 3 may be based on your experience in viewing all or part of those seasons. But if you are expressing an opinion that the entire series is bad then your opinion is flawed and holds no weight.

 

If you want to be fair in your vocal opposition to the show I think you should at least have complete knowledge of the show. As it is right now, if you never watch another episode you will have seen just over half of the entire series.

 

Well, it's impossible for me to watch the remaining season of ENT if it hasn't been broadcast yet in the UK. I think watching nearly three entire seasons of a Star Trek show is ample time to make a decision whether this show is good enough for my liking. I watched it, I did not like it. If it improved in Season Four then I'm afraid that's simply too late. IMO three seasons have been wasted and the show deservedly has ended.

 

Impossible? I think not. You may not be willing to get access to the episodes that haven't aired in the UK but it is by no means impossible.

 

Watching 2+ seasons is enough time for you to base an opinion on that 2+ seasons. But it is not enough to base a "complete and total dissatisfaction" on. It's impossible for something that is incomplete to be complete. If you want your opinion to be complete you need to see all of the episodes. Until then it's just a lot of "hot air".

 

 

One of the points I typed in my "lost" reply, my local newspaper has had at least 2 stories about the push to save Enterprise and so has my local TV news.

 

A nine-second mention on Fox does not impress me. Unfortunately, while many people may love Trek, as I do, not many people love ENT and this has been shown through low viewing figures and dismal turnouts at the rallies.

 

I'm sure they were trying to impress you, their disappointment in their failure to do so will be profound I'm sure. What that shows is that a random time there was international attention being given to the efforts to save Star Trek Enterprise which refutes your contention that there isn't a big push to save the show. Not only is there that international attention but the local attention that I mentioned for my area. Now it may be true that you live in a remote place that matters little when taking these matters into consideration, but there is a real reaction to what is happening whether you want to see it or not is your choice.

 

I again reject your "viewing figures" as inaccurate and incomplete. Get real numbers and then I may pay attention to them.

 

But we can take our little corner of the internet as an example. Using the "ratings system" 1 letter equals 10,000 viewers. Our petition has 2,710 signatures, so that is equal to 2,710,000 viewers. That's just for people that have visited our petition on our site. There is such a thing as a "silent majority", and in this instance I believe you are not part of it.

[HRH The KING 0]

Click For Spoiler

The data that you have used to condemn the entire series is incomplete, you only watched 2 and 3/4 of the series, if that much.

 

And what I saw was terrible.

 

I've never trusted those polls and stats anyway, they poll 5,000 households and then say it represents 300 Million people.

 

It looks for trends in viewing figures from it's sample group and makes estimates for the rest of the country. Whether you trust that information or not is your choice, but given the option of trusting your judgement or looking at the viewing figures, no offense Mr. Beach Guy, but I'll go with the viewing figures.

 

In reality, as you said earlier UPN is only available to about 90 Million households in the United States.

 

Which is a high figure. Not as great as the other networks, but still high. 2-3 million from 91 million is poor.

 

The ratings don't account for the second airing and don't account for satellite subscribers.

 

It doesn't account for illegal downloading and those who record it, but I suppose other shows suffer from that too. If the Nielsen's were inaccurate for ENT, then they would be inaccurate for other shows too, in theory. But there's no evidence to support the idea that took place when ENT's viewing figures were recorded.

 

"President John Kerry"

 

That's a very scary thought. :biggrin:

 

I think the polls indicating he would win were politically motivated. The sources that were sympathetic to the Demos would place him ahead. Those that were more inclined towards the GOP put Bush ahead.

 

You're opinion of Seasons 1, 2 and part of 3 may be based on your experience in viewing all or part of those seasons. But if you are expressing an opinion that the entire series is bad then your opinion is flawed and holds no weight.

 

I disagree. Three seasons is a considerable amount of episodes and screentime. It's enough for me to make an assessment on whether or not this series needed to be saved. There were questions over it's future after season THREE so clearly there were problems fairly early on when they saw the viewing figures decline. As for the fourth season, I have looked at the ratings which have continued to fall and together with my existing opinions on seasons one to three, I had enough information to put together a coherant position on what I thought about the show and the campaign to save it.

 

Impossible? I think not. You may not be willing to get access to the episodes that haven't aired in the UK but it is by no means impossible.

 

Well, I don't have friends in America to send me tapes. I wouldn't want to buy ENT DVD's if I could. I don't have the means to download episodes and I wouldn't want to anyway, and I'm not going to travel to America to watch them either.

 

So from my perspective, it's impossible.

 

Watching 2+ seasons is enough time for you to base an opinion on that 2+ seasons. But it is not enough to base a "complete and total dissatisfaction" on.

