• 54 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by joshmightbe (24876 posts) - - Show Bio

The first season was really boring outside of a few episodes and the second had exactly 3 good episodes. To fully express how bad season 2 was I need only point out that the season finale was a clip show. Don't get me wrong I love the show from season 3 on but getting through those first 2 is just a chore.

#2 Posted by The Stegman (23814 posts) - - Show Bio

I find every Star Trek tv series boring. The reboot movie is what got me actually liking the franchise.

#3 Edited by PrinceIMC (5421 posts) - - Show Bio

Really? I feel just the opposite, I remember hating the first couple seasons of TNG when I'd see them on TV but I just bought them on DVD and realized why I loved Star Trek. Yes I think the later seasons are better but I still loved those early ones. Now I'm alternating back and forth between buying seasons of TNG and DS9.

#4 Posted by jeanlucpicard (1845 posts) - - Show Bio

You have angered the beast.

#5 Posted by Bruxae (13189 posts) - - Show Bio

Wth? Every season of TNG is pure gold, scratch that - its diamonds and sunrises.

#6 Edited by AweSam (7373 posts) - - Show Bio

@jeanlucpicard: Kirk is better. Bring it.

Every series except the original sucks. That's only because I find the original hilarious. Reboot is pure awesomeness. AweSam away!!!!!

#7 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (10148 posts) - - Show Bio

Jar Jar Abrams fans open a Door that cant close, a Door of pure failure, stupid plots, bad action, lame dialoge, poor character development, 80s crappy nostalgia and lens flares.

#8 Edited by deadpoolrules (4683 posts) - - Show Bio

Jar Jar Abrams fans open a Door that cant close, a Door of pure failure, stupid plots, bad action, lame dialoge, poor character development, 80s crappy nostalgia and lens flares.

True.

#9 Posted by joshmightbe (24876 posts) - - Show Bio

@jeanlucpicard: I still think Picard is the better Captain just saying the first 2 season weren't good. For the first two seasons the whole crew of the Enterprise seems more concerned with telling everyone how great humans are and why every other civilization sucks in comparison. Season 3 on the crew was just way more likable.

#10 Posted by LaserLambert (636 posts) - - Show Bio

I disagree, I like the early stuff; the later stuff, when it's all Klingons and Warf, and Wesley there are still good episodes, but the magic of the exploration, that I think was mostly in the first couple seasons, was completely gone.

#11 Posted by DeathpooltheT1000 (10148 posts) - - Show Bio

@deathpoolthet1000 said:

Jar Jar Abrams fans open a Door that cant close, a Door of pure failure, stupid plots, bad action, lame dialoge, poor character development, 80s crappy nostalgia and lens flares.

True.

The God of The Star Trek Reboot Twilight fans God.

JAR JAR ABRAMS.

He stole all his tricks from Steven Spielberg and Micheal Bay, but he cant do nothing original, not like Bay and Spielber that at least created their own tricks and now how to do them.

And yes Abrams used to work for Bay.

#12 Edited by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesam said:

@jeanlucpicard: Kirk is better. Bring it.

Every series except the original sucks. That's only because I find the original hilarious. Reboot is pure awesomeness. AweSam away!!!!!

Kikr is better, but Sisko is best

#13 Edited by deadpoolrules (4683 posts) - - Show Bio

@deadpoolrules said:

@deathpoolthet1000 said:

Jar Jar Abrams fans open a Door that cant close, a Door of pure failure, stupid plots, bad action, lame dialoge, poor character development, 80s crappy nostalgia and lens flares.

True.

The God of The Star Trek Reboot Twilight fans God.

JAR JAR ABRAMS.

He stole all his tricks from Steven Spielberg and Micheal Bay, but he cant do nothing original, not like Bay and Spielber that at least created their own tricks and now how to do them.

And yes Abrams used to work for Bay.

All hail the newest Robert Liefield,which copies everything from everyone.

#14 Posted by DeathpooltheT1000 (10148 posts) - - Show Bio

Also i blame Wil Wheaton Aka Wesley Crusher for everything that is wrong in the universe.

