Added the remainder of the episode summary. If anyone wants to add links to my part, set acts, et cetera, go right ahead. Act separations are between Volnoth/Yuta talking and the unsure agreement by Brull, the discovery of Volnoth's murder and Riker in his quarters, and Yuta (50 years back) and Brull's demands. --Memnarch6 02:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Question Edit

So I've long wondered: how exactly is she able to withstand several phaser blasts? I thought even a stun blast was supposed to put someone down for a while. And Riker's clearly (?) scaling up the power to around mid-range, but still only manages to wound her. I thought that was at a "vaporizing metal" power level already. -- 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Acamarians are much more resilient than the average humanoid. ;) --From Andoria with Love 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Remember also that Yuta was also heavily modified already. This may have been another result of those modifications. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Riker powers up 4 levels before vaporizing her thoughh, wouldn't it have been more logical to continue firing at a lower setting until she was stunned? Contrived melodrama or murder? Possibly both! :) – Vivec 06:10, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
No, the fact of the matter was that the lower setting weren't working. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why Riker couldn't have beamed down with at least one other person (Worf and Data would be obvious choices) and just tackle Yuta. Or they could have beamed Chorgan off of his ship and out of danger. He was the only person in that room she could kill. It seems like she was killed purely out of plot. --NCC-1701F (talk) 08:07, January 12, 2014 (UTC)NCC-1701F

Last episode of 1980s?Edit

I noticed the following was removed from the article on the grounds that the year 1990 is in the '80s:

This was the last episode aired in the 1980s.

Now, I would have agree with whoever added this note in the first place. 1990 is not in the 80s. 1990 is the beginning of the 1990s. This episode aired in Nov 1989. The next episode aired on 1st Jan 1990, which had crossed over into a new decade. I propose the note be re-added. TrekFan 22:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mathematically speaking, the decade did not end until 31 December 1990. Just like the 21st century did not technically begin until 1 January 2001. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I always thought the 80s ended on 31st December, 1989, like any other decade, not in 1990. I know centuries don't begin until the first year but I thought the two were different. Also, check out: 1980s - TrekFan 00:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought so too, from January 1st 1980 till December 31st 1989, also according to wikipedia. --Jörg 07:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there was no year zero, the first decade (10 years) would have been from year one to year ten. That's why the 1980's were from 1981 to 1990. The comment is not correct and should stay removed. Wikipedia is not correct in this case.--31dot 10:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess we're wrong too - have a look at 2350s, 2360s, 2370s etc.
It seems to me the "eighties" is a culturally-defined period and as such doesn't have to mathematically correct. It derives more from our counting system than from calendar rules ("nineteen eighty","nineteen eighty-one" etc.)– Cleanse 11:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, shouldn't we be mathematically correct? We should also be consistent. The "Flesh and Blood" page notes correctly that it was the last episode to air in the 20th century(and technically was the last episode of the 90's as well)

I'll also note that "Pathfinder" has no mention of being the last episode of the 90's(aired in Dec of 1999).--31dot 13:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I will also note that I am not calling for the decade pages to be reworked at this time- just this mention on the episode page.--31dot 13:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Erm... why are we overthinking this? It's pretty simple... if an episode was aired in a year where "nine" is the third digit, then it was aired in the "nineties". If the third digit was eight, then it was the "eighties." 1990 is not part of the "eighties," it's part of the "nineties"... that's why it's called "nineteen-ninety. The terms "eighties" and "nineties" describe the years which numerically end in the eighties and nineties. When a century ends or begins is irrelevant; these are English terms, not mathematical ones. --From Andoria with Love 09:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
According to wikipedia the 0s and the 0s BC, first decade and the decade before, only had 9 years because year 0 is a leap year. --Pseudohuman 10:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This will probably be the last thing I have to say about it (note the "probably" :) )but 0 can't be a leap year if it didn't exist. If it had existed, then 1999 would have been the last year of the millennium, not 2000, and I wouldn't be talking about this now.
I'm don't understand how this one aspect of dating can be "irrelevant" to decades but not millennia.--31dot 19:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This has definitely been allowed to become too complicated. The distinction is between the 199th decade and the 1980s. The 199th decade ended in 1990 just as the first decade ended in 10. The 1980s ended in 1989 and that in no way contradicts any mathematical law. So saying this episode was the last in the 1980s was absolutely fine. 05:22, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

So Edit

I wanted to look up Penthor-Mul but I didn't know how to spell it, so just looked up "Mull". Well, the only article that the word 'mull' is used on is this one. I guess that because of Penthor-Mul's name the word was in the back of the editors head? Funky. --Zinlis 14:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Nits...I guess! Edit

Editing off a couple of what I think are nits or unneeded/uncited information...

  • Brull's character is vaguely reminiscent of the personality type of "The Outrageous Okona" (sans the womanizing) from the previous season.

Well, yes. So?

  • At one point in the episode, Brull asks Wesley Crusher what he is studying. Wesley Crusher responds, "this is the locally Euclidean metrization of a k-fold contravariant Rianaman tensor field," mispronouncing Riemannian. This topic is similar to one discussed in the Tom Lehrer song Lobachevsky: "locally Euclidean metrizations of infinitely differentiable Riemannian manifolds".

What, exactly, is the point? The song? The mispronunciation? If it is the latter this is a nit, in the other case it may be pertinent.

  • Geordi has a slight trip, when the away team first beams to the planet and just after he says "Artonian lasers". He catches one of the props apparently unintentionally.

So? And what mean "slight trip" in this case?

  • Dr. Crusher incorrectly states that the Acamarian suffered a heart attack, which contradicts her other statement that he died of cardiac arrest with no apparent cause.

If the author of this is referring to the second acamarian found to be killed by Yuta (the one killed many years before) the "heart attack" thing may be an error of the acamarians. Anyway, this would be a nit.

Jackoverfull 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)