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 ENT forum at The Trek BBS.
The article contains the following sentence: "Even if all logs seem to tell that the shuttlepod did nothing wrong, and a strange reading discovered by Malcolm seems to suggest that there is more than there appears to be, Archer remains despondent."
It does not make sense, and I think it should read "even though." I haven't seen the episode since it originally aired on UPN which I did not get, and I had been working Monday nights since Sci-Fi started airing Enterprise.--Lifeisharsh20 16:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Flawed Logic? Edit
Can anyone explain to me why Daniels told Archer about the sabotage after it had succeeded and not before? 3600 people that shouldn't be dead is not what I call a successful repair of the time line, let alone the problems that followed afterwards. Am I missing something or was this yet another Star Trek author who just loves time travel but unfortunately can't grasp it? --mudd1 11:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe history recorded that all 3600 miners had always been killed on that day, from that cause, but the Federation Time Cops figured out that it happened because of Suliban interference. To avoid taking a chance at altering the time line, those miners have to die (because they always did) so Daniels doesn't come to help until after the "accident". It sounds a little wonky... but time travel always sounds wonky if you think about it too much. So far as the "unfortunately can't grasp it" crack... he's the one who got the job writing science fiction professionally. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt before you.Hossrex 12:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Daniels explicitly states that the explosion wasn't in the history books. And then of course I'm considering the possibility that it may be me who's missing something (as I said). But having seen quite some sci-fi movies and Star Trek episodes, I think I am at least qualified to say that there are a lot of people out there getting paid for writing sci-fi scripts who would get quite a "you're not thinking fourth dimensionally" rebuke from Doc Brown so to say. That doesn't imply in any way that I've got writing skills or something, just that I can usually tell wonky but more or less logical stuff from bollocks. I'm not sure in this case though, perhaps because I missed the most part of Enterprise. --mudd1 23:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Trying to find logic in the time travel episodes will always prove to be pointless ... I mean, anyone with half a brain would've recognized that removing the first captain of the first starfleet starship would cause a tiny little bit of problems... The future time travelers also not being shielded from the effects of time changes is also completely stupid. Voyager's time crew made more sense... in a nonsensical kind of way. You just have to try to let yourself believe the fantasy that is sci-fi or else you won't enjoy it. Although as much as I love Enterprise, this one was a little bit insulting. Not to ramble on but really? The big shocking twist from season 1 cliffhanger is that they didn't realize removing the first starship captain that would also go on to help create the federation, would be problematic? ... really? ... No, no... just breathe... *inhales* *exhales* and move on... But either way, I think discussion is to discuss the article, it's not a forum for us to talk to each other as far as I know. I've seen someone say that though I may be wrong. – Saphsaph 00:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Showing up after, rather than before, was probably to avoid the Grandfather Paradox: If Daniels prevented the incident from occurring, what reason would he have to go back and prevent it from occurring? (Since he wouldn't have known about it occurring...) Izkata 07:18, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
The interaction between Archer and Tucker is one of the more ridiculous technobabble exchanges I've heard - it's fairly lengthy, for one thing, and yet there's very little communicated by the words used other than the meta-message that it's a complicated task for Trip.
Archer: Put a team together, Trip. I'll need two quantum beacons. They'll have to be positron-based and have an output of 200 gigawatts apiece.
Tucker: Positron-based, sir?
Archer: Just get started. I'll bring you the specs in a few minutes.
Archer: Take a look at the dispersal curve here and here. You'll have to isolate the sub-assembly tolerances from the emitter algorithms.
Tucker: Whoa. Hold on a minute. You're saying the assembly's independent of the emitters?
Tucker: That's impossible.
Archer: Not if you generate a stable flux between the positron conductors. Then all you'll have to do is re-normalise the tertiary wave functions. nmsmith 22:21, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand why this is being pointed out. Are you proposing this as a notable quote?--31dot 22:29, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Also, it's a reference to later series. Data's positronic brain, and why the Federation has so much trouble creating complicated positronic technologies - it simply works differently than what is generally expected from an electronic background. Izkata 17:39, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Er, "later" inside the chronology, but earlier in reallife release order... Izkata 17:40, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
- @31dot, I guess so. I'm a bit ignorant of the exact rules for the use of talk pages, but this was half my attempt at idle chit-chat, and half a suggestion that it's a noteworthy quote. @Izkata, nice reconciliation. nmsmith 20:37, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
- The guidelines for talk pages are here, but to summarize, posts on article talk pages need to be relevant to changing the article(which proposing a quote is) and are not for idle chit-chat.
- Regarding the passage, quotes in the Memorable Quotes section should not be more than one or two lines, per MA:QUOTE. 31dot 21:07, October 5, 2010 (UTC)