@deathpoolthet1000 said:
@deadpoolrules said:

@deathpoolthet1000 said:

Jar Jar Abrams fans open a Door that cant close, a Door of pure failure, stupid plots, bad action, lame dialoge, poor character development, 80s crappy nostalgia and lens flares.

True.

The God of The Star Trek Reboot Twilight fans God.

JAR JAR ABRAMS.

He stole all his tricks from Steven Spielberg and Micheal Bay, but he cant do nothing original, not like Bay and Spielber that at least created their own tricks and now how to do them.

And yes Abrams used to work for Bay.

All hail the newest Robert Liefield,which copies everything from everyone.

At least Liefield is being attack for this, this guy is so loved is just ridiculous.

#15 Posted by cyberninja (10413 posts) - - Show Bio

It's not that bad.

#16 Posted by deadpoolrules (4683 posts) - - Show Bio

@deathpoolthet1000: True,but Liefield's creations did grow and become famous,Deadpool for example.

#17 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (10148 posts) - - Show Bio

@deathpoolthet1000: True,but Liefield's creations did grow and become famous,Deadpool for example.

But never got to became a world trend, this guy made over the top lens flares, bizarre shacky camera and PseudoSpielbergness, also Deadpool is at least original enough to became his own thing, Abrams never will have that.

#18 Edited by deadpoolrules (4683 posts) - - Show Bio

@deadpoolrules said:

@deathpoolthet1000: True,but Liefield's creations did grow and become famous,Deadpool for example.

But never got to became a world trend, this guy made over the top lens flares, bizarre shacky camera and PseudoSpielbergness, also Deadpool is at least original enough to became his own thing, Abrams never will have that.

Good point,my sir.

#19 Edited by isaac_clarke (5448 posts) - - Show Bio
#20 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio
#21 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (10148 posts) - - Show Bio

@isaac_clarke said:

I laugh at claims contradictory to the superiority of Picard to all. HaHa!

@awesam said:

@jeanlucpicard: Kirk is better. Bring it.

Who buried Kirk?

That the guy who ditched his command to become a space god?

he didn't have much of a choice about that one, I mean, Picard never had to make decisions half as hard as what Sisko had to do

No he just had to deal with the real concept of Q, you know the omnipotent one, the one that didnt sucked ass.

#22 Edited by joshmightbe (24876 posts) - - Show Bio

@deathpoolthet1000: The Q thing always bugged me, not because of the concept but because of the rest of the series view on religion. They act like the idea of believing in an all powerful being that can create matter out of nothing despite the fact that they see Q doing it on a regular basis, is absurd. Its the same with any of the god-like entities in Star Trek, they have actual quantifiable proof that crap like that is actually possible and they act like anyone who sticks to a religion is a crazy primitive.

I'm not turning this into a religious debate I'm just saying that by the established rules of that universe it seem kind of stupid to just assume God can't exist.

#23 Edited by Nerx (15088 posts) - - Show Bio

I find every Star Trek tv series boring. The reboot movie is what got me actually liking the franchise.

You will like kirk, slaps the sh!t out of gods and bangs space women

#24 Edited by theTimeStreamer (2841 posts) - - Show Bio

yeah. kinda. you really had to like star trek to stomach TNG for the first season. 2 got way better. but i preffer the first series. funky, weird and kirk humping anything that moves.

#25 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (10148 posts) - - Show Bio

@deathpoolthet1000: The Q thing always bugged me, not because of the concept but because of the rest of the series view on religion. They act like the idea of believing in an all powerful being that can create matter out of nothing despite the fact that they see Q doing it on a regular basis, is absurd. Its the same with any of the god-like entities in Star Trek, they have actual quantifiable proof that crap like that is actually possible and they act like anyone who sticks to a religion is a crazy primitive.

I'm not turning this into a religious debate I'm just saying that by the established rules of that universe it seem kind of stupid to just assume God can't exist.

Kirk always explain that religion is tha abillity of humans to see beyond logic, like alternate dimensions.

Picard obviosuly belive in God, he say to Q he is not God and he is angry that Q say he is God.