 

Yes it is. It's enough to base a complete and total dissatisfaction on what I have seen of the late "Star Trek: Enterprise".

 

It's impossible for something that is incomplete to be complete. If you want your opinion to be complete you need to see all of the episodes.

 

Until then it's just a lot of "hot air".

 

No it isn't. My opinion is as complete as it can possibly be at this point in time.

 

At this moment. What YOU regard as a complete picture of ENT in the United States is three seasons, plus a few more episodes in Season Four. What I regard as a complete picture of ENT in the United Kingdom is two seasons and most of the third season. The fourth season, I have yet to judge, but by then, the material I've already seen is more than enough to form a solid opinion on ENT.

 

I'm sure they were trying to impress you,

 

That's not my concern.

 

their disappointment in their failure to do so will be profound I'm sure.

 

Maybe this will cheer them up? -------> :lol:

 

What that shows is that a random time there was international attention being given to the efforts to save Star Trek Enterprise which refutes your contention that there isn't a big push to save the show.

 

Not quite, Mr. Beach Guy. Some news sources may have reported their various activities in brief segments, but I didn't see Fox, CNN or the BBC encouraging people to support their campaign. They gave them no "push". My contention remains strong. The fact remains. Poor turnout at the rallies. Low numbers of signatures on petitions. A small amount of donations to their cause. A failure.

 

Not only is there that international attention but the local attention that I mentioned for my area.

 

So? If they could only attract such small numbers in their rallies in the two largest cities in the United States even with worldwide coverage, does it really matter if it was mentioned on your local news?

 

I again reject your "viewing figures" as inaccurate and incomplete. Get real numbers and then I may pay attention to them.

 

Whatever numbers I showed you, I don't think you would believe them anyway.

 

For many Brazaelians, any opinion, fact or point that contradicts or challenges what they want to believe is ignored. I've seen it happen here, like the other Brazaelian sites.

 

But we can take our little corner of the internet as an example. Using the "ratings system" 1 letter equals 10,000 viewers.

 

Our petition has 2,710 signatures, so that is equal to 2,710,000 viewers. That's just for people that have visited our petition on our site.

 

I don't think so. If you used that logic I could say that all the people who have access to the Internet and HAVEN'T signed your petition and others account for a larger number who aren't watching the show. If you could compare the two figures, the amount of people with Internet access who haven't signed petitions would dwarf the number who have.

 

Plus, if you were right, then the two million figure would be actually pretty close to ENT's viewing figures. But how do you know that the same people who are signing your petition aren't also signing all the others on other sites? So you cannot make the assumption of adding them all together, otherwise you may be counting the same person multiple times and how do you know that some ENT fans aren't using multiple computers to sign petitions to artificially inflate the numbers? It's not above the hardcore to do things like that.

 

Either way, the analogy doesn't hold up.

 

It's like these people who call / send letters to / fax Paramount or Les Mooves fifty times to express their support for ENT. Even 10,000 letters sent by the same person for example still only counts as ONE viewer. With the donations they have received on TU. If fifty thousand fans have each pledged one dollar, then that's nice, although still pretty low, but it could possibly be fifty thousand viewers. But if two wealthy fans have pledged $25,000 each, then that's not so good, because they account for just TWO viewers.

 

There is such a thing as a "silent majority", and in this instance I believe you are not part of it.

 

I believe I am.

Edited February 27, 2005 by The King

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I've never trusted those polls and stats anyway, they poll 5,000 households and then say it represents 300 Million people.

 

It looks for trends in viewing figures from it's sample group and makes estimates for the rest of the country. Whether you trust that information or not is your choice, but given the option of trusting your judgement or looking at the viewing figures, no offense Mr. Beach Guy, but I'll go with the viewing figures.

 

I reject anyone that says they can project trends "trends" of 300+ Million people based on the activities of 5,000.

 

In reality, as you said earlier UPN is only available to about 90 Million households in the United States.

 

Which is a high figure. Not as great as the other networks, but still high. 2-3 million from 91 million is poor.

 

2-3 Million on night 1. How many watch on night 2?

 

The ratings don't account for the second airing and don't account for satellite subscribers.

 

It doesn't account for illegal downloading and those who record it, but I suppose other shows suffer from that too. If the Nielsen's were inaccurate for ENT, then they would be inaccurate for other shows too, in theory. But there's no evidence to support the idea that took place when ENT's viewing figures were recorded.

 

I didn't say it should or would account for downloads or VCR's did I? Nielson has already admitted that their ratings figures were inaccurate and flawed from November 04 to February 05 and that those figures should NOT be used.

