"Scott H" wrote in message news:CG16i.1484$[email]...
clowns
for
Because Janeway is such a dumbass she ignored the warnings. Nice going, you bun-wearing bitch. How many crew members did you kill as a result of your ignorance?
Top 5 ST: Voyager episodes that give me nightmares
May 26, 2007, 9:27 PM ET42 posts by 17 postersalt.tv.simpsons
42 posts
None of the series regulars, natch.
"NiGHTS" wrote in message news:[email]...
Actually, she DID kill Harry Kim, but he was replaced by a Harry Kim from an alternate universe.
And, of course, that there is her fucking, cold-blooded murder of Tuvix. One of the most disgusting of all TREK episodes ever, to make a "hero" of a killer captain.
Why they ever showed her as an admiral in one of TNG's movies, I'll never know. She should have been sitting for the rest of her life in a Federation prison for capital crimes against sentient beings.
-- Franklin Hummel in Boston, Massachusetts
Good one brah.
Instead of Janeway, here's an idea:
In the opening show, a Federation Admiral is supervising the hunt for the remaining Maquis. When the Voyager's captain is killed she takes command with a Maquis guy as reluctant (for both) first officer.
The Federation Admiral? Nechayev.
Now *that* would be choice.
"David E. Powell" wrote in message news:[email]...
going, you
your
from an alternate
One of the most
captain.
never know. She
for capital
fixed.
Except Uhura would have been 146 years old by then, not exactly in fit state to command a starship lost in the far reaches of the universe, if the 137-year-old McCoy in 'Encounter at Farpoint' is anything to by. <g>
Uhura's cool, no doubt, but I see your point unless they wrote an angle like they did with Scotty on TNG to get her into things.
:)
Another option could have been Jellico (Ronny Cox.) Nechayev was just badass though.
On 28 May 2007 13:06:24 -0700, "David E. Powell" wrote:
Those are the two worst-used characters in all of Trek. I loved both, and would have enjoyed seeing a lot more of them .. Why the actors weren't signed to long-term contracts escapes me ..
I feel that way about Commander Shelby from BoBW.
I swear it's not just because she's hot and has great boobies. I really do like the character! Honestly!
She was a good actress and she really went after Riker too. That was a hardcore promo on him. She was pretty tough.
Sean Carroll wrote in news:7kL6i.359312$[email]:
That was the plan. As I understand it, Patrick Stewart was considering leaving the series perhaps due to contract/money issues. If he had left. Picard would have died or remained with the Borg, Riker would have been promoted to captain and Shelby would have been the first officer.
But Stewart came to his senses, realizing this was the financially- benefitting role of his career and stayed with the series and we never saw Shelby again.
Sean Carroll wrote:
I'm going to have to see proof of this.
What, proof that that's really not the reason, or proof that she has them? I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for the former.
The best evidence I can find online for the latter is here: http://www.sherylfranklin.com/trekwomen_shelby.html
Of course, maybe it's just the way the uniform shapes things. But I like to think it's more than that.
|
I'm sure she could have managed a little side trip back to Harry's planet at some point...
Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com
"Franklin Hummel" wrote in message news:f3c56h$f0a$[email]...
you
your
an alternate
One of the most
captain.
know. She
for capital
You're talking about the viewers at home, right?
And ultimately she didn't kill anyone. It was reversed and it never happened. Also the fact the Kremin were screwing with the timeline made it hard to deal with the warnings. At first they weren't a threat, then they were but she tried to negotiate.
I've seen this mentioned before, but something just occured to me.
If she had the means to restore Neelix and Tuvok, and she didn't allowing Tuvix to live instead, wouldn't she be killing two people to allow one to live?
JLB
They no longer existed; they were ALREADY dead. Tuvix was alive and Janeway murdered him.
Yee gods, you have the ethical understanding of a Cheney supporter.
-Tom Sr.
"Tom Sr." wrote in message news:[email]...
You have the ethical understanding of a Borg going through puberty!
In article , "Tom Sr." said:
I wouldn't go that far -- there are quite legitimate ethical questions regarding active vs. passive action/inaction. Like -- and this is going to be kind of lame, because I'm making it up on the fly -- "Is there any moral difference between (a) dropping a safe on someone and (b) seeing that someone is under a falling safe and that you can save him at no risk to yourself, but doing nothing?"