They talk of religion more like a morallity code and belief system that science and to explain the universe, but they also attacked people who belive in science as a religion and a morallity code.

#26 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@joshmightbe said:

@deathpoolthet1000: The Q thing always bugged me, not because of the concept but because of the rest of the series view on religion. They act like the idea of believing in an all powerful being that can create matter out of nothing despite the fact that they see Q doing it on a regular basis, is absurd. Its the same with any of the god-like entities in Star Trek, they have actual quantifiable proof that crap like that is actually possible and they act like anyone who sticks to a religion is a crazy primitive.

I'm not turning this into a religious debate I'm just saying that by the established rules of that universe it seem kind of stupid to just assume God can't exist.

Kirk always explain that religion is tha abillity of humans to see beyond logic, like alternate dimensions.

Picard obviosuly belive in God, he say to Q he is not God and he is angry that Q say he is God.

They talk of religion more like a morallity code and belief system that science and to explain the universe, but they also attacked people who belive in science as a religion and a morallity code.

and made the ethical decision to not bring a little girl back to life because...that was the easy way?

#27 Edited by joshmightbe (24876 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1: Apparently in season 1 they thought dying under rubble was preferable to accepting help from something beyond human understanding.

#28 Posted by joshmightbe (24876 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1: Tho they did change their minds about that about an hour after the Borg showed up.

#29 Posted by isaac_clarke (5448 posts) - - Show Bio

There was that one time Picard had to convince three sets of his crew to fly into a singularity to save all life in their known universe from ceasing to exist. Although to be fair - Picard generally made tough choices look fairly easy since he normally did have the right answer.

@nerx said:

@the_stegman said:

I find every Star Trek tv series boring. The reboot movie is what got me actually liking the franchise.

You will like kirk, slaps the sh!t out of gods and bangs space women

Did he ever pull this off?

Picard had arguably one of the most powerful beings in his universe more or less judging the entirety of humanity through him - leading to some hilarity as said being is wrapped around Picard's finger half the time.

Life can't amount to much if Riker can snap his fingers to bring back the dead. It was the same deal with the Nexus - Picard happily leaves his personal heaven because he knows what is right and wrong - that a planet's worth of people will die if he doesn't. He even convinces Kirk to leave on the same boat.

#30 Edited by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1: Apparently in season 1 they thought dying under rubble was preferable to accepting help from something beyond human understanding.

@betatesthighlander1: Tho they did change their minds about that about an hour after the Borg showed up.

that might be something about how Picard hates children

#31 Posted by Extremis (3344 posts) - - Show Bio

@bruxae: agreed

Star Trek TNG is awesome! Shame on you.

#32 Edited by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

There was that one time Picard had to convince three sets of his crew to fly into a singularity to save all life in their known universe from ceasing to exist. Although to be fair - Picard generally made tough choices look fairly easy since he normally did have the right answer.

that wasn't a decision, that was clever debating.

and he doesn't usually have the "right" answer, he has the Picard answer (or just the Roddenberry answer)

@nerx said:

@the_stegman said:

I find every Star Trek tv series boring. The reboot movie is what got me actually liking the franchise.

You will like kirk, slaps the sh!t out of gods and bangs space women

Did he ever pull this off?

Picard had arguably one of the most powerful beings in his universe more or less judging the entirety of humanity through him - leading to some hilarity as said being is wrapped around Picard's finger half the time.

Life can't amount to much if Riker can snap his fingers to bring back the dead. It was the same deal with the Nexus - Picard happily leaves his personal heaven because he knows what is right and wrong - that a planet's worth of people will die if he doesn't. He even convinces Kirk to leave on the same boat.

would life mean much if there was medicine that would bring people back to life?

or medicine that could change lives?

and I'm not sure how refusing to save a chil'd life makes it the "right" choice

#33 Edited by isaac_clarke (5448 posts) - - Show Bio

and he doesn't usually have the "right" answer, he has the Picard answer (or just the Roddenberry answer)

I'm not sure how convincing his crew right out of space dock to fly into the neutral zone - into a singularity was clever debating. Or when he's a retired ambassador suffering from mental illness convincing Worth and Riker to go along his nutty mission during a Federation / Klingon War. Usually worked pretty well for Picard.

