JPH> There is no need to "Explain"
JPH> conflicts.  Pick the one you like and keep stepping.
BN>Actually, though, yes, there is, at least somewhat.   The
BN>reason?  Simply because there are folks who will try to say that
BN>*their* personal view of Trek reality (most often this attitude
BN>seems to come from some of the more avid novel-readers, & no, I'm
BN>not referring primarily to recent events ) is the sole
BN>authority & therefore overrides the reality of someone _else_. ;)
        Granted.  But what does it matter?  You can shout that
 "Strangers From the Sky" supercedes FC as loudly as you want to.  That
 doesn't make it so for me.  These certain people can say whatever they
 want.  That doesn't change anything for me.
BN>If we're all able to make the distinction that ours isn't sole
BN>arbiter, then there's no conflict & no need for rationalization of
BN>inconsistency.  If, however, even *1* person doesn't go along with
BN>it, then there _is_ such a problem. ;)  And as we've of course all
BN>seen, the latter set of circumstances does unfortunately seem to
BN>be the real one. :)
        What's the problem again?  That some one will make a statement
  that's wrong?  There's the assumption of right and wrong in in Trek.
  What does it matter what one person or another says?  Take the ones
  you find credible under advisement and ignore the rest.
        Trying to correct the guy who says that novels should superceded
 the TV show reminds of an old story.
        The punch line is that it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
        Anyone can say whatever they want.  I am free not to listen to
 it.
Jay P. Hailey 
Chief Editor
THE UNIVERSE: TREK
 * OLX 2.1 TD * "Inquisition *this*, you science dinks!" - The Tick
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------