Lesson of DS-9 Episode (Paradise)

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2004-04-08 08:22pm

Spike TV is having a marathon of DS-9 episodes. The more recent one is that there is aplanet which has a strange technobabble device which stops all technology.

This taught me a few lessons
1) The speach of the end indicated that you cannon find yourself without losing technology.
2) Again, in star trek, The ends justify the means. The "Bitch" lies to the people who crash land for 10 years and peopel die to lack of medicine yet everybody decides to stay.
3) Gunpowder is god. There was nothing indacting that chemical reactions would not work.
4) Sisco is a wimp. He beats up Klingons and Gem-Hadar in hand to hand combat yet cannot resist a few villagers from putting you in a box and goes willingly.

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2004-04-08 10:24pm

Basically, the thrust of this collective of mental defectives is we should all go back to living in caves without flush toilets or fire.....

Beating the bitch until she begs to die would have been more like it, but I'm a lot less forgiving than Sisco

Hated that episode, was so damned annoying...

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2004-04-08 11:45pm

Oh I wonder why Sisko didn't resist? It couldn't have been because two of the settlers was holding O'Brien, who also had an arrow aimed only like two or so inches from his neck. I mean, why would Sisko get in the box to save the life of one of his friends.

The second time he got in it was an act of defiance.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-04-09 03:39am

Aya wrote:Oh I wonder why Sisko didn't resist? It couldn't have been because two of the settlers was holding O'Brien, who also had an arrow aimed only like two or so inches from his neck. I mean, why would Sisko get in the box to save the life of one of his friends.

The second time he got in it was an act of defiance.

Good point.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2004-04-09 03:57am

When O'Brien came back in after disabiling the dampening field, with a full armed and operational phaser, I was near shouting for him to burn the barstards down.

But no, we can't do that in Star Trek can we?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-04-09 11:27am

Chris OFarrell wrote:full armed and operational

I wonder what inspired that particular statement.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2004-04-09 04:22pm

Aya wrote:Oh I wonder why Sisko didn't resist? It couldn't have been because two of the settlers was holding O'Brien, who also had an arrow aimed only like two or so inches from his neck. I mean, why would Sisko get in the box to save the life of one of his friends.

I am sorry, I missed that part. I did not see them having a bow pointed at O'Brian.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-10 04:17am

That was truly a horrible episode. And these magical "dampening fields" or whatever they call it this week are fucking irritating too. What kind of technology is routinely disabled completely (not just weakened, or interfered with, but rendered into a fucking paperweight) by persistent magical fields that have no visible effect on anything and seem to require little or no power to produce or maintain?

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-04-10 10:40am

Maybe this episode is the foreplay to ST:I?

The stupid ideology fits.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2004-04-10 11:57am

Darth Wong wrote:That was truly a horrible episode. And these magical "dampening fields" or whatever they call it this week are fucking irritating too. What kind of technology is routinely disabled completely (not just weakened, or interfered with, but rendered into a fucking paperweight) by persistent magical fields that have no visible effect on anything and seem to require little or no power to produce or maintain?

Duetonic fields.

Yeah, that bitch got me mad, I hope the Jemmie slaughtered them during the war.

Edit: Another problem. They've been there for ten years, how'd they get the Cardies to allow them to pass through their space and why didn't they report to SF about finding a stable wormhole?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-04-10 12:14pm

Darth Wong wrote:That was truly a horrible episode. And these magical "dampening fields" or whatever they call it this week are fucking irritating too. What kind of technology is routinely disabled completely (not just weakened, or interfered with, but rendered into a fucking paperweight) by persistent magical fields that have no visible effect on anything and seem to require little or no power to produce or maintain?

You gotta admit that such a technology would make an excelent weapon for the Federation had they had projectile weapons as well. Alas, another technology forgotten.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2004-04-10 04:20pm

The DS-9 Marathon taught me another lesson, they consider Runabouts to be starships so the numbers they state in the later part of teh series could be mostly the small ships we see.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-04-10 04:43pm

Kitsune wrote:The DS-9 Marathon taught me another lesson, they consider Runabouts to be starships so the numbers they state in the later part of teh series could be mostly the small ships we see.

Incorrect. The Runabout has never been treated as a starship. It is a mid ranged small utility vessel.

