To: trekcreative{at}yahoogroups.com
From: Garry Stahl
Reply-To: trekcreative{at}yahoogroups.com
--Boundary_(ID_r6XYKlacJkguYlbPwelYxw)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
DarkHrzn91701{at}aol.com wrote:
>An interesting example of this was in the TNG episode "Second
>Chances" when two transporter locks were done on Riker--- one
>signal went back to the Potemkin, the other signal bounced off
>the atmosphere and remained behind, later to be known
>as Thomas Riker--- the Xerox.
>
>All of it seems a bit spooky to me. :)
>
>
See My rules for G-trek.
3) "Transporter failures have been done to death, therefor we will not
do any."
I don't think a lot needs to be said here. Transporters have been
around over 200 years and they don't have the bugs out yet? McCoy and
Polaski might have had the right idea.
See above, what goes for warp cores is double for transporters.
Yes, mechanical failure is a fact of life. However if my car's engine
fails, the fuel tank does not explode. In 200 years of engineering,
transporters should be engineered for "safe failure" If something
is wrong they don't do anything. If in the middle of a transport they hand
off to one of the other five transporters on the ship. They shut down, not
explode your guts across the pads.
Ever notice that? If one transporter is broken, all of them are?
Yet every set of "ship plans", offical and otherwise, indicates
more than one transporter on any given ship except the very smallest. Often
in TOS Kirk mentions "Transporter room three", for example, on
the way down. Where are these presumed back up systems when the primary one
is out of service? In any case. This leads to...
4) "The Transporter is not the SF equivalent of the Philosopher's
Stone, and will not be used as a plot device or worse 'Deus Ex
Machina'."
At first they used the transporter to fix stuff the transporter
did, I didn't have a big problem with that, until transporter failures got
old. Then they started to use the transporter to fix stuff the transporter
didn't do. That was beyond the pale, (old word, look it up). If I have to
use the transporter to "fix" my plot conflict, I need another
plot conflict, or a better writer. Transporters safely and conveniently
whisk people to and fro, and are not plot devices. It is over done.
We get back to "Why would people continue to use and tolerate
death machines?" If two airplanes of a type crash in a six month
period they ground the entire FLEET and check them out. That is real life.
Why would the 24th century abandon a fundamentally sound practice for when
something potentially dangerous fails? I am reminded of the scene in
Metropolis where the workers shuffle mindlessly into the maw of Mammon.
Friz Lang ladled the allegory pretty heavily in that film. Having these
incidents again and again makes the people of the 24th centuy look stupid.
If you have to break sound real life practices to get a good
story, it's not a good story. You just created a five minute plot. We
endeavor to do better, and assume that our characters are not stupid or
suicidal.
--
Garry AKA -Phoenix- Rising Above the Flames
Star Trek le mort. Viva la Star Trek admiraetur.
Olde Phoenix Inn http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com
--Boundary_(ID_r6XYKlacJkguYlbPwelYxw)
Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DarkHrz">mailto:DarkHrzn91701{at}aol.com">DarkHrz
n91701{at}aol.com wrote:
An interesting example of this was in the TNG episode "Second
Chances" when two transporter locks were done on Riker--- one signal
went back to the Potemkin, the other signal bounced off the atmosphere and
remained behind, later to be known as Thomas Riker--- the Xerox.
All of it seems a bit spooky to me. :)
See My rules for G-trek.
3) "Transporter failures
have been done to death, therefor
we will not do any."
I
don't think a lot needs to be
said here. Transporters have been around over 200 years and they don't
have the bugs out yet? McCoy and Polaski might have had the right
idea.
See
above, what goes for warp cores
is double for transporters.
Yes, mechanical failure is a fact of life. However if my car's engine
fails, the fuel tank does not explode. In 200 years of engineering, transporters
should be engineered for "safe failure" If something is wrong they don't
do anything. If in the middle of a transport they hand off to one of the
other five transporters on the ship. They shut down, not explode your guts
across the pads.
Ever
notice that? If one
transporter is broken, all of them are?
Yet every set of "ship plans", offical and otherwise, indicates more than
one transporter on any given ship except the very smallest. Often in TOS
Kirk mentions "Transporter room three", for example, on the way
down. Where are these presumed back up systems when the primary one is
out of service?
In any case. This leads to...
4) "The Transporter is not
the SF equivalent of the
Philosopher's
Stone, and will not be used as a plot device or worse 'Deus Ex
Machina'."
At
first they used the transporter
to fix stuff the transporter
did, I didn't have a big problem with that, until transporter failures got
old. Then they started to use the transporter to fix stuff the transporter
didn't do. That was beyond the pale, (old word, look it up). If I have to
use the transporter to "fix" my plot conflict, I need another
plot conflict, or a better writer. Transporters safely and conveniently
whisk people to and fro, and are not plot devices. It is over
done.
We
get back to "Why would people
continue to use and tolerate death
machines?" If two airplanes of a type crash in a six month period
they ground the entire FLEET and check them out. That is real life. Why
would the 24th century abandon a fundamentally sound practice for when
something
potentially dangerous fails? I am reminded of the scene in Metropolis where
the workers shuffle mindlessly into the maw of Mammon. Friz Lang ladled
the allegory pretty heavily in that film. Having these incidents again
and again makes the people of the 24th centuy look
stupid.
If
you have to break sound real life
practices to get a good story,
it's not a good story. You just created a five minute plot. We endeavor
to do better, and assume that our characters are not stupid or suicidal.
--
Garry AKA -Phoenix- Rising Above the Flames
Star Trek le mort. Viva la Star Trek admiraetur.
Olde Phoenix Inn http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com;">http://phoenixinn.iwarp.comhttp://phoenixinn.iwarp.com">http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com;
Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=247865.3456232.4744922.1261774/
D=egroupweb/S=1705019987:HM/A=1482387/R=0/SIG=16nql7frn/*http://ads.x10.com/?bH
lhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1055885317%3eM=247865.3456232.4744922.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=170
5019987:HM/A=1482387/R=1=1055885317%3eM=247865.3456232.4744922.1261774/D=egroup
web/S=1705019987:HM/A=1482387/R=2" target=_top>
http://ads.x10.com/?Z3lhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1055885317%3eM=247865.3456232.474492
2.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019987:HM/A=1482387/R=3" alt=""
width="300" height="250"
border="0">
http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=2478
65.3456232.4744922.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1482387/rand=699806274">
Star Trek; The E-mail Commands
Post message: trekcreative{at}yahoogroups.com Subscribe:
trekcreative-subscribe{at}yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe:
trekcreative-unsubscribe{at}yahoogroups.com List owner:
trekcreative-owner{at}yahoogroups.com Get Digest:
trekcreative-digest{at}yahoogroups.com Web only:
trekcreative-nomail{at}yahoogroups.com Normal:
trekcreative-normal{at}egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
--Boundary_(ID_r6XYKlacJkguYlbPwelYxw)--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4
* Origin: Email Gate (1:379/100)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/100 101 1 106/1 2000 633/267
SOURCE: echomail via fidonet.ozzmosis.com
Email questions or comments to sysop@ipingthereforeiam.com
All parts of this website painstakingly hand-crafted in the U.S.A.!
IPTIA BBS/MUD/Terminal/Game Server List, © 2025 IPTIA Consulting™.