 

"President John Kerry"

 

That's a very scary thought. :biggrin:

 

I think the polls indicating he would win were politically motivated. The sources that were sympathetic to the Demos would place him ahead. Those that were more inclined towards the GOP put Bush ahead.

 

Gallup and Zogby are not politically biased. The polls were just wrong.

 

You're opinion of Seasons 1, 2 and part of 3 may be based on your experience in viewing all or part of those seasons. But if you are expressing an opinion that the entire series is bad then your opinion is flawed and holds no weight.

 

I disagree. Three seasons is a considerable amount of episodes and screentime. It's enough for me to make an assessment on whether or not this series needed to be saved. There were questions over it's future after season THREE so clearly there were problems fairly early on when they saw the viewing figures decline. As for the fourth season, I have looked at the ratings which have continued to fall and together with my existing opinions on seasons one to three, I had enough information to put together a coherant position on what I thought about the show and the campaign to save it.

 

By your own comments you didn't watch 3 seasons.

 

There were the same problems with Voyager after 2 seasons of that series. I stopped watching it after the end of season 2 as "un-watchable". They didn't really hit their stride until the middle of the third season and then in season 4 it began to get it's feet under it and really go.

 

If I had been a little more patient back then I would have continued watching it in first run. As it is I began watching again after the series had ended and it's now that I see my mistake.

 

Impossible? I think not. You may not be willing to get access to the episodes that haven't aired in the UK but it is by no means impossible.

 

Well, I don't have friends in America to send me tapes....

 

So from my perspective, it's impossible.

 

Did you ever asked anyone here at STF or anywhere in the US to send you any? It's not that it's impossible, you just don't want them.

 

Watching 2+ seasons is enough time for you to base an opinion on that 2+ seasons. But it is not enough to base a "complete and total dissatisfaction" on.

 

Yes it is. It's enough to base a complete and total dissatisfaction on what I have seen of the late "Star Trek: Enterprise".

 

No, it isn't. I know from experience with Voyager.

 

It's impossible for something that is incomplete to be complete. If you want your opinion to be complete you need to see all of the episodes.

 

Until then it's just a lot of "hot air".

 

No it isn't. My opinion is as complete as it can possibly be at this point in time.

 

Then I must have misunderstood you. I was under the opinion that you stopped watching Enterprise and because of that you have missed a number of Episodes. So should I now be under the impression that you've watched every single episode of Enterprise that has ever been aired in the UK? That's the only way your opinion can be based on "complete and total" information.

 

Not only is there that international attention but the local attention that I mentioned for my area.

 

So? If they could only attract such small numbers in their rallies in the two largest cities in the United States even with worldwide coverage, does it really matter if it was mentioned on your local news?

 

It shows the level of interest that they are even reporting it at all.

 

I again reject your "viewing figures" as inaccurate and incomplete. Get real numbers and then I may pay attention to them.

 

Whatever numbers I showed you, I don't think you would believe them anyway.

 

Show them to me and let me be the judge.

 

But we can take our little corner of the internet as an example. Using the "ratings system" 1 letter equals 10,000 viewers.

 

Our petition has 2,710 signatures, so that is equal to 2,710,000 viewers. That's just for people that have visited our petition on our site.

 

I don't think so. If you used that logic I could say that all the people who have access to the Internet and HAVEN'T signed your petition account for a larger number who aren't watching the show. If you could compare the two figures, the amount of people with Internet access who haven't signed the petition would dwarf the number who have.

 

If you want to make some kind of comparison you have to use a logical comparison. There's billions of people with internet access but only a small fraction even know "our little corner" of the internet exists.

 

The comparison that I made is one that the networks themselves use. 1 Letter equals 10,000 viewers. That's their equation, not mine.

 

There is such a thing as a "silent majority", and in this instance I believe you are not part of it.

 

I believe I am. :lol:

 

I can prove you aren't. It's called the "Silent Majority", you are anything but silent. If you think you are part of a "majority" you can show me the numbers and I'll decide if I believe them or not.

 

Regardless of our back and forth I know I'm right and you're going to continue to think you're right. None of this has anything to do with the Klingon Ridge issue that this thread is for so if you wish to open a new thread about Enterprise, it's ratings and your viewing habits I invite you to do so.

 

This thread, however is now being returned to the topic that it was intended to discuss which is the Klingons head ridges and the way Enterprise explained the reason for the difference in appearance from TOS Klingons and other Klingons.

 

As I've said, I think it was a perfect explanation and by doing it they tied 3 series together and resolved 2 major questions at the same time.

 

 

For further discussion about Enterprise and the campaign to save it from cancellation please go to this topic:

 

Enterprise Discussion