In the Tuvix case, the question would be something like "Given that you can have either Tuvix and no Neelix or Tuvok, or Neelix and Tuvok and no Tuvix, which is morally correct?" And, of course, "Should 'what the status quo is, i.e., what will be the result if I take no action?' be considered relevant in making the decision?"
That said, mind you, I'm still in the "Janeway murdered Tuvix" camp. I use the analogy of a U.S. Navy sailor whose two kidneys could save two unconscious dying shipmates -- what would be the legal status of a Captain who took those kidneys without his consent, saving the two sick men but killing the unwilling donor?
On 29 May 2007 17:15:59 -0400, [email] (William December Starr) wrote:
That depends. Was the sailor really smug and annoying?
"David Johnston" wrote in message news:[email]...
Or farting in his sleep? Those bunk rooms can be quite cramped, you know.
William December Starr wrote:
I think the classic example of what you're trying to get at is the 'train wreck' problem. A runaway train is barreling unstoppably down the tracks. Ahead, the track splits in two directions. If the train continues by itself, it will go one direction and kill twenty unwitting people. If you pull the switch, it will go the other, and kill only one person. Though they are conflicted, many people are likely to finally decide that it is morally justifiable to pull the switch and indirectly kill one person to save twenty, based on the fact that it's inevitable and beyond their control that *someone* will die, either way.
Now change the problem a bit. The train is now headed down a single track toward the twenty people. But there is a very large person nearby, and if you were to push that person onto the track, the collision would stop the train and save the other people. Of course, then the large person would be killed. Often, the very same people who come to the conclusion that it is right to pull the switch, and indirectly kill one person, in the first problem see this problem as entirely different, and are not willing to accept the idea of *directly* murdering one person to save others. Logically the situations are the same, but the parts of the brain that deal with morality process them differently, because there is an instinctive revulsion to killing someone with your bare hands that overrides the impulse to say, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.'
And the situation only gets more complicated with something like the Tuvix situation, where one personally knows and cares about the people whose lives are at stake. It's a hell of a lot easier to sit in a chair in front of your TV and claim that it's obvious what the morally right course of action would be than it is to actually *make* that decision. I am not saying that I necessarily believe Janeway did the right thing. I am only saying that it is not at all a trivial problem -- in fact, there may not have been ANY 'right' choice.
Actually it might have been useful if she'd have saved Tuvok but "accidentally" failed to save Neelix.
"Sean Carroll" wrote in message news:E%07i.359797$[email]...
Oh, shit!
Well that's convenient.
What if they just stepped off the tracks?
Can it be Donald Trump? Oh please say it can be Donald Trump.
Well, yea...i mean eventually sure, after all we are all dying each day, you were/are dying as you typed that sentence.
Well damn it, maybe they should consider having a family reunion somewhere else other than on the tracks? Though I imagine the potato salad can probably be sacrificed for the greater good.
Spiderman?
But the Green Goblin is there and everything.
It's official. You are a geek.
Isn't that how Bush's Presidency began?
Well she could have uhm uncoupled the Heisenberg compensators and discrambled the doohikeys and unplugged the thingamabobs, resulting in a wormhole that would have shattered the space time continuum and activated Zarkon's principle of thrust. Or something.
No, a train.
They'd get shocked by one of those invisible fences. There's a buried wire, and everyone's wearing a special collar.
Unfortunately, I think his toup�e might slow down the train's momentum enough for him to survive. We'll have to make sure he doesn't see it coming until it's too late to lower his head and point directly at it.
He not busy being born is busy dying.
The potato salad probably caused the whole problem to begin with. It's always the potato salad. One minute you're just munching away, and the next you're dangling by one leg from a tie-dyed hang glider and your mother has turned into a deaf cheetah with OCD.
I'll just pretend you didn't mention HIM. Meddling bastard. Why can't he mind his own business and leave us poor world-taking-over villains the fuck alone??
Uh, I don't know where YOU'VE been. That declaration was already officially made by the time I was in kindergarten. (I already knew how to spell 'Archaeopteryx', and often used it in sentences.)
