Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
For general discussion on this episode, visit the DS9 forum at The Trek BBS.
With regards to the background information that says that due to the fact that the Tosk cloaking device is the same as the jem'Hadar cloak, the though behind it was intended to show a link between the two races. In the DS9 companion, an interview with Robert Hewitt Wolfe states, "The thought behind this is that the same people who bred the Tosk as gifts to the hunters, bred the Jem'Hadar as wel..." in response to the script note: "This is the same kind of invisibility effect used by Tosk in "Captive Pursuit". I think from this it's safe to say that the intention of the producers is clear, and that's it's justifiable to include the background information. The reference is about halfway down the second column on page 154 of the DS9 companion, for reference. --Tiberius 08:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Removed per MA:QUOTE, Not sure what's memorable about this.
"When did you start to have trouble with Quark?"
"About five minutes after I got off the ship."
"He immediately made sexual advances?"
- - Sisko and Sarda
--31dot 12:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- How is this quote not memorable? I don't really see the problem you have with it, I think it's funny and shows who Quark is.
--Delta2373 12:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
First, it's more than two lines, which is probably too long for a "memorable" quote. We also should not just post quotes because they are funny, because 1)its a matter of opinion and 2)if we have one funny quote we have to have them all.--31dot 13:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. It should be put back in. --Delta2373 13:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead, I won't revert it, but I don't think it's funny enough to be memorable and sets a poor precedent. As I said, what is funny is a matter of opinion, which is why that is not the best criteria.--31dot 13:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Stardate 46477.5? Edit
The stardate is listed as 46477.5. I've watched the episode and could not find a reference, however I may have missed some fine detail. Can anyone pin point where the stardate is determined? Thanks. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pixleyes (talk • contribs).
- Looking at the script quickly it's not there- it may have appeared on screen somewhere, though I don't know where that would be(don't have the chance to watch the episode right now)--31dot 10:58, July 16, 2011 (UTC)