BTW, all those numbers of ships we see and Runabouts are NEVER part of those fleets. Furthermore, Peregrine Tactical Fighters are even SMALLER then Runabouts and do not have registry numbers on them.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2004-04-10 04:50pm

Alyeska wrote:
Kitsune wrote:The DS-9 Marathon taught me another lesson, they consider Runabouts to be starships so the numbers they state in the later part of teh series could be mostly the small ships we see.
Incorrect. The Runabout has never been treated as a starship. It is a mid ranged small utility vessel.

BTW, all those numbers of ships we see and Runabouts are NEVER part of those fleets. Furthermore, Peregrine Tactical Fighters are even SMALLER then Runabouts and do not have registry numbers on them.

In one of the episodes (I believe pt 2 of "The Maquis), they specifically called them starships. Sisco (or maybe O'brian) stated thst they had three ships against the Maquis having two starships.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-04-10 05:17pm

Kitsune wrote:
In one of the episodes (I believe pt 2 of "The Maquis), they specifically called them starships. Sisco (or maybe O'brian) stated thst they had three ships against the Maquis having two starships.

In the script they say

ODO
According to Sakonna, they only have
two ships capable of mounting the
weapons she purchased.

BASHIR
So we'll have three ships and they'll
have two. The odds are in our favor,
anyway.

And having checked my DVD's that is what they say in the episode as well.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-10 05:20pm

Alyeska wrote:
Kitsune wrote:The DS-9 Marathon taught me another lesson, they consider Runabouts to be starships so the numbers they state in the later part of teh series could be mostly the small ships we see.
Incorrect. The Runabout has never been treated as a starship. It is a mid ranged small utility vessel.

BTW, all those numbers of ships we see and Runabouts are NEVER part of those fleets. Furthermore, Peregrine Tactical Fighters are even SMALLER then Runabouts and do not have registry numbers on them.

Incorrect. The Danube-class runabouts are commissioned vessels:

Linky

NX-72003 USS Danube

NCC-72452 USS Rio Grande

NCC-72453 USS Yangtzee Kiang

NCC-72454 USS Ganges

NCC-72905 USS Orinoco

NCC-72914 USS Mekong

NCC-72936 USS Rubicon

NCC-73044 USS Shenendoah

NCC-73196 USS Volga

NCC-74602 USS Yukon

andrewgpaul · Post by **andrewgpaul** » 2004-04-10 05:34pm

I think he meant the fighters didn't have reg. numbers, not that the runabouts didn't.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-04-10 06:06pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Kitsune wrote:The DS-9 Marathon taught me another lesson, they consider Runabouts to be starships so the numbers they state in the later part of teh series could be mostly the small ships we see.
Incorrect. The Runabout has never been treated as a starship. It is a mid ranged small utility vessel.

BTW, all those numbers of ships we see and Runabouts are NEVER part of those fleets. Furthermore, Peregrine Tactical Fighters are even SMALLER then Runabouts and do not have registry numbers on them.
Incorrect. The Danube-class runabouts are commissioned vessels:

Linky

NX-72003 USS Danube

NCC-72452 USS Rio Grande

NCC-72453 USS Yangtzee Kiang

NCC-72454 USS Ganges

NCC-72905 USS Orinoco

NCC-72914 USS Mekong

NCC-72936 USS Rubicon

NCC-73044 USS Shenendoah

NCC-73196 USS Volga

NCC-74602 USS Yukon

I never said Runabouts don't have registry numbers. I merely stated Runabouts and Peregrines aren't counted in fleet counts.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-10 06:23pm

Why wouldn't the runabouts be counted if they are commissioned Starfleet vessels?

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2004-04-10 06:40pm

Patrick Degan wrote:Why wouldn't the runabouts be counted if they are commissioned Starfleet vessels?

...because they are utility craft on board ships, they are not ships deployed in fleet formations, thus would not be counted as Starships in a fleet. Its preaty simple logic.

Hell, Runabouts don't even appear to be issued to Starships, it looks like they are just issued to Starbases as medium, range utility craft. I never saw one in a fleet action in DS9. Few of them appear to have ever been made actualy.

Shuttles and Fighters though we know don't carry Navel Contract Construct numbers of their own, just the registery of their mothership.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-10 07:12pm

Alyeska wrote:Incorrect. The Runabout has never been treated as a starship. It is a mid ranged small utility vessel.