Sisko showing off he has less restraint than Picard and is more prone to simply react rather than think. He got better after this, but Q successfully trolled Sisko.

would life mean much if there was medicine that would bring people back to life? or medicine that could change lives? and I'm not sure how refusing to save a chil'd life makes it the "right" choice

There is a natural way of things; at least for humans at that point of their evolution in Star Trek. People live and die - life loses much of it's meaning without the other. Namely the plight of the Q where most of them couldn't give much of a damn to do anything since they could do anything and had an endless amount of time to do that anything and nothing.

As far as the little girl is concerned; she was dead. So were a host of other people. And likely more across the STU. That's the end of their journey and Riker has no right to snap his fingers to do otherwise.

#34 Posted by Nerx (15088 posts) - - Show Bio
#35 Edited by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@nerx said:

@betatesthighlander1: Q was based off Trelane in the first season, which Kirk bitch slapped

this is true, except Kirk needed trelane's parents to win

@betatesthighlander1 said:

and he doesn't usually have the "right" answer, he has the Picard answer (or just the Roddenberry answer)

I'm not sure how convincing his crew right out of space dock to fly into the neutral zone - into a singularity was clever debating. Or when he's a retired ambassador suffering from mental illness convincing Worth and Riker to go along his nutty mission during a Federation / Klingon War. Usually worked pretty well for Picard.

yeah, he took the obvious solution of killing two crews that he didn't actually know, and they did that as a favor more than anything else

Sisko showing off he has less restraint than Picard and is more prone to simply react rather than think. He got better after this, but Q successfully trolled Sisko.


okay, so when Picad\rd gets mad at Q, that's a dign that Picard is cool

but when Sisko straight punches the guy in the face with no consequences, that somehow means Sisko is stupid?

@betatesthighlander1 said:
would life mean much if there was medicine that would bring people back to life? or medicine that could change lives? and I'm not sure how refusing to save a chil'd life makes it the "right" choice

There is a natural way of things; at least for humans at that point of their evolution in Star Trek. People live and die - life loses much of it's meaning without the other. Namely the plight of the Q where most of them couldn't give much of a damn to do anything since they could do anything and had an endless amount of time to do that anything and nothing.

As far as the little girl is concerned; she was dead. So were a host of other people. And likely more across the STU. That's the end of their journey and Riker has no right to snap his fingers to do otherwise.

so basically whenever a doctor brings back someone who was dead that's an abomination?

because that is the only argument you have for why Riker shouldn't have done that

#36 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (10148 posts) - - Show Bio

@joshmightbe:@betatesthighlander1: Because that means they destroy circle of life and death, death is part of life.

Also, Riker only had power to change reallity, never got the knowledge of Q, for the same he was still a human and bring some one from the death is not a human decision to make, as horrible as it sound Picard take the right decision, using his power to undo death would mean change the circle of life and death on the universe, would be part of decision that Ryker would made because he belive it was the best thing to do, power will corrupt him if he belive he can do anything he wants without thinking in the consequences.

He will be a human with the power of God, what is the most horrible thing i could think.

Also, no one can bring people from death, this is a mtyh people likes to belive, so they belive science is omnipotent.

The people that was "dead", was actually higly unconscious, not dead.

#37 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@joshmightbe:@betatesthighlander1: Because that means they destroy circle of life and death, death is part of life.

Also, Riker only had power to change reallity, never got the knowledge of Q, for the same he was still a human and bring some one from the death is not a human decision to make, as horrible as it sound Picard take the right decision, using his power to undo death would mean change the circle of life and death on the universe, would be part of decision that Ryker would made because he belive it was the best thing to do, power will corrupt him if he belive he can do anything he wants without thinking in the consequences.

He will be a human with the power of God, what is the most horrible thing i could think.

Also, no one can bring people from death, this is a mtyh people likes to belive, so they belive science is omnipotent.

The people that was "dead", was actually higly unconscious, not dead.

people can be brought back after brain, heart, and lung activity has ceased

is that an abomination?

