| More confusion over Section 31 [message #22658] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 03:34 |
|
If you recall, I posted a message a few months ago regarding an ENT
episode ("Divergence", I think) and asked how Section 31, which,
according to DS9, was part of the original "Federation charter", could
exist pre-Federation. It was pointed out to me that Sloan said
"Starfleet charter", and the Section 31 guy in the ENT episode
specifically mentioned Article 14, Section 31, of the Starfleet
charter.
Well, I'm reading the DS9 "Inquisition" script now. Sloan does indeed
say that Section 31 was part of the original Starfleet charter. There
was a theory in the last message thread that the mention of the word
"Federation" in that same conversation could have confused people that
remembered the conversation wrong.
Well, I think I just found another, much more likely, explanation. In
the final scene, Odo says "It won't be easy. If what he says is true,
and Section Thirty one has existed since the birth of the
Federation... they've learned to cover their tracks well."
"birth of the Federation"? Okay, I guess that's technically true
(though it existed for a bit longer than that), but I have a feeling
that, prior to ENT, the writers were assuming that both the Federation
and Starfleet were founded simultaneously in 2161.
Now, with ENT saying that Starfleet existed for perhaps a few decades
prior to that, you have to take Odo's line a little less literally for
it to work.
Thoughts?
Mark
|
|
|
| Re: More confusion over Section 31 [message #22659 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 03:50 |
|
Mark Moore wrote:
> Now, with ENT saying that Starfleet existed for perhaps a few decades
> prior to that, you have to take Odo's line a little less literally
for
> it to work.
>
> Thoughts?
Yeah sure, why not? I never take too much of this literally, it's
simply not worth quibbling over words unless you're a lawyer.
Yousuf Khan
|
|
|
| Re: More confusion over Section 31 [message #22675 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 06:33 |
|
"YKhan" <yjkhan [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114998651.937556.299200 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Mark Moore wrote:
> > Now, with ENT saying that Starfleet existed for perhaps a few decades
> > prior to that, you have to take Odo's line a little less literally
> for
> > it to work.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Yeah sure, why not? I never take too much of this literally, it's
> simply not worth quibbling over words unless you're a lawyer.
Unfortunately there seems to be a multitude of "lower deck" trek lawyers"
'round here.......
--
Qa'pla
Kweeg
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
|
|
|
| Re: More confusion over Section 31 [message #28167 ] |
Do, 05 Mai 2005 12:53 |
|
"YKhan" <yjkhan [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114998651.937556.299200 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Mark Moore wrote:
>> Now, with ENT saying that Starfleet existed for perhaps a few decades
>> prior to that, you have to take Odo's line a little less literally
> for
>> it to work.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Yeah sure, why not? I never take too much of this literally, it's
> simply not worth quibbling over words unless you're a lawyer.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
Obviously you're new to the internet, where the intensity of debate is
determined by the shallowness of the topic.
-- Ken from Chicago
|
|
|
| Re: More confusion over Section 31 [message #28205 ] |
Do, 05 Mai 2005 18:29 |
|
>"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>Obviously you're new to the internet, where the intensity of debate is
>determined by the shallowness of the topic.
That should be a bumper sticker.
|
|
|
| Re: More confusion over Section 31 [message #28304 ] |
Fr, 06 Mai 2005 07:58 |
|
YKhan wrote:
> Mark Moore wrote:
> > Now, with ENT saying that Starfleet existed for perhaps a few
decades
> > prior to that, you have to take Odo's line a little less literally
> for
> > it to work.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Yeah sure, why not? I never take too much of this literally, it's
> simply not worth quibbling over words unless you're a lawyer.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Well, this is Usenet- aside from words, what else is there here??
*****
The Joker in the Eeeeeeevil Cabal Deck of Cards.
Once we lose magnetic containment, Mr. Antimatter is no longer our
friend.
|
|
|
