JPH>BN>reason?  Simply because there are folks who will try to say that
JPH>BN>*their* personal view of Trek reality
JPH>BN>is the sole
JPH>BN>authority & therefore overrides the reality of someone _else_. ;)
JPH>        Granted.  But what does it matter?  You can shout that
If so, why do we bother to discuss Trek at all, then?  After all,
if it's all just fiction it's completely irrelevant anyway, & thus
pointless.  They very fact that we all _do_ talk about is de facto
proof that it matters to us. 
JPH>BN>If we're all able to make the distinction that ours isn't sole
JPH>BN>arbiter, then there's no conflict & no need for rationalization of
JPH>BN>inconsistency.  If, however, even *1* person doesn't go along with
JPH>BN>it, then there _is_ such a problem. ;)  And as we've of course all
JPH>BN>seen, the latter set of circumstances does unfortunately seem to
JPH>BN>be the real one. :)
JPH>        What's the problem again?  That some one will make a statement
JPH>  that's wrong?  There's the assumption of right and wrong in in Trek.
JPH>  What does it matter what one person or another says?  Take the ones
JPH>  you find credible under advisement and ignore the rest.
  There, see, I told you you'd missed my point -- you were
preaching to the choir, just in the wrong church. 
---
 þ OLXWin 1.00b þ Subtlety is totally wasted on some people.
---------------