#38 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (10148 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1: No, its an abomination to bring back from the grave a person that is dead and there is only one way to bring it back by alter the reallity, they crew try to bring her back, but they failed and the only way to bring it back was to alter the reallity.

Also, people belive they where dead, but dead is dead, no one gets back and only 1 person from over 100 billions is belive did this, his name is not Jesus, and still many people doubt this.

Also, Doctors and people say they bring them back fro the death, because is shocking and make medecine sound like magic and science like magic.

#39 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1: No, its an abomination to bring back from the grave a person that is dead and there is only one way to bring it back by alter the reallity, they crew try to bring her back, but they failed and the only way to bring it back was to alter the reallity.

Also, people belive they where dead, but dead is dead, no one gets back and only 1 person from over 100 billions is belive did this, his name is not Jesus, and still many people doubt this.

Also, Doctors and people say they bring them back fro the death, because is shocking and make medecine sound like magic and science like magic.

is Englkish your first language?

anyways, why would warping reality to make someone alive be bead?

and yes, science can resuscitate the dead

#40 Edited by isaac_clarke (5448 posts) - - Show Bio

That and messing up his equipment.

Picard had the memories of that point and time in his head. And two of those crews where past and present Enterprise-D - and the later future D crew still had an assortment of characters he'd known at that point for decades and were fellow officers serving prior on the D. He had to convince them to not only go to investigate it - but fly the ship to it's doom. Beats the hell out anything Sisko did.

but when Sisko straight punches the guy in the face with no consequences, that somehow means Sisko is stupid?

Picard gets annoyed with Q - the issue is he often handles the situation using his head - not his fist. The human race is literally tested by the continuum through Picard as their pillar of humanity. Sisko on the other hand does what Q wanted him to do - successfully being trolled as Q acknowledges he's significantly easier to provoke.

because that is the only argument you have for why Riker shouldn't have done that

No when someone has to rework the universe with a snap of their fingers to restore someone that is dead - not just use medical technology to revive someone or some sort of magic healing touch to bring them back - but to literally rise them from the grave casually it is an affront to how life works at the level humanity operates at. Namely the issues the Q were faced with later revealed in Voyager in terms of their culture.

What's dead is dead - death isn't meant to be a revolving door. We're talking how life is defined by death - not a doctor healing someone before they depart for good.

#41 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (10148 posts) - - Show Bio

When people run out of arguments, use the grammar as an argument, is an annoying way to sound smart when you run out of arguments.

Many people here confuse theorical science with actual science and science with magic.

They failed with the Star Trek technology, that is more theorical and technomagic, the only way to change this was using reallity warping powers.

Death is the permanent cessation of all biological functions that sustain a particular living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include biological aging(senescence), predation, malnutrition, disease, suicide, murder and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury.[1] Bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death. The death of an organism also results in a permanent absence of consciousness.

#42 Edited by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

true...

@betatesthighlander1 said:

Picard had the memories of that point and time in his head. And two of those crews where past and present Enterprise-D - and the later future D crew still had an assortment of characters he'd known at that point for decades and were fellow officers serving prior on the D. He had to convince them to not only go to investigate it - but fly the ship to it's doom. Beats the hell out anything Sisko did.


yeah, it really doesn't beat someone taking out space-satan and the greatest space-military in the galaxy in one day.

anyways, they investigated it as a favor to an old man they thought was crazy, Picard didn't really even do anything in that episode

@betatesthighlander1 said:

but when Sisko straight punches the guy in the face with no consequences, that somehow means Sisko is stupid?

Picard gets annoyed with Q - the issue is he often handles the situation using his head - not his fist. The human race is literally tested by the continuum through Picard as their pillar of humanity. Sisko on the other hand does what Q wanted him to do - successfully being trolled as Q acknowledges he's significantly easier to provoke.