No, actually, that began with the falling of a permanent darkness over the face of the globe, and the moon turning to blood.
Don't be silly!
She's the CAPTAIN. She would have ordered someone ELSE to do all that.
And behold, the angel opened the fourth seal, and a voice spake thusly, "I George Walker Bush do affirm to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, except when I want to go all police-state warmonger on your ass." And there was wailing and gnashing of teeth...
No, now you're just using overly convoluted hypothetical situations to prove nothing.
Rockboy wrote:
<snip>
Uh, I wasn't really *trying* to 'prove' anything. I was trying to help someone come up with a firmer example to describe the well-known situation in ethical theory what they were trying to explain.
And you may find it 'overly convoluted', but it really is a 'classic thought experiment', used by real scientists in the study of how the brain processes ethical dilemmas. Except for a few small details (there were only five people on the first track, and they were workers fixing the track, and it's a 'trolley' instead of a train), I took the example *straight* out of an article in a recent special supplement on 'The Brain' published by Discover magazine. If you don't like it, take it up with professors Judith Jarvis Thomson of MIT and Ohilippa Foot of UCLA. They came up with it, not me.
In article ,
Well, you and I argued this pretty thoroughly a couple years ago, but I still say that Tuvix doe snot actually exist. Neelix and Tuvok exist. They were injured in a transporter accident.
This presupposes that Tuvix is an independent entity. Let me ask a different question, suppose that one person is kidnapped by a cult and brainwashed into thinking he is a completely different person. This "other" person wants to remain alive and has no desire to be "cured" back to the oiriginal personality. What's the status of that?
In article , [email] (Michael Alan Chary) said:
But enough about the nasal mucus of female deer named for fictional sci-fi characters...
[ *snip* ]
I don't know. I lean towards "you've got to hold your nose and respect the rights of the person who is standing there" though, in no small part because once you accept something like "that person is suffering from a false consciousness; it is our right/duty to cure him" you're getting awfully close to Soviet mental hospitals.
In article ,
Okay, so what about counseling for child molesters?
In article , [email] (Michael Alan Chary) said:
Ceteris paribus, (1) if it's voluntary, it's fine; (2) if it's condition of parole relating to a criminal sentence related to actual acts of child molestation, it's probably still fine; and (3) if it's a condition of freedom (a) after the completion of a criminal sentence related to or (b) in the absence of actual acts of child molestation, it's not fine.
In article ,
But it's altering the personality. Isn't that morally wrong under your calculus?
In article , [email] (Michael Alan Chary) said:
Consent, or lack thereof, is an important element of the calculus too. (To circle back to the origin point of this thread, Tuvix did not consent to Janeway's plan to "cure" him.)
On Sun, 27 May 2007 10:39:11 -0400, "Franklin Hummel" wrote:
The alternative was to murder Tuvok and Neelix, her comrades and friends ..
They no longer existed; they were ALREADY dead. Tuvix was alive and Janeway mirdered him.
Yee gods, you have the ethical understanding of a Bush supporter.
-Tom Sr.
On 28 May 2007 20:00:57 -0700, "Tom Sr." wrote:
We agree to disagree. The proof is in the fact that both were restored at the end of the episode. Had they been dead, that would not have been possible. Do you recall the episode, Ashes to Ashes?
Why, thank you .. [*beams*]
I have to agree with that.
And actually the idea of leaving someone the way they are, just because they are that way creates some moral problems itself.
Spock murdered good and evil Kirk to get back real Kirk.
The Enterprise crew murdered Locutus to get back Picard.
JLB
On 29 May 2007 16:40:39 -0700, JLB wrote:
The difference being they were dying anyway.
The difference being they would have wanted to kill Locutus even if they could never get back Picard.
"JLB" wrote in message news:[email]...
at
and O.J. Simpsons murdered his wife to get back his career.
The one where someone posts a Voyager topic on a TOS group.
Brad
This is OT, but better than the OT stuff we usually see.
You are confusing this with an episode of "Lost in Space" called "The Space Circus".
"Seven"? Are you sure you weren't watching "Blossom"?
South Park already did this. The foreign film festival episode. The black and white film where the cowboys were eating pudding. Then one of them said "let's explore our sexuality".
Mr. Museum