Deep Space 9 Superior

[Linda06]

So do I (but Jel really really doesn't ). He's one of the few (maybe only) Ferengi characters I can stand for more than a couple minutes. So yeah, DS9 had zero terrible regular characters. Kudos to that.

Ooh a big fat ZERO....Now that is saying something

She also had horrible taste when it came to men (Neelix).

Didn't she just

[jelgate]

Ooh a big fat ZERO....Now that is saying something

Jake, Quark. And then their is DS9's huge recurring cast I could get into.

[Linda06]

Jake, Quark. And then their is DS9's huge recurring cast I could get into.

I like Quark And I didn't mind Jake once he grew up

Recurring doesn't count

[Descent]

Jake, Quark. And then their is DS9's huge recurring cast I could get into.

Jake was fine (especially once he grew up a bit). Easily better than Wesley... Nor The Battle To The Strong was a powerful/great episode for him. Not one of the best, but he was pretty decent and his relationship with his father was deftly handled.

Rom, any other Ferengi character (Brunt was OK though, Jeffrey Combs can do no wrong) and Leeta are the only "bad" recurring characters in my book...

[jelgate]

I like Quark And I didn't mind Jake once he grew up

Recurring doesn't count

Did you take some of Lady Rac's bettle snuf?

But their were some recuriing characters in DS9 that had a more crucial role then the main cast

[Alder]

Did you take some of Lady Rac's bettle snuf?

But their were some recuriing characters in DS9 that had a more crucial role then the main cast

Dukat comes to mind. And Garak. Dukat was a great bad guy...loved to hate him.

Also...I should probably stop trying to explain time travel.


[But it drives me nuts that Star Trek and Stargate have a straightforward way of dealing with time travel that they largely stick to, and people keep saying "but the new movie is just a parallel universe". No...that's different...]

[Linda06]

Did you take some of Lady Rac's bettle snuf?

WHAT? um no *sniff*

But their were some recuriing characters in DS9 that had a more crucial role then the main cast

Like Morn

[Descent]

Dukat comes to mind. And Garak. Dukat was a great bad guy...loved to hate him.

I think those two count as regulars, really (I'm still surprised that neither of them joined the main cast). Very important/amazing characters. Weyoun and Damar were great as well.

Also...I should probably stop trying to explain time travel.

It's hopeless trying to make sense of it all, isn't it?

Like Morn

Hey! He did get his own episode, that counts for something... right?

[Linda06]

Hey! He did get his own episode, that counts for something... right?

Yep he did He faked his own death and poor Quark got stuck in the middle

[jelgate]

Like Morn

That reminds of the time brother Fifth introduced the concept of character based questions to his quizes. He asked us for suggestions. I suggested Morn the character who never stops talking despite never having a line of dialouge. Brother Fifth said no

[Linda06]

That reminds of the time brother Fifth introduced the concept of character based questions to his quizes. He asked us for suggestions. I suggested Morn the character who never stops talking despite never having a line of dialouge. Brother Fifth said no

Oh you can't get a word in edgeways with Morn

[Alder]

It's hopeless trying to make sense of it all, isn't it?

Heh...the thing is, I'm a natural 'nitpicker'.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nitpickers-G...4661817&sr=8-1

But the rule is, you can only nitpick from inside the story. So you can't say "Oh, but transporters shouldn't work because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle", because Star Trek transporters have a "Heisenberg Compensator" to...um...deal...with that. <don't ask how!> And you can't say "Oh, but nothing can go faster than light, so warp speed is stupid" because in Star Trek the warp bubble lets them circumvent that basic law of physics.

However, you can criticise stuff from the inside...like..."They let that alien beam right onto the bridge? What was Worf thinking? I could've got the shields up quicker than that!" or..."So they didn't know which of the two Bashirs was the real one...why didn't they just shoot them both on heavy stun...and then they'd know?"

Personally, I love how - more from Next Generation on - the writers of Star Trek tried really hard to stick to existing science, or be consistent with the stuff that they had to make up. (Except when a story was just too cool to ignore. ) The parallel universe/time travel thing get tricky because there's a big grey area where real science and science-fiction meet and blur. Probably be a lot clearer if it was entirely fictional!

[jelgate]

Heh...the thing is, I'm a natural 'nitpicker'.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nitpickers-G...4661817&sr=8-1

But the rule is, you can only nitpick from inside the story. So you can't say "Oh, but transporters shouldn't work because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle", because Star Trek transporters have a "Heisenberg Compensator" to...um...deal...with that. <don't ask how!> And you can't say "Oh, but nothing can go faster than light, so warp speed is stupid" because in Star Trek the warp bubble lets them circumvent that basic law of physics.

However, you can criticise stuff from the inside...like..."They let that alien beam right onto the bridge? What was Worf thinking? I could've got the shields up quicker than that!" or..."So they didn't know which of the two Bashirs was the real one...why didn't they just shoot them both on heavy stun...and then they'd know?"

Personally, I love how - more from Next Generation on - the writers of Star Trek tried really hard to stick to existing science, or be consistent with the stuff that they had to make up. (Except when a story was just too cool to ignore. ) The parallel universe/time travel thing get tricky because there's a big grey area where real science and science-fiction meet and blur. Probably be a lot clearer if it was entirely fictional!

I take the Janeway approach when it comes to time travel.

[Linda06]

I take the Janeway approach when it comes to time travel.

What's the Janeway aproach?

[Descent]

Heh...the thing is, I'm a natural 'nitpicker'.

But the rule is, you can only nitpick from inside the story. So you can't say "Oh, but transporters shouldn't work because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle", because Star Trek transporters have a "Heisenberg Compensator" to...um...deal...with that. <don't ask how!> And you can't say "Oh, but nothing can go faster than light, so warp speed is stupid" because in Star Trek the warp bubble lets them circumvent that basic law of physics.

Yikes. That is a good rule. Unlike some of the other hardcore Trek fans, I hate discussing that kind of stuff anyways. That is not what I'm interested in when it comes to Trek. Unfortunately, people who don't understand that seem to think everyone who likes Trek is into discussing that kind of stuff. Hmph.

However, you can criticise stuff from the inside...like..."They let that alien beam right onto the bridge? What was Worf thinking? I could've got the shields up quicker than that!" or..."So they didn't know which of the two Bashirs was the real one...why didn't they just shoot them both on heavy stun...and then they'd know?"

Yes, that is much more reasonable (and less 'techy' the better I say ).

Personally, I love how - more from Next Generation on - the writers of Star Trek tried really hard to stick to existing science, or be consistent with the stuff that they had to make up. (Except when a story was just too cool to ignore. ) The parallel universe/time travel thing get tricky because there's a big grey area where real science and science-fiction meet and blur. Probably be a lot clearer if it was entirely fictional!

Heh yeah, I guess technobabble is what makes Trek "Trek"... I don't really care for it. It's just a means to describe/explain what is going on and that is it.