OK, do if a guy is trying to kill you and shouts "go ahead, shoot me" you need to not shoot him because tart's what he wants no, Sisko punched Q in the face and had no consequences other than Q stopped annoying Sisko for the rest of his career maybe if Picard had some courage when he encountered the Q, he wouldn't get trolled every season

@betatesthighlander1 said:

because that is the only argument you have for why Riker shouldn't have done that

No when someone has to rework the universe with a snap of their fingers to restore someone that is dead - not just use medical technology to revive someone or some sort of magic healing touch to bring them back - but to literally rise them from the grave casually it is an affront to how life works at the level humanity operates at. Namely the issues the Q were faced with later revealed in Voyager in terms of their culture.

What's dead is dead - death isn't meant to be a revolving door. We're talking how life is defined by death - not a doctor healing someone before they depart for good.

Riker already brought the enterprise crew back to life in that episode. was that an incorrect choice in your opinion?

how is that an "affront to how life works" is warp drive an affront to how physics work? because basically all of your arguments agianst why Riker would do that would also apply to warp

what about when everyone on the enterprise died in that ship explosion that kept happening?

or when that planet was destroyed by Soren and Picard went back in time to stop that from happening?

every sign points to Picard either being a hippocrite or just hating children that much

#43 Posted by isaac_clarke (5448 posts) - - Show Bio

anyways, they investigated it as a favor to an old man they thought was crazy, Picard didn't really even do anything in that episode

The emphasis was on how Picard's choices or actions either have an impact on the human race or all life short of Q's in the Trek universe. Picard was able to convince his crew out of space dock to fly into the Neutral Zone, to get Riker / Worf to help him on his mission during a Federation / Klingon war and subsequently was chosen by Q to do all this to begin with.

You act as if that punch actually hurt Q - which is funny in itself. The reason Q ignored Sisko is because he didn't give a damn about him - he was more concerned over Picard's former flame and that was the only reason he went to Deep Space 9. Otherwise Q just doesn't care about Sisko or his station.

Riker already brought the enterprise crew back to life in that episode. was that an incorrect choice in your opinion?

how is that an "affront to how life works" is warp drive an affront to how physics work? because basically all of your arguments agianst why Riker would do that would also apply to warp

what about when everyone on the enterprise died in that ship explosion that kept happening?

or when that planet was destroyed by Soren and Picard went back in time to stop that from happening?

every sign points to Picard either being a hippocrite or just hating children that much

Except Q's the one that actually killed them in-front of Riker and from there he vowed to never use those powers again. Warp-Drive consists of creating a bubble and tunneling through space time - it's a plot device that goes around the limits of physics. Can't place that episode - but they were in a time loop - that's kinda how those work.

In Picard's case in Generations time meant nothing in the Nexus - everything happens at once - he choose to intervene - although he should have just arrested Saren on-board the D. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy - simply preventing the Q from manipulating Riker and Riker learning that he can't simply play god because of that power; namely why his gifts failed to win the crew over.

#44 Edited by Vaeternus (9410 posts) - - Show Bio

I personally love ST and didn't think they were "awful" I think that's a tad much, just like most shows start off slow.

@nerx said:

@betatesthighlander1: Q was based off Trelane in the first season, which Kirk bitch slapped

I think even John De Lancie admitted this in an interview but we all know Q would bitch slap Trelane..lol I have every Q episode, personally I love the character he goes from being an arrogant douche to a likable character despite his godlike omnipotent power.

#45 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1 said:

anyways, they investigated it as a favor to an old man they thought was crazy, Picard didn't really even do anything in that episode

The emphasis was on how Picard's choices or actions either have an impact on the human race or all life short of Q's in the Trek universe. Picard was able to convince his crew out of space dock to fly into the Neutral Zone, to get Riker / Worf to help him on his mission during a Federation / Klingon war and subsequently was chosen by Q to do all this to begin with.


again, Picard is doing exactly what Q wants, but somehow he's good for doing it?

and really, none of the stuff Sisko did to help the federation gets any credit in your book?

because Picard usually gets in situations where technobable is the solution, while Sisko has to find real problem-solving

@betatesthighlander1 said:

You act as if that punch actually hurt Q - which is funny in itself. The reason Q ignored Sisko is because he didn't give a damn about him - he was more concerned over Picard's former flame and that was the only reason he went to Deep Space 9. Otherwise Q just doesn't care about Sisko or his station.