Right, that's why runabouts never undertook unescorted missions in the Alpha Quadrant or incursions into the Gamma Quadrants ... oh wait a minute, they did.

BTW, all those numbers of ships we see and Runabouts are NEVER part of those fleets. Furthermore, Peregrine Tactical Fighters are even SMALLER then Runabouts and do not have registry numbers on them.

I find it ironic that you use the lack of registry numbers on Peregrines as proof that they are not considered starships and then you turn around in your next post and say:

I never said Runabouts don't have registry numbers. I merely stated Runabouts and Peregrines aren't counted in fleet counts.

Why bring up the Peregines' lack of registry numbers as evidence if you don't think it has anything to do with the question of whether a ship is considered a starship?

Chris O'Farrell wrote:...because [runabouts] are utility craft on board ships, they are not ships deployed in fleet formations, thus would not be counted as Starships in a fleet. Its preaty simple logic.

If this claim happened to be true rather than being completely false, you might be onto something.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-04-10 07:18pm

Darth Wong wrote:Right, that's why runabouts never undertook unescorted missions in the Alpha Quadrant or incursions into the Gamma Quadrants ... oh wait a minute, they did.

Shuttles have done these things as well.

I find it ironic that you use the lack of registry numbers on Peregrines as proof that they are not considered starships and then you turn around in your next post and say:

Why bring up the Peregines' lack of registry numbers as evidence if you don't think it has anything to do with the question of whether a ship is considered a starship?

Because it seemed evident to me that the mention of Runabouts being ships to begin with was to include fighters in fleet counts. Fighters are smaller then some shuttles even. They lack registry numbers and certainly don't get counted as part of the fleets.

Chris O'Farrell wrote:If this claim happened to be true rather than being completely false, you might be onto something.

His claim is true. Runabouts have only ever been bassed off of Starbases and ONCE off a ship (the E-D once carried its own Runabout). They do not opperate as independent ships. They do not have the size or endurance of even a Sabre or Miranda.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-04-10 07:19pm

Patrick Degan wrote:Why wouldn't the runabouts be counted if they are commissioned Starfleet vessels?

They are utility ships at best and must opperate from other larger ships. While they might have registry numbers, they are not starships, are never referred to as such, and it would not make sense to include them in fleet counts.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2004-04-10 07:34pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Chris O'Farrell wrote:...because [runabouts] are utility craft on board ships, they are not ships deployed in fleet formations, thus would not be counted as Starships in a fleet. Its preaty simple logic.
If this claim happened to be true rather than being completely false, you might be onto something.

And exactly WHEN have we seen a Starship carrying runabouts? I never have. In 'Timeless' we see Picard and Co taking a runabout BACK to the Enterprise, but its never said to belong to her, its far more likely to belong to the *surprise* Starbase they just came from. Never have we seen a Runabout as part of a Starships invintory.

And Runabouts take missions into the Gamma Quadrent because:

A. DS9 didn't *have* the Defiant or any OTHER Starship to do them with during most of their exploration in the first two seasons.

B. Via the wormhole, the Gamma Quadrent is effectivly only a few kilomters away. And none of their missions required any more resources then a Runabout had. It performed them quite effectivly.

Shuttles, including the Tac Fighters, don't carry their own registration number which would denote them as their own Starship.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-10 07:42pm

Alyeska wrote:
Chris O'Farrell wrote:If this claim happened to be true rather than being completely false, you might be onto something.
His claim is true. Runabouts have only ever been bassed off of Starbases and ONCE off a ship (the E-D once carried its own Runabout). They do not opperate as independent ships.

Bullshit. Nothing operates as a truly independent ship; every starship has to periodically refuel and resupply at a starbase, including Galaxy-class starships. The point is that a runabout has enough range to conduct incursions into Cardassian and Dominion space, hence it is obviously capable of considerable interstellar travel, hence it is obviously a starship. Moreover, O'Farrell's claim that these ships do not take up formation with larger ships in battle is simply false; they do, and this was demonstrated in DS9.

They do not have the size or endurance of even a Sabre or Miranda.

Circular logic: you try to justify your claim that the lowest class of "starship" is a Miranda or Sabre by assuming it to be true and then pointing out that the runabout is beneath this claimed lower limit.