if Q didn't care about Sisko, he wouldn't have trolled Sisko, maybe it was his connection with the Prophets, but Q was all about annoying Sisko until that punch was thrown

@betatesthighlander1 said:

Riker already brought the enterprise crew back to life in that episode. was that an incorrect choice in your opinion?

how is that an "affront to how life works" is warp drive an affront to how physics work? because basically all of your arguments agianst why Riker would do that would also apply to warp

what about when everyone on the enterprise died in that ship explosion that kept happening?

or when that planet was destroyed by Soren and Picard went back in time to stop that from happening?

every sign points to Picard either being a hippocrite or just hating children that much

Except Q's the one that actually killed them in-front of Riker and from there he vowed to never use those powers again. Warp-Drive consists of creating a bubble and tunneling through space time - it's a plot device that goes around the limits of physics. Can't place that episode - but they were in a time loop - that's kinda how those work.

In Picard's case in Generations time meant nothing in the Nexus - everything happens at once - he choose to intervene - although he should have just arrested Saren on-board the D. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy - simply preventing the Q from manipulating Riker and Riker learning that he can't simply play god because of that power; namely why his gifts failed to win the crew over.

okaym so brinnging people back to life is only okay when they were killed through teh same means? I mean, seriously, Riker didn't jkust stop the encounter from ever happening he brought people back to life, so he would have , rationally, caused more harm by doing that.

that, and you have given a lot of emotional responses, but no concrete reason why Riker shouldn't have brought her back to life.

there is no evidence that doing that would have nay bad effects on anything

and yeah, those bubbles are going against natural physics, so they would be abominations as much as Q powers would

OK, so Picard can use Space God to go back in time and win a fight, but Riker can't use Space-God to bring someone back to life? how is that not hypocrisy?

#46 Edited by isaac_clarke (5448 posts) - - Show Bio

and really, none of the stuff Sisko did to help the federation gets any credit in your book?

because Picard usually gets in situations where technobable is the solution, while Sisko has to find real problem-solving

It was another test by Q continuum - it has less to do with Picard doing what Q wants and more to do with Picard doing exactly what he should. Sisko's impact on the Federation no matter how you slice it is a small foot-print on the impact Picard has had in his universe.

Q more often than not went to the Enterprise to directly interact with Picard - Q went to Deep Space Nine chasing Picards old flame through the worm-hole. The punch had no impact on Q's behavior on that station - he went about his business right after and was completely fine after said punch with a smile responding to Sisko's 'I'm not picard' with 'No, you're far easier to provoke'. Q didn't leave the station till his business with Vash.

Sisko didn't hurt Q.

that, and you have given a lot of emotional responses, but no concrete reason why Riker shouldn't have brought her back to life.

there is no evidence that doing that would have nay bad effects on anything

and yeah, those bubbles are going against natural physics, so they would be abominations as much as Q powers would

OK, so Picard can use Space God to go back in time and win a fight, but Riker can't use Space-God to bring someone back to life? how is that not hypocrisy?

Riker simply undoes what another God had wrought.

Time loops are again different than nigh-omnipotent being snapping their fingers to restore the dead.

Explain to me how a plot device is an abomination to physics? It simply goes right around it - that's why it's a plot device.

You're example with the Nexus gave Picard the opportunity to prevent the situation entirely - not snap his fingers to bring back millions from the dead because he wants to. Picard in that scenario existed throughout time in space heaven.

As far as people are concerned - life only has meaning because we die. The easy thing to do would be to snap his fingers to bring that girl back from death - but ultimately that is the path nothing is learned from - that rejects the reality of the universe and remakes it to suit his own fancy. Argue if you'd like in circles around it - but it would have still not been right.

#47 Posted by Nerx (15088 posts) - - Show Bio
#48 Edited by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1 said:

and really, none of the stuff Sisko did to help the federation gets any credit in your book?

because Picard usually gets in situations where technobable is the solution, while Sisko has to find real problem-solving

It was another test by Q continuum - it has less to do with Picard doing what Q wants and more to do with Picard doing exactly what he should. Sisko's impact on the Federation no matter how you slice it is a small foot-print on the impact Picard has had in his universe.


okay, first of all, we don't even know if tat temporal anamolly was even real, second, it was not a threat to the entire universe, third, Sisko introduced an entire race of God to the concept of time, and saved the federation by means that actually required effort (not just technoobabble)

@betatesthighlander1 said:

Q more often than not went to the Enterprise to directly interact with Picard - Q went to Deep Space Nine chasing Picards old flame through the worm-hole. The punch had no impact on Q's behavior on that station - he went about his business right after and was completely fine after said punch with a smile responding to Sisko's 'I'm not picard' with 'No, you're far easier to provoke'. Q didn't leave the station till his business with Vash.

Sisko didn't hurt Q.


great job not responding to any of the actual points that I raised

and Sisko might not have hurt Q, but he impressed him a lot more than Picard ever did

@betatesthighlander1 said:

that, and you have given a lot of emotional responses, but no concrete reason why Riker shouldn't have brought her back to life.

there is no evidence that doing that would have nay bad effects on anything

and yeah, those bubbles are going against natural physics, so they would be abominations as much as Q powers would

OK, so Picard can use Space God to go back in time and win a fight, but Riker can't use Space-God to bring someone back to life? how is that not hypocrisy?

Riker simply undoes what another God had wrought.

Time loops are again different than nigh-omnipotent being snapping their fingers to restore the dead.

Explain to me how a plot device is an abomination to physics? It simply goes right around it - that's why it's a plot device.

You're example with the Nexus gave Picard the opportunity to prevent the situation entirely - not snap his fingers to bring back millions from the dead because he wants to. Picard in that scenario existed throughout time in space heaven.

As far as people are concerned - life only has meaning because we die. The easy thing to do would be to snap his fingers to bring that girl back from death - but ultimately that is the path nothing is learned from - that rejects the reality of the universe and remakes it to suit his own fancy. Argue if you'd like in circles around it - but it would have still not been right.

he does not "undo" anything, he just makes stuff better in an entirely arbitrary sense

You really have no reason for him not to bring back the girl(still)

Y pour idea of "snapping fingers" doesn't really make any sense, the Nexus also made everything easier

okay, so, if someone could bring your dead 6-year-old back to life, and they gave that stuff about death giving life meaning (which is still an emotional argument, not actual substance to what your saying) you's be entirely fine with that?

I mean, seriously, you've still given no reason and your just so conceited that it would have been the right thing to do, do you ahte children?

#49 Posted by Sideslash (5907 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesam said:

@jeanlucpicard: Kirk is better. Bring it.

Every series except the original sucks. That's only because I find the original hilarious. Reboot is pure awesomeness.

Don't you mean "pure AweSamness"?

#50 Posted by DeathpooltheT1000 (10148 posts) - - Show Bio

Stop this, you run out of arguments, you did with me and used the whole engrish argument, that is a way to sound like if you "win", but actually is used when a person run out of arguments and need to say something, so they keep going until the other guy quits.

Here you are using the keep replying until the other guy quits, so it means you "win", since the other guy quits.

I am using the no reply technique, when some on run out of arguments and you dont reply to him, but post a strong argument against everything the other guy said, since it look that is not related the other guy is not going to reply since he "won", because the other person "quit".

I have been online to have seen this things to death.

Death is the permanent cessation of all biological functions that sustain a particular living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include biological aging(senescence), predation, malnutrition, disease, suicide, murder and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury.[1]Bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death. The death of an organism also results in a permanent absence of consciousness.

There is nothing natural to undo those things, when some one died because the circle of life had get to his end and there wasnt anything unnatural about it, when Q kills them, there is something unnatural about it, since he alter reallity to do this.

Also this whole argument is based on death is bad and evil, no one actually hates death, they hate life for the way it is, they want life to be the way they belive it should be, so its not going to stop at this, it will keep until you have take out everything to mankind, the good things in life are in there because of the bad thing, without the bad thing there is no good things.

People will stop having a reason to do things, to get better and having free will, since an unnatural force would at the end take all the decisions.